With Mireya's approval rating down to the hard core who'd vote for a mangy yellow dog if it ran on the Arnulfista ticket, public confidence in the Legislative Assembly in the single digits and all but a tiny fringe of stupid people taking the absolute corruption of our courts and prosecutors as given, mainstream politicians are jumping on the bandwagon for constitutional reform. But beware the proposals the bandwagon's belated riders put forth.

Take legislative reform, for example. The 71 deputies and their 142 suplentes tool around the capital in their duty-free luxury cars, many going anywhere but to work, some who, in the rare instances when they do put in an appearance at the Palacio Justo Arosemena, ostentatiously count cash for all to see. Faced with serious allegations of widespread bribery --- which we have to say are as yet unproven and unlikely to be seriously investigated --- the deputies are ingeniously creative in developing novel ways to dismiss charges against themselves, but rarely even read the fine print, or look at the attachments to the legislation they pass. Suplentes are brought in to cast unpopular votes, so that deputies who are thinking of re-election can pass legislation against the public interest and then say that THEY didn't do it.

No wonder, then, that the presidential anti-corruption commission that the president is ignoring has recommended the abolition of legislative suplentes. No wonder, then, that political tricksters say that the solution for a corrupt legislature is to have fewer deputies. Arnulfista caucus leader José I. Blandon, for example, suggests reducing the number of legislators to 50, and electing them at large by province.

Think about what that would do. Think as well about the way our current multi-member circuits work.

The bigger a legislative circuit is, the more it costs to wage an effective campaign in it. Certainly in an at-large circuit encompassing Panama province, only those who can afford to buy television commercials would be viable candidates.

As it is, our multi-member circuits mean that the neighborhoods where poor people live never get represented by one of their own. If we abolished the multi-member circuits and apportioned the present 71 legislators among single-member circuits of equal population, El Chorrillo and Colon City would be represented by people who live there, and candidates without much money but with a few friends could wage grass roots, door-to-door campaigns and have a chance of winning. Now, however, those who are born rich, or who are celebrities from the entertainment world, or who have made a lot of money as taxi syndicate mafiosi or in other shady businesses, are the ones who tend represent such neighborhoods. And they hardly ever live there.

In the name of curbing an abusive legislature, suggestions like Blandon's would make the problem worse. They would, in the guise of populism, put the legislature even farther out of touch with the people whom it is supposed to represent. The way I see it, the country would be better off with more, not fewer, legislators.

(The proportional representation aspect of the multi-member circuits brings up another subject that gets beyond the scope of this column. Suffice to say that, even for those who like proportional representation's promise that more than just two major parties will be represented, the way that our current system actually works lends itself more to election fraud than to a wider legislative debate.)

From the PRD side, I noticed the other day a newspaper column by party stalwart Adolfo Ahumada, which made the argument that a second round of presidential voting would be a bad idea because it would merely strengthen political patronage as deals are made between the first and second rounds of voting. I'm not sure whether I favor a two-round presidential election process, but let's consider Ahumada's argument for a moment.

First of all, our present system of party alliances encourages microscopic factions whose purpose is to enhance a family's business with government jobs and contracts. One notorious example of this is Cambio Democratico, an extension of the Martinelli family business that stands for no political principles whatsoever. Before they sold out to the Colombians and before the voters got fed up with MORENA, both major breweries fielded their own political parties. Our public education system is going down the tubes now that the spoils system has made it a MOLIRENA patronage plum. So let us not pretend that the present system discourages the evils that Ahumada says that a second round of presidential voting would encourage.

Second, let's understand that in our present system the major parties can win the presidency while selecting uninspiring hacks, or talentless relatives of respected founding figures, as their standard bearers. It would be harder for the PRD or the Arnulfistas to get away with that if their candidates would need to mobilize a second-round majority to take the presidential sash.

I am not picking on Blandon or Ahumada because I think that they are evil deceivers. Actually, both have served their country honorably within the context of a dishonorable political system. But let's not accept the suggestions of products of that system --- or of anyone else --- without the most careful scrutiny. It looks like it won't be too long before a new constitution will be at the top of the national agenda, and we all need to think seriously about what we want and what Panama needs.

© 2002 by The Panama News All Rights Reserved For information or problems with this page contact: editor@ThePanamaNews.com
News Business Editorial Opinion Letters Arts Reviews Community Fun Travel Galleries Calendar Outdoors Dining Science Sports Español Archive Front Page also in this section: Gurtman, Honduran president