WEAK OR STRONG PRESIDENCY Having a multiparty system in a presidential system has given rise to a plurality president. We can’t do much about it. The 1987 Constitution allows this peculiar situation. The Constitution says that the presidential candidate, who gets the highest number of votes, wins. It does not allow any political run-ups until a candidate gets the majority vote, or 50 percent plus one of the total cast votes. Hence, it allows a plurality vote. Hence, it allows a plurality president. All post-Marcos presidents are plurality presidents. They all garnered the biggest number of votes, but not the majority vote. Fidel Ramos, Erap Estrada, GMA, and Noynoy Aquino did not get the 50 percent plus one of the cast votes, but it was enough for them to occupy Malacanang. Developed democracies, like the United States, or European countries, have majority presidents or prime ministers. Political theorists have insisted the people’s mandate is stronger and more solidified, if a leader gets the vote and political support of at least half plus one of the electorate. Hence, a plurality president could also be considered a minority president. This is the sordid political reality. Because he does not get the majority vote, a plurality president can’t expect the people to follow his rule. Hence, the newly proclaimed president to rally the people’s support because a plurality president, who is a basically minority president, is essentially weak. Ergo, he has to consolidate the people’s support in the post-election period. Fidel Ramos got nearly 24 percent of all cast votes to win in the 1992 elections. But he was wise enough to see his precarious mandate. He immediately went to his political antagonists to mend broken fences. His presidency could be considered strong enough to enable him to last six years without much political issues. His presidency could be classified as a “strong presidency.” Erap Estrada garnered slightly over 41 percent of all cast votes in 1998 elections. But he was too cocky and arrogant after his proclamation, spending his nights mostly in freewheeling drinking sprees in Malacanang. The political result was disastrous. After 30 months in power, he was toppled from Malacanang and went to jail. His tenure could be considered a weak presidency. Despite perceived massive cheating, GMA won in 2004, but her presidency was threatened by military and political groups, which believed she did not have the mandate. Hers was a weak presidency. This has been emphasized by her imprisonment after the end of her term of office. Noynoy Aquino also won by more than 40 percent of all cast votes, but a whether he has a strong or weak presidency is subject to discussions. Historians and other scholars would likely subject his presidency to intense examination and evaluation. What if a graft--ridden individual like Jejomar Binay becomes presidency? My take is he would not different from Erap Estrada. His enemies would destroy him from Day One in office. He would not get the political support to succeed. Hence, it is wise not to elect him. We have to live with plurality presidents. They would be regular fixtures in our political system in the many years to come. But we have to brace ourselves for weak or strong presidents.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 05:01:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015