Correcting the CoRRECT Movement: Parliamentary System
Debunking a first point of the 3PA
Ryan Mello.
Fellglow Keep.
Other than enthusiasm for misapplications of Economics1 and support for Federalism without real understanding of the problem, the CoRRECT movement and other proponents for Constitutional reform glee in the Parliamentary System. In their eyes, the Parliamentary System would provide the following:
Proponents further claim that legislative gridlock and pork barrel politics will go away in a parliament, allowing speed and less overhead. To that end, proponents for a parliament have cited studies showing how parliamentary countries have better outcomes in some metrics and indicators. The methodology of said studies aside, which needs more scrutiny, one may simply take on these points head-on and show how little they stand up to reality.
Efficiency and efficacy?
Imagine Congress, and now imagine that the Cabinet becomes full of entirely Congressmen. Legislative horsestrading2 spreads into the executive. Do you really think that it will be an improvement over actually having a non-zero chance that the President will pick some technocrat, or crony, or technocrat-crony?
On accountability, a Cabinet MP is more subject to electoral pressures in order to stay on and/or avoid removal, but the trade-off there is that the government will be more prone to reckless electioneering stunts like tax cuts or rebates a few months before, or discarding entire electoral planks on a whim. See how Trudeau promised electoral reform in 2015, then dropped it in less than six months. US politicos, meanwhile, are relatively more bounded with restraint by their legislative process, and they simply double down on giving more gibs than craft better plans more insulated from the politicos. They might still do it, but it'll have to pass through the whole budgetary rigamarole before it can get in motion.
As for having no personality politics in parliament: Pierre Trudeau and the ‘Dark Lord’ Tony Blair. We rest our case. If anything, personality politics is how a cabinet is kept in line. In the 1990s, Anglo Neoliberalism came at the hands of mercurial and ambitious pairs of personalities that held on for a decade to entrench globalist rot. In all cases, the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister were soon at loggerheads with each other, leading to all varieties of political headaches. In Britain, it was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In Canada, it was Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. In Australia, it was Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Read even the slightest bit of history and this farcical lie easily falls flat on its face.
Learn more about Tony Blair from the Academic Agent:
Checks and Balances?
pray tell, cher Marquis, how do you plan on having those judges and bureaucrats and legislators and teachers and journalists and bankers and industrialists, who have all grown up together, shared a secluded life as a unified ruling class; how the hell are you gonna make them check and balance each other? That can’t work. And it isn’t working. They marry each other and send their kids to the same schools. Yeah, they’ll do some show and play politics theater, or Kabuki as the American like to say for some reason (as if only Kabuki was fake and other theaters were real), but in the end they are an endogamic ruling class and they know it.
Some contend that presidential systems have no real checks and balances built in. Surely, then, a parliamentary system will give real opposition. Proponents cite British Shadow Governments and perceived rowdiness in foreign parliaments as proof that real checks and balances will rise.
Except the whole reason that shadow cabinets exist is so politicians can grandstand in opposition and plan ahead in advance who'll get which portfolio in cabinet. They literally have no power until they get elected and switch over with the actual cabinet. There is no check and balance beyond the dog and pony show, unless the left is in opposition and the shadow cabinet is merely one of the meager props they have when they go on a political offensive. You can easily have shadow cabinet analogues in a presidential system, nothing is stopping the opposition from doing it for themselves, but it merely shows how much power they don't have when (in either system) they are not in the majority. Half the reason this illusion exhibits some semblance of working is the fact that the speaker is a ‘non-partisan’ member that just sits around all day and shouts 'Order!' for the cameras. In a presidential system, the Speaker has no impediment and he rules the lower house. This process is simply formalized and given executive powers in a parliamentary system.
As Spandrell above shows, politicians and the other influential go to the same schools and live similar lives. What genuine incentive for checking and balancing exists, then? Real opposition comes from those that threaten power. The powerful fighting like married couples shows nothing on how fractured they really are. The only check and balance you can have against those who command the guys with guns is to have guns of your own.
We will forego dealing with the investor confidence point, since that must be discussed in the essay on misapplications of Economics. However, we must end on this point.
F
This fetishization of parliamentarism by midwits is unironically creepy. It’s literally just an alternative organization of the executive and legislature. Even those of us who dabbled in mere constitutional reform never had the kind of obsession these freaks have about it. The general enthusiasm for constitutional reform just highlights how the 1987 Constitution is a scapegoat (as we took advantage of ourselves) that distracts from real issues. Managerialism continues transforming society into a monoform blob. Red tape and taxes keep cutting into people’s wallets. Business creation remains limited from government overreach. The World Economic Forum subtly pushes globalist influence into the Philippines. Finally, the Global American Empire pushes for a united Philippines to secure its interests in Asia-Pacific - Kapampangans can just ask Mike Pangilinan on how he was interrogated in Japan for potentially being an agent to subvert American interests. The 1987 Constitution and its consequences are mere symptoms of the larger problem at hand.
Read more about “the Blob”:
“International money capital movements result necessarily in destroying commodity trade”, not to mention how “comparative advantage” applies only in international trade and not foreign investment. Comparative advantage in fact assumes no movement in either labor or capital - meaning no immigration or foreign investment.
unofficial discussion in which people make agreements that provide both sides with advantages.
 | A guest post by
|
Claro que sí, campeón