Philippines needs two-party system
February 2007
By Val G. Abelgas
Recent developments in the political front in the Philippines have once again shown the sad state of the homeland’s political party system, if one can call the state of political affairs in the country a system.
For lack of a clear agenda and platform, members of political parties are shifting allegiances and crossing fences to join fragile coalitions. In the days leading to the deadline for the filing of candidacy, we have seen many erstwhile opposition
leaders joining the administration’s so-called “Unity Ticket” while the ruling coalition, in a move to avert landslide defeat, is luring political leaders who have opposed the administration for years.
First to change alliance were former Senators Tito Sotto and Tessie Aquino-Oreta, who were among the staunchest defenders of former President Joseph Estrada during the impeachment trials of 2000 and until a couple of weeks ago, were the closest allies of the deposed leader. Then came Sen. Edgardo Angara, LDP president, who left the opposition because it has not assured him a slot in its Senate ticket. There was also actor Richard Gomez, who was pictured trying to convince Estrada to include him in the UNO slate just before he decided to join the Nationalist People’s Coalition to get a slot in the administration ticket.
Ever since the late President Ferdinand Marcos uprooted the Philippines’ two-party system by declaring martial law in 1972, there has never been a truly established political party with a consistent and established platform and ideology. Instead, we have several political parties whose roster of members change as often as the wind changes its direction.
These political parties align with other similarly situated political groupings to form coalitions, whose reason for unity is political exigency, rather than a commonality in political platform. As a result, government officials, including the President, are elected not because they offer a better program of government, but because they are either popular, they have the financial resources, or they are able to wheel-and-deal with other political groupings, or all of the above.
The snap election for the presidency in 1986 between Marcos and Cory Aquino was the last election held where issues were clear to the electorate. The issues then were simple: Did you want dictatorship or democracy?
There were only two parties and two candidates: the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan of President Marcos, and the PDP-Laban of Cory Aquino (Vice President Salvador H. Laurel ran under the Unido banner). Those who were happy with the dictatorship voted for Marcos. Those who wanted a new era of freedom voted for Aquino. Those who couldn’t care less voted for the person who gave them money.
Prior to martial law, there were only two major political parties – the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party. These parties alternately ruled Philippine politics from the time the Philippines was still a commonwealth of the United States until Marcos declared martial law, and effectively eliminated the two parties.
The Nacionalista Party (NP), which was founded in 1907, advocated “immediate independence” although the leaders acted more like pro-Americans instead of freedom fighters, with the Americans suspecting the independence agenda was merely for getting votes. The party produced five presidents — Manuel L. Quezon, Sergio Osmena, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, and Ferdinand Marcos.
Marcos and Magsaysay were former Liberal Party members but shifted party affiliation prior to the convention.
The Liberal Party sprang from the “liberal wing” of the Nacionalista Party, becoming a full-fledged party in 1946 under the leadership of Manuel Roxas. The LP produced three presidents – Roxas, the first president of the Third Republic; Elpidio Quirino and Diosdado Macapagal.
During martial law, LP stalwarts Senators Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., Gerry Roxas and Jovito Salonga carried the fight against Marcos. In 1978, Ninoy Aquino and Sen. Lorenzo Tanada organized the Lakas ng Bayan (Laban). Ninoy spearheaded the Laban Metro Manila slate in the rigged Assembly elections, where the Imelda Marcos-led KBL swept the Laban team. When Ninoy left for the US, his brother-in-law, Rep. Jose “Peping” Cojuangco was tasked to lead the party. The Laban party later merged with the Mindanao-based Pilipino Democratic Party of then Cagayan Mayor Aquilino Pimentel Jr., forming the PDP-Laban, which is still headed by Pimentel.
Laurel had his UNIDO and ran as Cory’s vice presidential candidate in the 1986 snap elections.
The PDP-Laban had for its platform “democratize power and socialize wealth” but when Cory Aquino became president in 1986, all these ideals were relegated to the usual elitist agenda that spawned political patronage, political dynasties and ultimately graft and corruption. During this time, former Marcos officials Francisco Tatad, Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople formed their own parties – Tatad, the Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD), whose leaders included Juan Ponce Enrile and Joseph Estrada; while Ople, together with Laurel and Enrile, tried to revive the defunct Nacionalista Party.
In 1991, Danding Cojuangco formed the Partido Pilipino (Nationalist People’s Party) to support his presidential bid in 1992, the year six other candidates – with their own political parties – contested the presidency. The other candidates were Ramon Mitra of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), Fidel Ramos (People Power Movement), Miriam Defensor Santiago (Reformist Party), Imelda Marcos (KBL), and two other candidates with their own parties.
Ramos won the election by a narrow margin (23.6%) over Santiago (19.4%), with Joseph Estrada, who ran with Cojuangco, winning the vice presidency by a landslide. The Partido Pilipino branched into two parties: Cojuangco’s National People’s Coalition (NPC), and Estrada’s Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP).
In 1998, there were 11 presidential candidates, although only seven were considered serious candidates: Estrada (Partido ng Masang Pilipino-LDP-NPC), Joe de Venecia (Lakas-NUCD), Raul Roco (Aksyon Demorkatiko), Lito Osmena (Probinsiya Muna Development Initiative – Promdi), Alfredo Lim (LP), Renato de Villa (Reforma), Miriam Defensor Santiago (People’s Reform Party) and Juan Ponce Enrile (NP).
Estrada won by a big margin, getting 46.4 percent of the votes despite the big field, with Arroyo, who ran with De Venecia, winning the vice presidency also by a big margin.
As in previous post-election scenarios, the political parties made realignments for political exigency, with Estrada’s PMP, Cojuangco’s NPC, Pimentel’s PDP-Laban, Angara’s LDP, and Santiago’s Reformist Party forming the ruling coalition, and De Venecia’s Lakas-NUCD, Roco’s Aksyon Demokratiko, Osmena’s Promdi, De Villa’s Reforma, and the Liberal Party coalescing as the opposition.
When Estrada was ousted by People Power II, the two coalitions switched roles, but suddenly, Cojuangco’s NPC became a member of the administration coalition. As the 2004 presidential election neared, the parties began to realign again. Reforma, Promdi and Aksyon Demokratiko bolted the coalition and supported Roco’s candidacy. The NPC stayed on for a while as Cojuangco made some deals with Arroyo, but after the Davide impeachment fizzled out, Cojuangco’s NPC made known its desire to field its own presidential candidate, who obviously was actor Fernando Poe Jr.
In the 2004 presidential elections, there were at least three coalitions that contested the presidency — the LDP-NPC-PMP-PDP Laban-Reformist coalition, the Lakas-NUCD coalition, and the Aksyon-Reforma-Promdi coalition. The Liberal Party joined Arroyo’s coalition (Lakas-NUCD). At least two other candidates ran as virtual independents — Sen. Ping Lacson and Bro. Eddie Villanueva of the Jesus is Lord Movement, which spearheaded the Bangon Pilipinas, a political group but not really a coalition.
The instability of these political coalitions reflects, and contributes to, the instability of the country’s political system. Because these parties were formed primarily for the self-aggrandizement of its founders and leaders, they are devoid of ideology and platform of government. The parties change stands on issues, and shift loyalties as often as political exigency demands.
There lies the problem with not having parties based on ideals or principles. Because they are based on the self-serving agenda of the leaders, parties tend to change platforms depending on what can win them votes at the time, or what can be advantageous to their own objectives. The needs of the people that they are supposed to serve are often overlooked. And because the members join the parties not because of the party’s ideals and principles, there is no loyalty on their part and they become political butterflies, moving from one party to another in the same manner that parties move from one coalition to another. If the parties and the party members cannot be loyal to their own ideals or their own parties, how can they be expected to be loyal to the people?
Great nations have great two-party systems. The United States have the Republican and Democratic parties, which have been in existence for more than a century and are based in long-standing platforms and principles. Great Britain had the Conservatives (Tories) and the Liberals (Whigs) since the 7th and 18th century. A third major party, the Labour Party, which is now the ruling party, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, emerged in 1900. Post-war Japan has had two major parties – the Liberal Democrats (1955) and the Social Democrats (1945).
The need for a two-party system becomes even more paramount in the proposed parliamentary system, which has proved to be successful in countries with strong two-party systems. Great political parties are able to discipline erring members, because corrupt and incompetent officials will weaken them.
To build a more stable political system, the Philippines’ political leaders will have to reassess their stand on important issues and ideologies, organize strong parties based on these ideals and principles, and impose rigid party discipline to strengthen their political foundation. Hopefully, with parties based on clear platforms and principles, the country’s political system will be stabilized, and the foundation laid for the building of a truly Strong Republic, one that is cognizant of the general well-being of the people.
(valabelgas@aol.com)
By Val G. Abelgas
Recent developments in the political front in the Philippines have once again shown the sad state of the homeland’s political party system, if one can call the state of political affairs in the country a system.
For lack of a clear agenda and platform, members of political parties are shifting allegiances and crossing fences to join fragile coalitions. In the days leading to the deadline for the filing of candidacy, we have seen many erstwhile opposition
leaders joining the administration’s so-called “Unity Ticket” while the ruling coalition, in a move to avert landslide defeat, is luring political leaders who have opposed the administration for years.
First to change alliance were former Senators Tito Sotto and Tessie Aquino-Oreta, who were among the staunchest defenders of former President Joseph Estrada during the impeachment trials of 2000 and until a couple of weeks ago, were the closest allies of the deposed leader. Then came Sen. Edgardo Angara, LDP president, who left the opposition because it has not assured him a slot in its Senate ticket. There was also actor Richard Gomez, who was pictured trying to convince Estrada to include him in the UNO slate just before he decided to join the Nationalist People’s Coalition to get a slot in the administration ticket.
Ever since the late President Ferdinand Marcos uprooted the Philippines’ two-party system by declaring martial law in 1972, there has never been a truly established political party with a consistent and established platform and ideology. Instead, we have several political parties whose roster of members change as often as the wind changes its direction.
These political parties align with other similarly situated political groupings to form coalitions, whose reason for unity is political exigency, rather than a commonality in political platform. As a result, government officials, including the President, are elected not because they offer a better program of government, but because they are either popular, they have the financial resources, or they are able to wheel-and-deal with other political groupings, or all of the above.
The snap election for the presidency in 1986 between Marcos and Cory Aquino was the last election held where issues were clear to the electorate. The issues then were simple: Did you want dictatorship or democracy?
There were only two parties and two candidates: the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan of President Marcos, and the PDP-Laban of Cory Aquino (Vice President Salvador H. Laurel ran under the Unido banner). Those who were happy with the dictatorship voted for Marcos. Those who wanted a new era of freedom voted for Aquino. Those who couldn’t care less voted for the person who gave them money.
Prior to martial law, there were only two major political parties – the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party. These parties alternately ruled Philippine politics from the time the Philippines was still a commonwealth of the United States until Marcos declared martial law, and effectively eliminated the two parties.
The Nacionalista Party (NP), which was founded in 1907, advocated “immediate independence” although the leaders acted more like pro-Americans instead of freedom fighters, with the Americans suspecting the independence agenda was merely for getting votes. The party produced five presidents — Manuel L. Quezon, Sergio Osmena, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, and Ferdinand Marcos.
Marcos and Magsaysay were former Liberal Party members but shifted party affiliation prior to the convention.
The Liberal Party sprang from the “liberal wing” of the Nacionalista Party, becoming a full-fledged party in 1946 under the leadership of Manuel Roxas. The LP produced three presidents – Roxas, the first president of the Third Republic; Elpidio Quirino and Diosdado Macapagal.
During martial law, LP stalwarts Senators Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., Gerry Roxas and Jovito Salonga carried the fight against Marcos. In 1978, Ninoy Aquino and Sen. Lorenzo Tanada organized the Lakas ng Bayan (Laban). Ninoy spearheaded the Laban Metro Manila slate in the rigged Assembly elections, where the Imelda Marcos-led KBL swept the Laban team. When Ninoy left for the US, his brother-in-law, Rep. Jose “Peping” Cojuangco was tasked to lead the party. The Laban party later merged with the Mindanao-based Pilipino Democratic Party of then Cagayan Mayor Aquilino Pimentel Jr., forming the PDP-Laban, which is still headed by Pimentel.
Laurel had his UNIDO and ran as Cory’s vice presidential candidate in the 1986 snap elections.
The PDP-Laban had for its platform “democratize power and socialize wealth” but when Cory Aquino became president in 1986, all these ideals were relegated to the usual elitist agenda that spawned political patronage, political dynasties and ultimately graft and corruption. During this time, former Marcos officials Francisco Tatad, Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople formed their own parties – Tatad, the Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD), whose leaders included Juan Ponce Enrile and Joseph Estrada; while Ople, together with Laurel and Enrile, tried to revive the defunct Nacionalista Party.
In 1991, Danding Cojuangco formed the Partido Pilipino (Nationalist People’s Party) to support his presidential bid in 1992, the year six other candidates – with their own political parties – contested the presidency. The other candidates were Ramon Mitra of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), Fidel Ramos (People Power Movement), Miriam Defensor Santiago (Reformist Party), Imelda Marcos (KBL), and two other candidates with their own parties.
Ramos won the election by a narrow margin (23.6%) over Santiago (19.4%), with Joseph Estrada, who ran with Cojuangco, winning the vice presidency by a landslide. The Partido Pilipino branched into two parties: Cojuangco’s National People’s Coalition (NPC), and Estrada’s Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP).
In 1998, there were 11 presidential candidates, although only seven were considered serious candidates: Estrada (Partido ng Masang Pilipino-LDP-NPC), Joe de Venecia (Lakas-NUCD), Raul Roco (Aksyon Demorkatiko), Lito Osmena (Probinsiya Muna Development Initiative – Promdi), Alfredo Lim (LP), Renato de Villa (Reforma), Miriam Defensor Santiago (People’s Reform Party) and Juan Ponce Enrile (NP).
Estrada won by a big margin, getting 46.4 percent of the votes despite the big field, with Arroyo, who ran with De Venecia, winning the vice presidency also by a big margin.
As in previous post-election scenarios, the political parties made realignments for political exigency, with Estrada’s PMP, Cojuangco’s NPC, Pimentel’s PDP-Laban, Angara’s LDP, and Santiago’s Reformist Party forming the ruling coalition, and De Venecia’s Lakas-NUCD, Roco’s Aksyon Demokratiko, Osmena’s Promdi, De Villa’s Reforma, and the Liberal Party coalescing as the opposition.
When Estrada was ousted by People Power II, the two coalitions switched roles, but suddenly, Cojuangco’s NPC became a member of the administration coalition. As the 2004 presidential election neared, the parties began to realign again. Reforma, Promdi and Aksyon Demokratiko bolted the coalition and supported Roco’s candidacy. The NPC stayed on for a while as Cojuangco made some deals with Arroyo, but after the Davide impeachment fizzled out, Cojuangco’s NPC made known its desire to field its own presidential candidate, who obviously was actor Fernando Poe Jr.
In the 2004 presidential elections, there were at least three coalitions that contested the presidency — the LDP-NPC-PMP-PDP Laban-Reformist coalition, the Lakas-NUCD coalition, and the Aksyon-Reforma-Promdi coalition. The Liberal Party joined Arroyo’s coalition (Lakas-NUCD). At least two other candidates ran as virtual independents — Sen. Ping Lacson and Bro. Eddie Villanueva of the Jesus is Lord Movement, which spearheaded the Bangon Pilipinas, a political group but not really a coalition.
The instability of these political coalitions reflects, and contributes to, the instability of the country’s political system. Because these parties were formed primarily for the self-aggrandizement of its founders and leaders, they are devoid of ideology and platform of government. The parties change stands on issues, and shift loyalties as often as political exigency demands.
There lies the problem with not having parties based on ideals or principles. Because they are based on the self-serving agenda of the leaders, parties tend to change platforms depending on what can win them votes at the time, or what can be advantageous to their own objectives. The needs of the people that they are supposed to serve are often overlooked. And because the members join the parties not because of the party’s ideals and principles, there is no loyalty on their part and they become political butterflies, moving from one party to another in the same manner that parties move from one coalition to another. If the parties and the party members cannot be loyal to their own ideals or their own parties, how can they be expected to be loyal to the people?
Great nations have great two-party systems. The United States have the Republican and Democratic parties, which have been in existence for more than a century and are based in long-standing platforms and principles. Great Britain had the Conservatives (Tories) and the Liberals (Whigs) since the 7th and 18th century. A third major party, the Labour Party, which is now the ruling party, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, emerged in 1900. Post-war Japan has had two major parties – the Liberal Democrats (1955) and the Social Democrats (1945).
The need for a two-party system becomes even more paramount in the proposed parliamentary system, which has proved to be successful in countries with strong two-party systems. Great political parties are able to discipline erring members, because corrupt and incompetent officials will weaken them.
To build a more stable political system, the Philippines’ political leaders will have to reassess their stand on important issues and ideologies, organize strong parties based on these ideals and principles, and impose rigid party discipline to strengthen their political foundation. Hopefully, with parties based on clear platforms and principles, the country’s political system will be stabilized, and the foundation laid for the building of a truly Strong Republic, one that is cognizant of the general well-being of the people.
(valabelgas@aol.com)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home