“The root of the continuing political friction is the universal distrust over a dysfunctional system; over the present leadership and over politicians in general”
Charter Change is now an all too familiar refrain.
The pattern is eerily recognizable: Proponents, usually with the tacit or explicit support of the current dispensation, would float the idea and test its acceptability and take initial steps to prosecute a plan of action.
The political opposition and civil societies, emboldened by a supportive public opinion, would then mount countermoves to oppose the initiative, causing enough political heat to force the proponents to backtrack, and wait for the next opportune time to reintroduce the issue.
Indeed, this week and in the weeks (maybe months) to come, mass actions are being organized to defeat the latest attempt to change the Constitution, once again through the initiative route.
Constitutional reforms are overdue.
The crises the country has been experiencing over the last several decades have highlighted the bankruptcy of our political system.
A radical overhaul of our political economy, government structures, electoral system and patterns of interaction between international, national and local entities have to be made in order to put some forward inertia to our stagnating political and economic conditions.
There is an urgent need to find solutions to mass poverty, corruption, the insurgency, and a host of other concerns.
Changing the Constitution, while not the panacea to our problems, can be helpful in finding the right approaches.
A priority is a Constitutional prohibition on political dynasties.
The 1987 Constitution has such a provision but made it subject to Congress to enact a law implementing it.
Unfortunately, Charter change attempts are met with suspicion by the public.
The perception is that these attempts are but a smokescreen to extend presidential, congressional, and local officials.
Be that as it may, the political struggle over Charter change should be seen in its broader context; not to dwell so much on a myopic view of the whole drama, that is, treating it solely as a challenge to the present government but rather on its more important aspect – the proposed changes.
The primordial issues then are: whether to shift from presidential to parliamentary, unitary or federal or something in between (greater local autonomy in a system where power is truly decentralized), to open up the economy to foreign investments by removing the restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution (which I think is not a yes/no proposition but something that should addressed strategically given the challenges of globalization), etc.
We also need to expand our Bill of Rights to make basic human rights demandable, such as the right to environmental and climate justice, the right to a living wage, the rights of basic sectors like workers, peasants, indigenous peoples, urban, poor, women, LGBTQ, etc.
Given such big issues, a Constitutional Convention is the better road to change — one that is multisectoral in representation; comprising of elected delegates not saddled with political interests and credibility problems; not beholden to the executive and independent from outside influence and vested interests.
Many arguments and counter arguments have been advanced in support or against the different modes of changing the Constitution.
The choice is between expediency and cost on one hand and credibility and guarantee against political interests on the other.
The benefits the country will derive from a responsive and credible Constitution are immense compared to the disadvantages that will accrue from a half-baked, hastily written Constitution that does not inspire confidence.
In this respect, a Constitutional Convention is better than a Constituent Assembly.
As I have written before, the root of the continuing political friction is the universal distrust over a dysfunctional system; over the present leadership and over politicians in general.
More than the concerns for the costs, there is therefore a need to restore credibility.
The credibility of the Constitutional process and the resultant systems it will create will determine not only the here and now, but the direction of this country for years to come.
The ultimate objective of constitutional change is not to gratify the political ambitions of the few and perpetuate an oppressive system but to address and rectify once and for all the structural problems of the society.
The goal is to bring about prosperity, peace, sustainability, and justice.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook and X: tonylavs
