Parliamentary vs Presidential, Which is Better for the Philippines?

Good Essays
The parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance wherein the executive and legislative branches of the government are intertwined and are lead collectively by a Prime Minister who must have been proven to be competent and capable, as chosen among his party members. However, the Philippines is currently under the presidential system, also a system of democratic but republican governance, which is led this time by a president, and wherein there is a separation of powers between the executive and the legislative. In the presidential system, people have the collective power to vote for the president. On one hand, the similarities between the two systems can be summed up in one word: democracy. This entails the basic standards of…show more content…
Another is that Filipinos have a culture of apathy and tend to use religion incorrectly and passively. People depend on religion and settle for what’s okay. In addition, the initial reaction of Filipinos to change is resistance, and this is why the country does not necessarily progress, or at least, progress at a continuous rate. Then, countries like Spain and Portugal only rode the “economic tiger” after “they realized that the only way to survive was change” (3.Y). Plus, according to another critic, the Philippines already had the experience of being under the parliamentary system during the time of Marcos which only resulted in a People Power Revolution. So why should the country bother going back to that? (4.Y) However, it was Marcos who envisioned a “New Society” or a “Bagong Lipunan” that urged the “poor and privileged” to work as one for the country’s economic goals through “self-realization.” (5.Y) Which, as previously stated, are work and/or study ethics of the Chinese and Jewish (a strong sense of self – of hunger for knowledge). In addition, it was also during Marcos’ regime that the GNP (Gross National Product, a development indicator of a country [definition from Turning Points IV]) in 1980 became four times greater than the country’s GNP in 1972 with an average annual growth rate of 6.6%. It was also during this time
Get Access