Gridlock rears its ugly head

Many political scientists consider gridlock the most harmful aspect of the presidential system. Again, like the failed anti-con ass rally recently, this should have been obvious to everyone, but critics merely look the other way as if the problem did not exist.

This is true especially in emerging countries like the Philippines that do not have the luxury of time in developed countries. Millions of its poor are held hostage by a legislature that seldom acts on behalf of the good of the greatest number because they are caught in their own personal rivalries and conflicts. When Charter change advocates campaign for a unicameral parliamentary federal system they do so with gridlock in mind as the most pressing problem of the Philippines.

* * *

 Indeed, in the last few days, we have been regaled by the two houses of Congress unable to get their act together to discuss an issue that is of utmost importance to the country — Charter change to shift to a system of government more responsive to our political and economic needs.

Both Senator Aquilino Pimentel and Speaker Nograles should know that if they were to be true to their mandate, they ought to be able to talk to each other in the best interest of the country. They could discuss and argue their differences about a constituent assembly and jointly decide when and how it should be done to make way for a democratic vote through a plebiscite. But nothing of the sort is happening. This is the perfect example of gridlock arising out of the separation of powers that was instituted mainly to curb abuse in a presidential system.

I sometimes wonder what is worse – an immobilized government or one that merely investigates as its primary job. As in all human endeavors a balance will have to be found.

In the Philippine context, an immobilized government has reached unconscionable depths to the detriment of millions of poor dependent on effective leadership and implementable policies.

* * *

Political scientists agree that gridlock is a major disadvantage of the presidential system. There are others — the tendency towards authoritarianism. Because the presidential system is not constitutionally stable it easily deteriorates into authoritarianism. According to Fred Riggs, a political scientist, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted, except the United States. So it should not be surprising that rumors are rife that with the present difficulties of government some may be considering martial law. It is not just because it is President GMA in power. Other presidents in other countries with presidential systems are said to “fall naturally” to authoritarianism. The presidency by the nature of the system is “a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize — unlike a prime minister, who may have to form a coalition. The president and her/his party can rule without any allies for up to six years. That becomes a threat for other interest groups.

As mentioned earlier the separation of powers in a presidential system is a disadvantage rather than an advantage. The presidency and the Congress as two parallel structures inevitably create gridlock and make it often impossible to govern. Worse it reduces accountability because the president and Congress end up blaming each other for perceived wrongs.

Perhaps the most relevant disadvantage of a presidential system in the Philippines is the difficulty of removing a leader in mid-term. It is difficult to remove a bad president from office before his or her term ends. That is a problem in the system itself rather than the personality of a president or the political maneuvering. Juan Linz cites the example of Brazil where the president’s fixed term became problematic.

“Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate. . . losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization,” argues Juan Linz.

* * *

As if this were not enough the multiparty presidential system poses another constitutional problem. Since a candidate can win with a mere plurality the elected president does not enjoy support from a majority of the population. This has led other reformers in the Philippines to suggest either return to the two-party system or conduct a run-off election between the two who have the highest votes.

Another area of concern in the presidential system is the equally valid mandates of both the legislature and the president. “There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government. When president and legislature are at loggerheads and government is not working effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional means to break the deadlock.”

Ecuador is cited as a good example of democratic failures with a presidential system. Often, presidents ignore the legislature. Things got so bad that one president was driven to teargas the National Assembly.

The country went through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations from 1979 to 1988. The same happened in Colombia. Its problems, say political analysts “exhibited the problems said to be inherent in presidentialism in the last 20 years,” according to the book “Checks and Balances.”

* * *

But perhaps Oppositionists and critics of Charter change of the presidential system should look into the inherent difficulty of removing a president early in their terms. We have known examples in our political life when a president was “proved to be inefficient and corrupt” but the only way he could be removed was through extraconstitutional means.

 This would not have been necessary in a parliamentary system when an unpopular leader could be removed by a vote of no confidence. This is a device comparable to a “pressure release valve” in a country besieged by political tension.

Finally, the presidential system by its nature is slow to respond to citizens’ needs. Often, the “checks and balances” make action extremely difficult.

Since the Philippines followed the American presidential system, let us hear what one constitutionalist said of the American system: “the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others will suffer the effects.”