A young Turk in Congress articulated a clear vision for making reforms durable by streamlining the government.

“There are countless proposals on the table, but I have one clear bias: we must drastically reduce the government’s overhead costs,” the House member told Nosy Tarsee.

He devised his formula on the premise that every politician creates a new office, hires additional staff, and has higher maintenance and operating expenses. This structural reality raises a fundamental question: why do we continue to develop more political positions when there is already an oversupply of politicians?

Ultimately, the voters decide who gets elected. What the government can do, the proposal goes, is to reduce the number of positions.

Consider comparative data. India’s Parliament has 543 members, yet its population is about twelve times larger than the Philippines. 

On a per capita basis, that would mean the Philippines should have roughly 45 members of Congress not 316. India does not even have a Senate. By contrast, the Philippines has a House of Representatives, a Senate, governors, mayors, sanggunians, and the Sangguniang Kabataan.

“This leads to an uncomfortable but necessary question: do we really need all these positions? With all due respect to the Sangguniang Kabataan, is it indispensable?” 

His argument: If we reduce the number of political posts, government spending would fall significantly.

The Philippines has one of the highest number of politicians per capita in the world.

There is also a cultural dimension at play, one that favors the constant creation of positions for everyone. Beyond elected officials, nearly every sector has an association — often extending down to the barangay level.

This becomes especially evident during the Christmas season, when countless groups seek funding for their celebrations. It is then that one realizes just how many associations exist, with every barangay seemingly home to several.

At that point, it becomes more practical to deliver assistance directly to households — food packs, for instance — rather than channeling resources through an endless web of organizations.

“This is not about personalities; it is about structure,” he said. 

As long as political positions continue to multiply and inefficiency is institutionalized, it should come as no surprise that governance remains bloated, costly and dysfunctional.