Comments on: Undecided nation http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/ Punditry. Politics. History. Commentary. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:35:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: fire http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-654681 fire Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:56:02 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-654681 bakit walang lists of populations in banking institutions the different banks bakit walang lists of populations in banking institutions the different banks

]]> By: fire http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-654680 fire Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:50:44 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-654680 matay lahat ng corrupt matay lahat ng corrupt

]]> By: Murph http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-543329 Murph Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:16:32 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-543329 <strong>This Site Is Awesome...</strong> Check out what he wrote here.... This Site Is Awesome…

Check out what he wrote here….

]]> By: benj http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-33130 benj Sun, 20 Aug 2006 07:00:49 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-33130 oligarchy is such a big word to be used in a survey, eh? we're a young democracy with opportunistic adventurous individuals out for a slice of the pie and their place in history. it's all the church's fault, imho. oligarchy is such a big word to be used in a survey, eh?

we’re a young democracy with opportunistic adventurous individuals out for a slice of the pie and their place in history.

it’s all the church’s fault, imho.

]]> By: cvj http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-32136 cvj Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:59:00 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-32136 In the Philippine context, parliamentary elections would in all likelihood be no different from local elections. The current Party-list system of proportional representation under the present Constitution is a better mechanism for elevating electoral competition into the level of ideas, instead of a "match of personalities". In the Philippine context, parliamentary elections would in all likelihood be no different from local elections. The current Party-list system of proportional representation under the present Constitution is a better mechanism for elevating electoral competition into the level of ideas, instead of a “match of personalities”.

]]> By: Carl http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-32133 Carl Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:41:57 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-32133 I think what advocates of a parliamentary system want to stress is that the electoral contest can be elevated to a competition of ideas, instead of a match of personalities. Platforms will take center stage, while individuals will simply be in a supporting position. This does not cancel out the possibility of attractive and popular politicians taking a major role. However, they would normally have to go through an “educational” process within their party before they assume positions of responsibility. Tony Blair was himself an attractive and rather popular politician (quite tarnished now by his association with George W. Bush). I think the case of Winston Churchill is appropriate to illustrate this. Just before World War II, Churchill was practically washed up. A political has-been. Everyone thought he had seen better days. But his very hawkish stand against Hitler, while initially rebuffed, later resounded with the public. Because of his ideas, which his party adopted, Churchill experienced a political renaissance and was swept into power just in time to lead Britain through World War II. It was probably one of the most incredible political comebacks in history. The case of Pierre Trudeau of Canada can also illustrate how even a brilliant and extremely popular politician can fall from grace when his ideas no longer resonate with the public mood. I think what advocates of a parliamentary system want to stress is that the electoral contest can be elevated to a competition of ideas, instead of a match of personalities. Platforms will take center stage, while individuals will simply be in a supporting position. This does not cancel out the possibility of attractive and popular politicians taking a major role. However, they would normally have to go through an “educational” process within their party before they assume positions of responsibility. Tony Blair was himself an attractive and rather popular politician (quite tarnished now by his association with George W. Bush).

I think the case of Winston Churchill is appropriate to illustrate this. Just before World War II, Churchill was practically washed up. A political has-been. Everyone thought he had seen better days. But his very hawkish stand against Hitler, while initially rebuffed, later resounded with the public. Because of his ideas, which his party adopted, Churchill experienced a political renaissance and was swept into power just in time to lead Britain through World War II. It was probably one of the most incredible political comebacks in history.

The case of Pierre Trudeau of Canada can also illustrate how even a brilliant and extremely popular politician can fall from grace when his ideas no longer resonate with the public mood.

]]> By: jackryan68 http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-32105 jackryan68 Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:36:03 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-32105 A shameless plug... If GMA were really sincere about dismantling "Imperial Manila"... http://nagueno.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-gma-were-really-sincere-about.html A shameless plug…

If GMA were really sincere about dismantling “Imperial Manila”…
http://nagueno.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-gma-were-really-sincere-about.html

]]> By: vic http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-32036 vic Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:40:38 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-32036 On the other hand, a weak party leader or one that cannot lead his/her party into heading the government, don’t last long. Howard and Blair are both popular within their particular party, and also the electorate of both countries sent the majority of candidates or each leader’s party to Parliament. That’s being how the parliamentary systems, where the party who won the most number of seats, has the right to form a government. The matter of leadership within the party is a different matter that is for the party’s membership to resolve. Another example of A Leader who refused to Step down as leader was Prime Minister Jean Chretien. With all the maneuvering by Paul Martin to take over the leadership and thereby the PM office, Chretien, even spite Martin and refused even after eleven long years, because of their personal feud. And Martin leadership after Chretien finally decided to step down, proves a disaster for the Liberal Party, that without hesitation, himself resigned the leadership. It Follows that the leader as long as good for the Party, may in his/her volition can stay or leave and leave it to the voters to decide his fate. Even in Parliamentary system, it is still a Democracy. And the voters, no matter how the processes go in electing their President or prime Minister, still have the final say. On the other hand, a weak party leader or one that cannot lead his/her party into heading the government, don’t last long. Howard and Blair are both popular within their particular party, and also the electorate of both countries sent the majority of candidates or each leader’s party to Parliament. That’s being how the parliamentary systems, where the party who won the most number of seats, has the right to form a government. The matter of leadership within the party is a different matter that is for the party’s membership to resolve.

Another example of A Leader who refused to Step down as leader was Prime Minister Jean Chretien. With all the maneuvering by Paul Martin to take over the leadership and thereby the PM office, Chretien, even spite Martin and refused even after eleven long years, because of their personal feud. And Martin leadership after Chretien finally decided to step down, proves a disaster for the Liberal Party, that without hesitation, himself resigned the leadership. It Follows that the leader as long as good for the Party, may in his/her volition can stay or leave and leave it to the voters to decide his fate. Even in Parliamentary system, it is still a Democracy. And the voters, no matter how the processes go in electing their President or prime Minister, still have the final say.

]]> By: cvj http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-32029 cvj Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:58:34 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-32029 Manolo, if i may add, your timely link to Blurry Brain's post in your preceding entry ('Over in Six Days') expresses the danger of delegating our vote for head of government to the members of parliament. “<i>… in Westminster-style democracies such as Australia and Britain, the people seem to have little say in choosing their leaders. In both countries long-serving prime ministers - Australia's John Howard and the UK's Tony Blair - are intent on staying in office and trying to line up their successors behind closed doors...… in a democracy, no one has a 'right' to office beyond that conferred by the people. In Australia and Britain, however, the people are not being consulted. Instead, the backroom dealing over the leadership of two nations looks more like Mafiosi choosing a new godfather than the mature exercise of democracy.</i>" If this tendency is present in these mature democracies where the MP's are less corruptible, what more with our local politicians who, even in this Presidential system, have collectively demonstrated Mafia-like behavior? Manolo, if i may add, your timely link to Blurry Brain’s post in your preceding entry (‘Over in Six Days’) expresses the danger of delegating our vote for head of government to the members of parliament.

“… in Westminster-style democracies such as Australia and Britain, the people seem to have little say in choosing their leaders. In both countries long-serving prime ministers – Australia’s John Howard and the UK’s Tony Blair – are intent on staying in office and trying to line up their successors behind closed doors…… in a democracy, no one has a ‘right’ to office beyond that conferred by the people. In Australia and Britain, however, the people are not being consulted. Instead, the backroom dealing over the leadership of two nations looks more like Mafiosi choosing a new godfather than the mature exercise of democracy.”

If this tendency is present in these mature democracies where the MP’s are less corruptible, what more with our local politicians who, even in this Presidential system, have collectively demonstrated Mafia-like behavior?

]]> By: mlq3 http://www.quezon.ph/2006/08/10/undecided-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-32024 mlq3 Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:31:52 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/?p=987#comment-32024 mathew, you won't be writing a name for president on your ballot. at best, you will be writing a name for assemblyman, in the hope your assemblyman ends up in parliament, and with the further hope he will vote the fellow mp that both (and the assemblyman) hope will be pm. that a couple of indirect steps away from where we are now, and where have been for 71 years. that's a major change and certainly completely alien to what people are not only familiar with, but expect: that they get to vote directly, and not indirectly, for the head of government. mathew, you won’t be writing a name for president on your ballot. at best, you will be writing a name for assemblyman, in the hope your assemblyman ends up in parliament, and with the further hope he will vote the fellow mp that both (and the assemblyman) hope will be pm. that a couple of indirect steps away from where we are now, and where have been for 71 years. that’s a major change and certainly completely alien to what people are not only familiar with, but expect: that they get to vote directly, and not indirectly, for the head of government.

]]>