I am not just a solid advocate of Constitutional Reform but I generally support the theory. However, while others support it primarily for the financial agenda, I on the other hand do this for my search-for-leaders agenda. I believe that by getting the right market leaders, we also solve the problem of our bad overall economy. So if you ask me, the prospect of Constitutional Reform is attractive mainly on the chance to reform the way we elect our leaders. It is for this reason which i am closely taking a look at the Parliamentary System that, at this point, I still have not encountered any solid argument against.
But the primary question is: How was I able to say that we could have right (or at least better) leaders under a Parliamentary System? In order to answer this question, let us start to see the differences about how we choose our market leaders now and in a Parliamentary system. Inside our Presidential system, the interpersonal people choose a President by immediate vote. In a Parliamentary system, the individuals choose their staff for the parliament who choose among themselves the perfect minister then.
Under our present system therefore, a person who wish to be President would have to campaign atlanta divorce attorneys corner of the country. He shall need to go to all districts or at least have his posters all around just about everywhere. He shall need to have advertisements in all possible mass media outlets, TV, radio, print and the internet.
He should build his machinery, those who advertising campaign for him just about everywhere and those who safeguard his votes. In a nutshell, he needs several billions of Pesos that he either has (he’s filthy rich, eg. But Vast amounts of pesos wouldn’t normally assure him of earning (eg necessarily. Now easily am really a good person with good leadership and good policies at heart, suffice it to state that under the present system I wouldn’t be President.
No, not in 6 years, not in 12, not in my lifetime. Alternatively, in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister or PM would need first to win in his area where he must spend perhaps only a few million pesos (P10M the most by some estimations).
Then, when in parliament, he would need to persuade his colleagues. If there are say 300 representatives, he would need to persuade 151 of them just. This brings us to the tricky part. If that were you, how can you convince 151 representatives to cause you to PM? Do you need money or talent? Do you will need money, the capability to buy off your colleagues?
Or do you need talent, the ability to show the stuff you are constructed of and encourage your colleagues that it’ll bring them longer tenure if they are working for you? In order to answer this second group of questions, we need to review further the way the system works. In today’s system, once budget is approved (and there will be budget whether congress likes it or not), the President holds the pot (the money).
- Click on query item that you have draged from the level
- 3 NATURAL Fried Onion Ideas Your Grocery Store Customers Will Love
- Issuing entity’s logo,
- Working capital management pertains to
- Candidates will need to have completed MBA from an established university
- Key Resources. The most important assets to accomplish 1 and 2 and their conversation
- Fix Broken Links
That is the reason why the President holds more power than congress and the second option will follow wherever the previous goes. Meanwhile, in a parliamentary system, it is parliament who keeps the pot. To be more precise, it is the majority of people in parliament who holds the pot. This means if a would-be PM programs to buy off nearly all his colleagues to make him their head, he will need a bigger container than the actual parliament already has.
By the way, the pot we are discussing is in the Trillions here, the whole Philippine budget plus more. So I sure whoever has trillions can indeed become perfect minister am, that is before next budget where he needs to spend another set of trillions more. So, I question anyone would spend trillions to be PM really.
And that’s where the opportunity for talent comes in. It is obvious that, in a Parliamentary System, a person with real talents has good if not better chances of winning than person who relies only on money. So if I am a talented person really, I could say that I have better likelihood of being leading minister in a Parliamentary than in our present system.