Governors, mayors, and punong barangays should promote and embrace community power.

The proposal to abolish the current bicameral Congress and shift to a unicameral parliamentary system is a recurring topic in Philippine political discourse, often promoted as a mechanism to curb corruption, increase legislative efficiency, and foster economic stability.

Proponents argue that a smaller, single-chamber parliament reduces operational costs and eliminates the pork barrel funds associated with the current system. Studies have suggested that parliamentary systems, particularly when combined with a unitary structure, can reduce levels of perceived corruption.

Unicameral legislatures also allow for faster lawmaking, eliminating the bottlenecks and deadlocks often created by having two separate chambers, such as the Senate and the House.

A parliamentary system holds the government directly accountable to the legislature, with the Prime Minister and Cabinet easily replaced by a vote of no confidence, which can create a more responsive government.

Supporters argue that removing the upper house and focusing on a more efficient legislative body can save billions of pesos, which can be redirected to infrastructure and economic development.

However, risks remain. The primary risk of a unicameral system is the loss of a second review mechanism, which can lead to flawed legislation.

Contrary to the goal of reducing corruption, a smaller, single chamber can sometimes make it easier for special interest groups to influence legislators, as they have fewer people to lobby.

A single chamber might also fail to represent regional or minority interests, often leading to the dominance of more populous areas.

Critics argue that changing the form of government is not a panacea. Success depends on electing competent leaders and implementing strict, effective laws against corruption.

While some call for a “political reboot,” others argue that simply changing the system may not work if the same political culture persists. Transitioning to a unicameral parliamentary system is aimed at improving speed and reducing costs, but it requires careful design to ensure that accountability and rigorous debate are maintained in the absence of a second chamber.

Changing the political system, however, may not be enough. Our situation is that of a dysfunctional democracy that calls for a fundamental overhaul of prevailing political systems, structures, and processes to combat deep-seated corruption, fix inefficiency, and address the lack of public trust, essentially giving it a fresh start or clean slate.

This goes beyond ordinary adjustments, aiming for significant improvements in governance, often involving new electoral rules, stronger institutions such as the Ombudsman, an independent audit commission and judiciary, increased citizen participation, and new ethical standards for public servants.

It is time for outstanding local chief executives to promote community power and lead the way.

Community power is a transformative approach to governance and social change that shifts decision-making and resources from central authorities to local people.

Key aspects of community power involve local control, collective action, and shared decision-making, enabling residents to influence services, resources, and policies that affect them, shifting power from institutions to the community for better outcomes in health, the economy, and governance through participation, leadership, and the building of social ties.

Email: arturobesana2@gmail.com