Hi all, I am enclosing my friend's and former classmate's report on the Australian parliamentary system - actual, not theoretical - to give everyone an idea of how a parliamentary system works.
Some important points have been raised in this discussion which I would like to address. It has been pointed out that the level of education in the Philippines is such that it will be difficult to make a parliamentary system work. I want to point out that in Europe during the late middle ages and even during the Industrial Revolution, the populations were uneducated, exploited and barely literate. Yet, their parliamentary systems functioned well and to this day those systems persist. The reason is that even with third grade educations, people continue to learn. They become more sophisticated in their thinking, they understand how their government works, they continue to learn from newspapers, TV and now the Internet. Their formal educational attainment might be third-grade graduate, but their actual educational attainment by the time they are in their early twenties may actually be equivalent to that of a high school graduate or student. The reason is that people continue to learn all their lives. Also, if low educational levels and literacy indices disqualify people from participating in a parliamentary system democracy, the same can be true for such people participating in a presidential system democracy. In other words, we cannot argue that Filipinos are too dumb to function in a parliamentary system but not too dumb to function in a presidential system. One in fact may argue that a presidential system requires more intelligence out of citizens because presidential systems allow bad and ineffective public officials to hide behind their set terms and it requires higher educational levels to figure out ways to get rid of such public officials. In parliamentary systems, such politicians can be replaced at a moment's notice through a very simple device - a vote of no-confidence. Marlowe Camello argues that the jury trial system combined with the presidential system is superior to a parliamentary system. I want to point out that the jury trial system also works well with the parliamentary system. England is the origin of all jury trials and England has had a parliamentary system since the beginning of time (an exaggeration). In other words, jury trials work well under both presidential and parliamentary systems. Here's my friend's report from Australia: Hi Cesar, Your research is good. Congratulations. All correct. I cannot add more to it. Our experience here in Australia living under this system is very good and we are happy with it. The head of Government, the Prime Minister is in Parliament everyday when it is in session and he is given the third degree and questioned thoroughly, albeit with a political bent. They are televised and the public can watch them if you happen to be in Canberra when they are in session. Also all the other ministers go through the same scrutiny. This applies at the Federal level as well as to the State Level. Same system. They sit there and work their back side off and these guys have been known to burn the midnight oil for months on end on top of attending to all the other duties they have during the day, like official functions, etc. We get our money's worth out of these guys. This is also a good way of keeping corruption to as low as possible as these guys are in the spotlight 24/7. It is very difficult to get away with anything, everything is in the open, even their private affairs and/or conflict of interests. There are some ministers in Jail, and one from New South Wales may end up there soon for corrupt behaviour. Our system here is such that there is an election every 3 years, Maximum. The Prime Minister has to call it. In our case it is due sometime October this year. However, the Prime Minister can call an election any time sooner than this if he wants to, but this is rarely used. I cannot remember when it was last used, I think once in the last 40 years, sometime in the 70s or 80s I think. You can check it out on the web. He does this if he thinks he has a good chance of winning and he is having a hard time from the Senate in passing the bills put forward by the lower house which are initiated by the different ministers. To do this he would deny supply (i.e. funds to run the government)and call what is known as a double dissolution of Parliament. Three weeks after we have an election and a new government or not. The sitting Prime Minister( and his Party) can stay as long as the people are happy. The previous one was there 13 years. This present one is struggling after only 3 years and at the moment based on the polls he and his party are in doubt to continue in power after October. Some weeks back he was threatening a double dissolution because of opposition to his Emission Trading Scheme(ETS). But he backed out out and postponed his ETS for the next three years instead. Our system works well because, as your research shows, these guys are accountable for every move or word they say. The media keeps a close eye on these guys and they do not go easy on them. Check today's Sydney Morning Herald, www.smh.com.au. where the present opposition leader (Liberal Party)just said he cannot be trusted for telling the truth all the time. How idiotic, although he is not telling the people anything new as we all know all politicians lie through their back teeth. But to admit it? Bad career move. He is also a known strong supporter of Opus Dei and an ex seminarian and is sometimes called the Mad Monk (his last name is Abbott). But to suggest that this system will work in the States or in the Philippines is difficult to tell. In any case before a change of system takes place in these two countries a major revolution, even a bloody one, will need to take place and I do not think we will see this in our life time. But it is nice to dream, specially for the Philippines. Hope this helps in a better understanding of the Parliamentary system. All the best, Ramon Our two cents, Cesar L -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Center for Good Governance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance?hl=en.
