‘…I have good friends from the party list groups and they serve well but I hope they understand where I am coming from when I say I am all for revising the party list system as we know it and making it truly a list of national political parties…’
ONE of the “blessings” bestowed upon the Filipino people by EDSA 1986 was the institution of a party list system. Targeted at the “marginalized sectors” (the 1986 term for those we refer to in 2022 as on the “laylayan” of society), it was meant to provide them a chance at being part of the governing structure. As such, the party list system was a welcome development.
Alas, all it had was (to quote a Supreme Court Justice) the “arresting charm of novelty, and nothing more.”
To put it another way, leave it to the Filipino politician to mess up a good thing.
Today, the party list system is a tragi-comedy. You have all sorts of groups claiming to represent marginalized sectors. Which is fine, except that their nominees for Congress are themselves many times not representative of the marginalized.
LPG dealers, security guards, teachers, farmers, nurses — you name a sector, chances are there’s a party list formed to promote their interests.
I note, however, that no one has thought of putting up a party list named “1Asawa” because I suspect this will cause too much trouble in public and in private.
Rather than strengthening democracy in the Philippines — perhaps a near impossibility to begin with? — the party list system has made things even more confusing, which almost always means something worse.
I think we could have chosen the path of least resistance and simply copied the system they have in the Federal Republic of Germany. That one strengthens the party system — always a foundation of a healthy democracy — and the most successful parties will be those that are able to provide democratic space within their organizations for marginalized sectors of society. In Japan, for example, the rice farmers were for the longest time one of the most powerful blocs within the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
So this is how it’s done: a voter receives a ballot where he shades the oval next to the name of the candidate he wants for, say, Congress. Below the names of the candidates are a second list, the names of the parties themselves. Again, he is to shade the oval next to the party he prefers — and chances are if he chose Congressman X from the Free Love Party then he will also shade the oval next to the Free Love Party in the party list section.
The party list is a list of political parties.
Now, because you only have a handful of national political parties then the voters only have a handful to choose from. The result is that it will be much easier for one political party to garner a near majority, if not an outright majority, of seats in Congress making it easier for the legislative process to function. I also suspect (hope?) it will make for less turncoatism because the party in power will be able to rely on party list votes to add to their numbers.
But removing reasons for balimbingan would not be fun, yes?
Now, I have good friends from the party list groups and they serve well but I hope they understand where I am coming from when I say I am all for revising the party list system as we know it and making it truly a list of national political parties with party list nominees for their additional second and third and maybe even more seats.
There goes my 1Asawa idea!
