great debate parliament or presidential?what form of government is applicable?
February 11, 2007 7:59pm CST
charter change was debated by some people and govt. official in the phils. they are contesting in changing the constitution into parliament form of govt. but the proposal has been shut up for several weeks now due to upcoming election in may. however, the issue will be talked over after the election period. for your opinion,which constitution is more effective and applicable to a developing country?and why?
15 Feb 07
A presidential form of government puts to much power in the hands of one person whereas in a parliamentary form of government the power resides with the parliament and not with any one man. That's simplistic I know, but in my view, that's the basic difference and as a Briton, living in a country that has had stable parliamentary government for the last 3 or 4 hundred years, I'm a little biased towards parliament. Of course, if you talk to an American, they'll insist that they have the best political system in the world. Well, they would say that!:)
12 Feb 07
i do believe that we have to face changes or at least try changes to see what will work. we're not growing with this form of government and so why not try other forms? there's nothing to lose, as you can see, be it presidential or parliamentary, there can be people power lol, but kidding aside, if you see all the nations or countries that were once far below the Philippines before are now ahead in terms of economy and state of life, and they're parliamentary. and because we weren't trying new things, we're now lagging behind or not progressing at all. and if you observe, we are never united at all so it would be impossible to promote good governance.