ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF COLLEGIAL RULE
Collegial Rule vis-à-vis One-Man Rule
At the national level, collegial
rule is the norm in the parliamentary system, while one-man rule is the
modality in the presidential system. At the local level, collegial rule is
practiced in the council type system, while one-man rule is followed in the
mayor type system.
At the national level, collegial
rule merges the political branches of the executive and the legislature,
but leaves separate and independent the non-political branch of the judiciary.
At the local level, collegial rule merges the legislative council and the
executive mayor.
Advantages of Collegial Rule
Collegial rule has various advantages over one-man
rule for purposes of “good governance”. It promotes proficiency, integrity
and accountability in the making and implementation of decisions.
PROFICIENCY. Collegial rule by its inherent nature
harnesses collegial wisdom. It extrapolates to a higher level the idiom “two
heads are better than one”.
INTEGRITY. Collegial rule impedes graft and corruption
because its group-based mechanism necessarily requires the disclosure of
material information to many individuals. As human experience shows,
“corruption thrives in secrecy, and withers in the light”.
ACCOUNTABILITY. Collegial rule strengthens
accountability because it separates the “exercise of power” from the “ultimate
hold on power”. As political reality shows, the individual with delegated
authority to exercise executive power, routinely defers to the collegial will
of the assembly of people's representatives, because this body holds the
ultimate authority to hire-and-fire him.
Collegial rule weakens the control or influence of the
oligarchs and the family dynasties over the government, by dispersing the
ultimate power of control from one individual to the assembly of people's
representatives. At the same time, it strengthens the government vis-a-vis
the powerful vested interests, by consolidating the law-making and law-execution
powers in the assembly of representatives.
Furthermore, collegial
rule diminishes the natural advantage of “rich and famous” candidates over
competent but unpopular candidates, through “voting by district” or “voting by
subdistrict” in multiple small constituencies, instead of “voting at
large” in one big constituency. Notably, a manipulative mass media is less
effective in small constituencies, because here the voter has greater chances
of knowing the real qualities of the candidate.[i]
Moreover, the selection process involving multiple small constituencies
requires a substantially lower number of votes to win the post of chief
executive.[ii]
Finally, collegial rule
makes the chief executive more readily removable for acts or omissions
involving fault or negligence, through a mere vote of “loss of confidence” in
the assembly of people’s representatives, rather than through an impeachment
trial, administrative proceeding or criminal prosecution.
Disadvantage of Collegial Rule
One disadvantage of collegial
rule is that it is open to instability. Since the chief executive is
usually removable at any time by a vote of the majority of the members of the
people’s assembly for mere loss of confidence, there can be frequent changes in
political leaders over short durations like every few months or years. Changes
in political leaders ordinarily involve changes in policy. This results in the
unpredictability of government that eventually hampers business and economic
activity.
Nonetheless, this political disadvantage may be avoided if
the method to hire-and-fire the chief executive is modified. The modified
method can make it easy to “hire” the chief executive (such as by simple
majority vote), and difficult to “fire” him (such as by qualified 2/3 majority
vote). Once elected, the chief executive can hold the position until the
expiration or termination of his membership in the people’s assembly, or until
he is earlier removed from office by qualified majority vote.
This modified method of hiring and firing the chief executive
may strike a balance between the need to address the disadvantage of
instability, and the need to retain the advantage of accountability.
This material was written ex-gratia by Demosthenes
B. Donato
for Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.
All intellectual property rights are granted to the
public domain.
24 January 2017. Makati City, Philippines.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in
this material are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of TanDem.
[i]
The electoral process for public officials needs to be designed in a manner
that is immune from any deliberate manipulation of public opinion by mass
media, considering that many television stations, radio stations, broadsheets,
tabloids and online news sites, are by common knowledge owned or influenced by
the oligarchs and the family dynasties.
[ii]
For example, in a state with 10,000,000 voters and
only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000,000 + 1 votes to win as president
(chief executive), assuming that all voters vote in a “presidential system”
with direct voting. On the other hand, in a “parliamentary system” assuming 100
districts with 100,000 voters per district, the party of a candidate for prime
minister (chief executive) needs to win only 51 seats in the parliament
(national assembly). This would be 2,550,000 + 51 (or 50,000 + 1 per district) or
total of 2,550,051 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.
Another example, in a town with 10,000 voters and only 2
candidates, a candidate needs 5,000 + 1 votes to win as mayor, assuming that
all voters vote in a “mayor type system”. On the other hand, in a “council type
system” assuming 10 districts with 1,000 voters per district, the party of a
mayoralty candidate needs to win only 6 seats in the council. This would be
3,000 + 6 (or 500 + 1 per district) or total of 3,006 votes only, assuming all
voters in all districts vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment