One of the key challenges confronting newly demonstrating countries Is the development of political parties that are capable of providing accountable government (La Palomar/Weller, 1966). So, the two pillars of strong party ideal are: (1) programmatic platforms and (2) legislative discipline. The idea is that, in electoral campaigns, parties should present to voters coherent packages of policies that they promise to pursue, and that if elected they are capable of implementing those programs faithfully.
Description of failed parties and failed party system generally stem from the absence of one pillar. From this notion, it is of elemental importance to focus on parties in legislative assemblies for a couple of reason that the authors presented. First, assemblies are the central representative institution in all democracies. Second, assemblies are the ‘natural habitat’ of parties in government. These reasons made the parties In legislative assemblies the focal point of the discussion by the authors, because from the conventional wisdom, major policies must still be approved by the majority of an assembly, which Implies selective deadlines.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
In addition to, authors suggest factors that contribute to the viability of parties delivering accountable government which are: (1 ) the design of formal political institutions, (2) their relation to government and (3) the origins of the parties themselves. The concepts constituted in the context of new democracies of the authors can be related to the Philippine political scenario. Since the Philippines, is a new democracy in which legislatures are formed through competitive elections (Case, 2011).
However, political parties in the Philippines, and even in the world in mineral, are held in low esteem, and are often perceived as selfish, dishonest, biased and incapable of recruiting quality leaders” (Lawson 1989; 270-71 Do governments in new democracies represent their citizens? If so, are governments in new democracies capable of keeping their campaign promises and thereby responding to citizens’ policy Interests? Also, to what extent do people hold their representatives accountable? Do people care about performance, or promises, or both?
From the above mentioned concepts presented by the authors, the answer from those questions in the context of Philippines scenario is simple, Philippine parties and arty systems are weak institutions in delivering accountable government from the very reason that Philippines political parties lacks ideological bases, which made politicians especially the legislative being unable to form clear policy objectives and mandates, and in turn, this result to the failure of the legislators to coordinate cohorts behind collective goal from their ideological basis.
In developing nations such as the Philippines, where political structures are weak and with rudimentary forms of civic participation, parties are often unable to perform their task of being the most intermediate link between state and society. Rather, they are often reduced to mere radicalized expressions of prevailing elite coalitions, Instead of being the “Inclusive, responsive and responsible representation of civic interests. (Croissant and Marker are therefore induced to gather legislative and local support through the use of patronage, privilege and pork, and other forms of rent-seeking activities. To further my claims, I will take into consideration the roles of political parties in new democracies and the implications of a presidential regime, respectively. According to
Andrew Heywood (2002), they serve the following functions in a political system: (1) Representation – respond to and articulate the views of both members and voters, (2) Elite Formation and Recruitment – mold the political elite tasked to govern the body politic, (3) Goal Formation – develop programs of government with popular support, 14) Interest Articulation and Aggregation – combine and harmonize different demands and translate them into coherent policy formulation, (5) Colonization and manipulation – form a national agenda and create a public discourse to raise political wariness and build the necessary values and attitudes that would constitute a larger political culture, and (6) Organization of Government – political parties that gain the necessary votes have the power to constitute the government elite and fill governmental post with members from the party. From these roles, we can reflect how Philippine political parties can be labeled as failure. Because of the way they are organized, Philippine parties are defined in ways that often contrast to what political parties are supposed to be. They do not fulfill the task of interest aggregation but instead serve as mechanisms for patronage politics to perpetuate vested interests. Parties do not select candidates, but are instead formed by the candidates themselves as vehicles for their own campaigns.
In other words, when we talk of parties in the Philippines, there is a wide gap between standard and practice. Consequently, the public often views efforts aimed at party-strengthening as mere attempts to further entrench traditional politics and elite interests. Another is the presidential regime of the Philippines that constraints development of Philippine political parties on the basis of the factor in delivering accountable government Inch is the legislative discipline. Parties are developed alongside the development of the legislature. And if a legislature is weak vies–vies the presidency, parties tend to be underdeveloped as well, for their development would largely be dependent on the presidency.
This is the reason that some scholars are arguing that the parliamentary form of government can support the development of parties more than the presidential system Suffice to say, that Philippine political parties and party systems, as a new democracy, failed to deliver accountable government, as it fails to work out he roles of a political parties in new democracies presented by Andrew Heywood that emanates from the lack of ideological bases and in its personality- and money- based politics. As history will tell, Philippine political parties are normally used only as a political vehicle to win an election. Hence, most of political aspirants change political parties for convenience, rather than because of conviction.
This only show that the lacks of ideological commitment of the members of party because they choose parties based on the rise and fall of the tide of opportunities (H. B. No. 403). This implies “turncoats” inevitable to Philippine political parties and made voters more inclined to hold candidate base individual’s personality rather than its party affiliation and regard them as “fans-club”. From the dilemmas in delivering accountable government from the deficiency of Philippine political parties, there In the Philippines.