Abolish the party-list or abolish Congress?

For almost 100 years since the birth of the Philippine Republic on June 12, 1898, people didn’t have the benefit of having to vote for a party-list group that nominated sector representatives to Congress. Nonetheless the republic survived, although it did not necessarily progress, nor improve, nor prosper, politically.

In the past decade it doesn’t seem like the party-list system actually improved people’s representation in the legislature and thus, added value to the legislative process. In fact, it will be difficult to claim that people are better off with the party-list system than institutionalizing a strong lobbying system for marginalized sectors.

An established system for legislative lobbying seems to work for the US, along with a bicameral legislature and a presidential form of government. The system is not perfect, and likewise falls prey to abuse. But just the same, in general, it seems to work. So why not consider that in place of the party-list?

And to insist on the party-list system’s abolition, for having succumbed to abuse by unscrupulous politicians, is perhaps hypocritical, if not misplaced. After all, even Congress itself suffers from the same malady. In fact, even the presidency has not done any better than in truly promoting marginalized sectors’ interest and welfare.

Does this mean then that Congress, and perhaps the presidency as an institution, should be abolished, as well? Perhaps  so, considering the varying degrees of ineptitude they have both shown thus far. Maybe it’s time to consider a new system, with a unicameral legislature voting into office a prime minister as head of government?

The 1987 Constitution provided for the party-list system, a bicameral Congress and the presidency. And whether or not effective and useful, people have no choice but to live with these institutions, despite their supposed flaws, until the 1987 Constitution can be amended, and all proposed changes ratified by the people.

However, with the debate over the party-list system now ongoing, perhaps people should also take the opportunity to consider other suitable and appropriate changes to the present political system. A new president and a new Congress will soon be elected into office, and both will be in the best position to push necessary reforms. Going unicameral and parliamentary, as opposed to bicameral and presidential, may be a bit too much to chew on for now. A more calibrated initiative will involve initially only a change in congressional representation, from geographical basis or as determined by legislative districts, to election via sector representation.

In any case, regardless of where one lives or votes, he or she will anyway fall under one sector or the other. And under such a system, a sector need not be marginalized to deserve representation in Congress. As long as the sector can muster enough votes during an election, then it gains the right to nominate a legislative representative.

Housewives can claim to be a sector and demand representation, the same with security guards, public-utility-vehicle owners and even sex workers. In France, for instance, prostitutes are now demanding government recognition of their rights as workers, and perhaps rightly so. There are enough of them to form a constituency.

Does it really make a difference whether a particular lawmaker is a representative of voters in Makati City or a representative of homemakers, regardless of where they live? In fact, under such a system, the mandate becomes more conclusive in the sense that all lawmakers are chosen nationally than just locally. There need not be a distinction between a House and a Senate.

This is easier said than done, obviously. But conceptually, it is possible, and should perhaps be considered. After all, how can the rights and interests of a housewife in Lanao del Sur be significantly different from the rights and interests of a househusband in Batanes? And the homemaking industry is a large enough constituency to deserve several national representatives.

Veering away from geographical representation can help make Congress less parochial in perspective, and the concern and interest of each lawmaker more national than local, and more attuned to addressing the needs of a national interest. Moreover, it becomes more difficult for aspirants to earn a legislative seat.

It likewise encourages the development of a culture of political patronage geared toward the common good, rather than the promotion of vested and self-serving interests. And while this raises the barriers to access to a legislative post, it does not necessarily lead to disfranchisement. On the contrary, it better defines representation.

Comments to matort@yahoo.com –Marvin A. Tort / Sway, Businessmirror