1. The two-party system should be adopted in the Philippines substituting the multi-party system that our government is currently adhering to because of the following justifications: a. The two-party system is a more efficient mechanism in creating a more effective government as compared to the multi-party system that the Philippines are currently adopting. In a political environment created by a two-party system, the objective and ideology of each of the two major parties is clearly identifiable. Consequently, the policies that that will be forwarded after the elections will be in congruence to such ideology thus creating a more stable and effective government governed by a single party. This system immediately produces a government after elections thus maintaining the continuous and smooth flow of the government rendering the services to the constituents.
The multi-party system on the other hand is a failure when it comes to the generation of an immediate and effective government after elections. There is a possibility that creation and implementation of policies will be delayed because the political environment created by such system demands the formulation of a consensus between the winning parties, which actually takes a lot of time and arbitrary efforts. This is very much evident in the Philippines given that key government positions starting from the president down to the local level are not controlled only by a single party.
Winning politicians often comes from different political parties and actually uphold different political interests and ideologies that they ought to promote and support. In such case, performance of the government as a whole is often affected. The more time that the government delays its policy implementation, the more possibility that our economy and performance as a nation will lag behind. That a lagging economy and policy implementation will result into more state problems on queue is the consequence that will trickle down to the smallest sectors of the society which are more vulnerable to such problems. In a third world country like the Philippines, speedy establishment of the government after election is an issue that will be effectively addressed by the two-party system. b. The two-party system also upholds the principle of government’s accountability to the people which is not often, or worse, not at all observed in the current Philippine politics. The governmental structure fomented under the two-party system makes the tracing of accountability more feasible and possible for the electorate.
Since such system produces a government ruled by a single political party supporting definite policies and ideologies, the responsibility is clearly identifiable by the people who voted the candidates of the party into position. This means that in cases where the government failed to do what it ought to do, the people can easily identify the single party ruling the government as the culprit to such failure. That is clearly a demonstration of accountability at its best. In contrary, the current political system in the Philippines most of the time fails to uphold such principle. Because the government is formed by leaders belonging to a wide array of political parties, the responsibility is often obfuscated and accountability becomes a matter of to-what-party-does-this-dumbass-politician-belong. Because the government is made up of layers of pol. parties, it demands too much effort for the electorate to penetrate the system and determine who’s accountable for the government’s performance.
By adopting the two-party system, this layer would be eradicated making accountability a feasible priority of the government. c. The two-party system also becomes a vanguard against extreme politics, which is very ubiquitous in the status quo (current Philippine setting). This is because all main parties in the two-party system is given the chance to govern and thus, avoid extreme claims. This means that because the two major parties, which serve are representative of the populace were given an equal chance in running the government, people will be discouraged from forwarding extreme proposals that are often become anti-system. Also because it is institutionalized, other parties with extreme claims will not be able to penetrate the mainstream politics thus preventing the extremists from derailing governmental activities. It is also because this system gathers voters and allows representation from large moderate segments of the society. The two-party system therefore discourages the creation of such parties removing possible obstacles to attaining order in the government.
The Philippine system shows a lot of proofs on the contrary. Since in the Philippines, representation is almost available to all sectors of the society, it becomes highly vulnerable to extreme representations most of the times seeking to challenge or even destroy the established order which is the government itself. Some of these parties do not have any government prospects and do not hesitate to radicalize their claims. This process becomes very dangerous both to the populace and the state. As an example, we have the CPP-NDF-NPA which is characterized by their extremist inclinations. Because of the multi-party system, parties of such inclination are encouraged to proliferate and gain membership and are even given the chance to elevate their claims on the political frontlines causing great threat and inconvenience to the government. The two-party system, to conclude, becomes an effective tool in sustaining the effectiveness of the government and repressing would be belligerence brought about by their radical claims. Ladies and gentlemen, let us imagine our homeland being free from the resistance of extreme ideologues.
Imagine that the peace that we, the Military, have long hoped for finally coming closer for us to reach. d. Lastly, the two-party system exemplifies genuine democracy that we Filipinos claim to champion. This comes during the election, the season when our suffrage is put into practice. In the two-party system, a vote of the majority is needed in order for a party or the candidate representing the party to win the elections. This means that the government that will be established has the consent of the majority (50% plus 1) of all the citizens who will be subject to that government. As an implication, the programs and policies that will be implemented of the government that will be installed can be presumed to be beneficial to the majority of the electorate/masses showing a kind of democracy that is at work.
That is not the case in the Philippine politics. Because of the multi-party system, winning the elections and having governmental posts does not depend on winning the majority’s vote anymore but instead, the candidate only requires the highest percentage of vote from the populace or the first-past-the-post system. However, this mechanism does not guarantee that majority vote is being acquired. If a candidate only acquires 30% votes of the actual voters however got the highest percentage among his/her opponents, he/she already got the post. What I am trying to say ladies and gentlemen, is that we are in a country where majority less, or worse, does not matter in establishing a government. That is our democracy. A democracy that is less democratic. The-two party system will ensure that we Filipinos would be living in a country that democracy is the rule. And with that, I end my speech.
2. Political dynasty is beneficial in the Philippines
a. Filipinos are people who often view trust as something that should be given to particular persons who made them cultivate that trust in ways such as good camaraderie, smooth interpersonal relationship and as exemplified by politicians, good leader and constituent bond. In addition, Filipinos has this certain characteristics in which they, or we, tend to view consanguinity (blood relation) as something that goes with our trust. ‘Kung anak/asawa yan ni Mayor na pinag kakatiwalaan namin, suguradong mapagkakatiwalaan din yan’ as the vernacular cliché goes. This becomes very true in areas that are often governed by leaders who are affiliated by either marriage or sanguinity. Ladies and gentlemen, what I am trying to say is that through the political dynasty, the very basic component of the establishment of a public office – which is the public trust – is ultimately upheld. Let’s take Congresswoman Robredo, let’s take Jack Enrile and every father-son, wife-husband, father-daughter senators and politicians.
That exemplifies the rechanneling of public trust, which epitomizes the claim that public office is a public trust. What is then the importance of this trust? Trust, in itself is the very foundation of the government. The government exists because we, the people trust the government to do the supervision by which we want our lives to be subsumed and organized. Without this trust, our public institutions will collapse, hell, our government itself would instantaneously breakdown. In such manner, political dynasty is truly beneficial.
b. The delivery of public services should not in any way be obstructed. This notion is the quite simple that most politicians should understand. However this in not being observed in the status quo (present situation). Projects of an outgoing public official are usually being snubbed, or worse sabotaged by the incoming official. In this context, political dynasty becomes an affront to the sure obliteration of the previous projects and policies.
The consanguinity between officials that would coordinate the proper facilitation and deliverance of such projects would ensure that these projects will not be put aside and will be continued by the next administration. This is because; political dynasties often focus on upholding the legacy of their forebears both on ideology and infrastructural contributions. And how does this affect us? A project that has been started and never finished only adds to wasted project appropriation, to the wasted public fund. And as a third world country, we cannot afford to lose budget that if properly appropriated, would greatly contribute to the wellness of our country.