The Politics of Capture

In the news today is the usual establishing acts of the new presidency, especially the heated run for the leadership of the Philippine Senate between Senator Francis Pangilinan and Senator Manny Villar. Already, Liberal Party is reigning in on every legislator in the Lower house and is expected to have majority control before the 15th Congress begins.

The Aquino Administration is certainly following the footsteps and directions of its predecessors, ensuring and establishing grasping hold of the Senate and the House of Representatives thereon purveying some kind of ‘capture’ of the legislature by the executive. Reminds me of Theory of Capture in Public Administration where sub-agencies in the government are controlled in order that selfish and private interests are well-served.

These moves by President Aquino are actually expected within the purview of the traditional politics extant within our midst, despite that there is overwhelming notion among us that he may be different from the rest, swerving away from being a traditionalist and monarchial head of government, being some kind of a maverick. But he is so far not showing great signs of being one—- except that perhaps his disdain of ‘wang-wang’ provides a good sign for truthful administration.

You see, in this kind of setup, Malacañang would become not merely executor of public mandate but becomes legislator at the same time. It is based on a premise of mistrust and doubt where the President ensures to the hilt that the administration holds majority number in legislature, aiming to become source of legislation despite that in law and theory, it should not be.

Independence of the second branch of the government, the legislature, is entirely negated in this manner, as it becomes merely a portion of executive mechanism, to follow every lead of the head of government and not have its own autonomy and identity. Therefore, imitating parliamentarism as lawmaking and administering is tied too closely, almost in one roof, albeit the legislature becomes superior to the executive in this situation—- allowing in essence the significant existence of merely two main branches of government—- leaving the executive and the judiciary to balance each other.

In America, former President George W. Bush had to contend with a Democrats dominated congress and despite of that, he had become a successful purveyor of laws and enactment such as the “No Child Left Behind Act” and the very difficult “Homeland Security Act”, and had even successfully arm-wrestled the said Congress into allowing America into the Second Iraq War, no matter how unpopular the initiative was.

In the spirit of synergy and organizational unity, this act of interference by the executive of the demographics of the Congress may be excused and justified, for reason such as to thwart a ‘stumbling block’ Congress, one that could entirely ruin government programs and initiatives.
However, I see this as a sign of great mistrust by the executive of the legislature, as if legislators—- the direct representatives of the people—- are mainly dishonest and irresponsible, could not be trusted with the main duty of enacting laws or even at simply deciding as to whether to vote or not to vote for a certain legislative proposal.