TO many, the mere mention of “alternatives to democracy” comes across as dangerously heretical, an anathema to the freedom-loving people that we supposedly are. First, the democracy that our Constitution lays out is of American vintage — with all the blessings and the curses attendant to that kind of body politic. But as I have always told my graduate school classes in comparative constitutional law, the United Kingdom is a rather old democracy, but they kept their monarchy and have done rather well with an unwritten constitution without the presidential system, without direct suffrage for the head of government and the version of the separation of powers with which we are familiar.
Not too long ago, Prof. Clarita Carlos, an academic of high standing because of her acumen in social and political theory, posted on social media — quite provocatively — about the possibility of a “benevolent dictator.” Precisely because of its boldness, it captured my attention, and I found myself mulling over the matter and asking: Why not? What is so sacrosanct about the kind of democracy bequeathed to us by the Americans that we cling to the superstition that it is the only way to go?
One of the failings of our times is the reticence about the truth. Because of some notion of “inclusivity” and skewed ideas of “equality,” we have held back from accurate descriptives. Confucius got it right: Rectification of names — to give each only the name that fits his role, his place, his obligations. The hard and ineluctable fact is that some Filipinos are brilliant, but many are dense. Some are insightful; many are simply mediocre. Many think consequentially; very many refuse to be — or are incapable of being — logical! In the kind of democracy we have, these differences do not matter. “One person, one vote” — that is the mantra. So, the vote cast by one who discerns worthiness for office, who examines credentials, inquires into probity, seeks out fitness counts for no more that the vote of one who has been paid to vote, been promised employment for himself or his kin, or has merely jumped into some bandwagon on the way to loony paradise!
What is a “democratic” government worth having? I recently took up this question in my constitutional law class. I started with the common notion of “government with the consent of the governed” — and I told my students that this was not enough, because the Germans — or so it seems, from all the evidence left — enthusiastically gave their consent to Adolf Hitler, who did everything that should not happen in a democracy. But what is entailed is the acceptable proposition that government should never be against the will of the governed. If that criterion is not enough, then to it we must add the requirement that it be government accountable to the people — in the different ways that people can hold their government to account. Elections are merely one way among others. That citizens can sue those who serve them before courts or bodies with the power to mete out sanctions on those who betray public trust is certainly crucial to an accountable government. But systems of accountability must themselves not be coopted by a single class or interest, else they become mechanisms of repression and vehicles of aggrandizement. Finally, a government that submits itself to the rule of law, not out of the goodwill of those in power but because it structurally must do so is, to me, indispensable, for when government becomes a law unto itself, there is nothing from careening into the bottomless pit of whim and despotism!
When Emilio Aguinaldo returned from exile in Hong Kong, he established a dictatorial government with himself as dictator. True, it did not last too long and the reach of his power did not cover the length and breadth of the entire archipelago, but it was a dictatorship, nonetheless. Then, we had the Ferdinand Marcos Sr. dictatorship, about which opinion remains divided to this day — and over which emotions can run dangerously high. But in 1986, for one whole year, we had a dictatorship, as the 1987 Constitution was in the works by Cory Aquino’s handpicked Constitutional Commission. For one month (February to March 1986), we had no Constitution, nothing to guarantee our rights (save the covenants on human rights, to which the Philippines had acceded, ruled Justice Antonio Carpio; and the rights that natural law makes inalienably ours, held Justice Reynato Puno) and for one year, we had no legislature. Aquino legislated, like her predecessor did, though refusing to call the laws she issued “decrees,” preferring the tamer-sounding “executive orders,” but they were dictatorial, nonetheless.
My point? The demise of an American-type government will not be the undoing of us all, nor need it spell the doom of all the rights we hold dear, rights that an occasionally overzealous Supreme Court has carried beyond the metes and bounds of the intents of the framers. The American Electoral College was, in its history, a tacit admission of the fact that entrusting the vote to the public at large was not necessarily the best idea.
It is time to revive talks about the possibility of going parliamentary and federal. A parliamentary government holds out the advantage of the government chosen from the dominant party — or the party that can form a government, when votes are more or less evenly divided. It is this feature of a parliamentary system that prevents that dubious equality between the vote of sage and fool that may just ensconce a nincompoop, demagogue or clown in high office. But for a parliamentary government to be workable, genuine parties must emerge that advance competing platforms and programs between which people can choose. It may also require a revamp of the first-past-the post electoral system in favor of a system that reflects the political persuasions of the electorate — some version of proportional representation.
Why federal? For one thing, so that direct elections — if they are maintained — are limited to the subnational entities — however they may be called (states, provinces, regions), so that local scrutiny of government is more easily achievable and so that government becomes more readily accessible, considering that in a federal democracy, each state or region is itself a titulary of sovereignty.
But I do not think it correct to completely leave out of consideration those forms of constitution that Plato thought optimal — the rule by the enlightened (who he did not believe to be capable of moral depravity!) and the disenfranchisement of those who exhibit wanton irresponsibility in respect to their political choices. The basic thesis, I think, is that we must earn our democracy and we must be deserving of it!
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph