Friendly Observer
By Arthur Keefee
Strange but it works!
A policy debate currently raging in the UK may have
some interest in the Philippines.The issue is proposed reform of the House of
Lords (HoL), the upper house in the British Parliament equivalent to the Senate
in the USA and the Philippines.
The case for reform is unanswerable in a democracy. At present,
the HoL is comprised of some people with an inherited title (Lords, Dukes,
Earls, etc, some of whom were granted a title by supporting the King 3 or 400
years ago) and so called Life Peers who are political appointments of people
with expertise, or co-operative elderly politicians retiring from the Lower
House, the House of Commons.(HoC). There are also a number of Bishops of the
Church of England, but of no other faith or denomination.
None have been elected, and all hold their position until they
die, except the Bishops who leave as they retire.
There are now over 800 members, although most show little
interest and rarely show up. The position is unpaid except for travel and other
expenses.
Clearly no modern government would create such a system, but as
a revising House, which can only legislate with the consent of the fully
elected Lower House, it works quite well!
The main problem is not its efficiency, but the lack of accountability.
This is particularly irksome to the Labour and Liberal Parties, as the House
can delay (but not permanently block legislation), and it has a built in
Conservative majority.
The reform proposals are for 80% of a 450 member house to be
elected by PR on a party list basis, and 20% to be appointed. They would all
serve a 15 year non renewable term.
There are as many critics of the proposals as there are of the
present arrangements. How can people who are not re-electable be accountable,
even if originally put there by election?
At present the HoC is primary, and can always get its way
eventually. In the future, with a democratic mandate, the HoL can more
legitimately challenge the HoC (as can the Senate here).
The new system will also be much more expensive. Members will
be salaried, and many more are likely to be active than at present.
What is NOT proposed is a system (as in the USA) where members
are elected by regional constituencies. This is seen as too threatening to the
existing Lower House Members.
It is quite likely that the proposals (being put by the
Government) will be defeated. Few will be voting for the status quo, but there
is no consensus about the alternative. (It was on this basis that Australians
voted against removing the British Queen as Head of State).
I have often puzzled over why the Philippines has a Senate
which is, in effect, the preserve of those with wealth, who then spend their
term trying to recover the enormous cost of getting elected! Any accountability
depends on "pork barrel" spending to gain support in certain areas.
It also functions partly as a semi-retirement home for politicians who have
reached their term limits.
Most people I speak to do not try to justify the present
arrangements, but as in the UK, there is no consensus about an alternative A
second chamber does provide some checks and balance for an executive controlled
lower house which most people want.
An obvious option is to move to a regionally based electorate,
which would support a more Federal style of Government, which too has much
support. A small group of "wise men and women" could be added as in
the UK proposal, but this is wide open to political manipulation unless an
independent commission appoints these people.
The Pork Barrel system has no equivalent in the UK, and is a
major corrupting influence in the USA. It should simply be abolished and the
funds allocated to local government to determine local priorities.
My own conclusion is that there is a strong case for retaining
an elected Senate but with a Regional electorate, and abolishing the Pork
Barrel.
At least you don't have the archaic and complex problem of a
British HoL to sort out!
No comments:
Post a Comment