I initially thought of calling this piece”The Myth of so-called “Advantages” of Parliamentary Systems – Or Why I Do Not See the Need to Change to Parliamentary Systems and decided to go straight to the jugular. I am often asked why have I not supported a 3 point agenda that bundles federalism, parliamentarism and economic liberalization.
This reminds me of the Vietnam war – when policy makers were pursuing a military solution to a political problem. Here’s the gist – Federalism and parliamentarism are political solutions to an economic problem. When you have an economic problem – you need an economic solution, not a political one. Both solutions remind me of a square peg in a round hole.
The Road to Damascus
More recently, an assertion was floated that changing to parliamentary system will reduce the pork barrel – complete with all the bells and whistles of how parliamentary systems work. OK fine, so it’s got all this presumably *good stuff*.
At its basic level, a system can be viewed as a series of “black boxes” called input-process-output and a feedback loop.
In coming to terms on whether I should support the need to shift to parliamentarism and federalism, I had to look at the outcomes in terms of the impact on individual property – jobs, taxes, and government spending.
Now, some folks look at other outcomes – like the human development index. When one looks at the HDI only, it appears that the parliamentary countries have the upper hand. But I had other questions on the HDI itself because the UN being a body of state actors – has its own agenda as well – to increase public spending on the UN’s pet cause – education and health care.
Which brings to my mind, the impact of government spending on services – whether discretionary – or non-discretionary – can best be shown in Singapore’s health care industry and Chile’s social security system. Minimal government spending and greater individual choices makes a huge difference. Obviously such an approach will not be favored by statists.
So, as not to limit myself at looking at the HDI dimension only – and come up with a conclusion based on one dimension alone I had to satisfy my so-called “game changers” – the “dimensions” called jobs, taxes, and government spending – so as to have a “multi-dimensional” evaluation of the outcomes.
Some folks have a tendency to get lost in the process and lose sight of the outcomes. I on the other hand, start with the outcomes in sight. When the outcomes look good, then there is something right about the process. When the outcomes don’t look good – then the process leaves much to be desired and one has to reconsider the actions to be taken.
After all, what’s the point in allocating time, resources, and attention to an activity that does not yield any substantiated positive outcomes at all?
I used the 2013 data from Heritage.org and the list of countries by form of government and joined the data together so I can sort the data from largest to smallest then identify which forms of government dominate the “multi-dimensional” rankings.
Having said that, allow me to present what I have found.
Joblessness and Form of Government
The list shows that parliamentary systems dominate the list countries of high joblessness.
Tax burden and Form of Government
The list shows that parliamentary systems dominate the list of countries with a high tax burden.
Government Spending and Form of Government
The list shows that parliamentary systems dominate the list of countries with a high government spending.
Pork Barrel is an instance of government spending.
So while it is true that Parliamentary systems may eliminate pork barrel system – what’s not being said is that the the money is simply realigned to non-discretionary government spending. You, the individual will steal be coerced to part away with your income to support frivolous government spending.
Thus after looking at the “multiple dimensions” of human development index, jobs, taxes, and public spending – to state that parliamentary system as “superior” certainly begs the question – superior in terms of what? And whether the terms used to define “superior” is relevant to the question of individual liberty and prosperity and the pursuit of personal happiness.
Having seen the outcomes, I now had to look at the so-called “Advantages” and raise questions if these are really “advantages”
Advantage: Legislation Passes Easily
Is it really an advantage when the laws being passed easily are welfare laws and laws that increase government spending -at taxpayers expense?
Advantage: Easy to Remove the Executive
Is it really an advantage when an austere executive is easily removed if he does not acquiesce to more welfare spending?
Advantage: Power Spread Out
So what if it is spread out – what’s important is how the power is used – when it’s used for faster passing of laws that increase taxes – I am not having any of it.
A Eureka Moment
After raising this questions and looking at the outcomes, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support the move to have a federal parliamentary option for the reason that (in my view) the outcomes of parliamentary systems do not support the assertion that they are “superior”. Superior in what exactly? If you mean by the speed at which taxes are raised, spending is raised, and joblessness proliferates – that’s not superior when you are on a race to put a hole in your head.
Therefore, my focus is to get the economic liberalization agenda going without having to dip into the resource-heavy horse trading that comes with political processes.
Pushing for a federal parliamentary system (with unsubstantiated claims of superiority – except via arm twisting) only serves to distract from the core issue of opening the economy so people have jobs and are able to get out of poverty.
Epilogue
Remember this – Tyranny – whether by one (a president) or many (a parliamentary party) in power is still tyranny.
Changing the form of government from driven by one to driven by many is not the answer – the answer is LESS GOVERNMENT (whether the system is presidential, parliamentary, monarchial, one party state) – not more.
No comments:
Post a Comment