ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF COLLECTIVE RULE
Collective Rule vis-à-vis One-Man Rule
At the national level, collective rule is the norm in the parliamentary system, while one-man rule is the
modality in the presidential system. At the local level, collective rule is practiced in the council type
system, while one-man rule is followed in the mayor type system.
At the national level, collective rule merges the political branches of the executive and the legislature,
but leaves separate and independent the non-political branch of the judiciary. At the local level,
collective rule merges the legislative council and the executive mayor.
Advantages of Collective Rule
Collective rule has various advantages over one-man rule for purposes of “good governance”. It
promotes proficiency, integrity and accountability in the making and implementation of decisions.
PROFICIENCY. Collective rule by its inherent nature harnesses collective wisdom. It extrapolates to a
higher level the idiom “two heads are better than one”.
INTEGRITY. Collective rule impedes graft and corruption because its group-based mechanism
necessarily requires the disclosure of material information to many individuals. As human experience
shows, “corruption thrives in secrecy, and withers in the light”.
ACCOUNTABILITY. Collective rule strengthens accountability because it separates the “exercise of
power” from the “ultimate hold on power”. As political reality shows, the individual with delegated
authority to exercise executive power, routinely defers to the collective will of the assembly of people's
representatives, because this body holds the ultimate authority to hire-and-fire him.
Collective rule weakens the control or influence of the oligarchs and the family dynasties over the
government, by dispersing the ultimate power of control from one individual to the assembly of
people's representatives. At the same time, it strengthens the government vis-a-vis the powerful vested
interests, by consolidating the law-making and law-execution powers in the assembly of representatives.
Furthermore, collective rule diminishes the natural advantage of “rich and famous” candidates over
competent but unpopular candidates, by replacing one large national constituency with multiple small
local constituencies. Notably, a manipulative mass media is less effective in smaller constituencies,
because here the voter has greater chances of knowing the real qualities of the candidate.1 Moreover,
the selection process involving multiple small constituencies requires a substantially lower number of
votes to win the post of chief executive.2
1
The electoral process for public officials needs to be designed in a manner that is immune from any deliberate
manipulation of public opinion by mass media, considering that many television stations, radio stations, broadsheets,
tabloids and online news sites, are by common knowledge owned or influenced by the oligarchs and the family dynasties.
2
For example, in a state with 10,000,000 voters and only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000,000 + 1 votes to win as
president (chief executive), assuming that all voters vote in a “presidential system” with direct voting. On the other hand, in
Finally, collective rule makes the chief executive more readily removable for acts or omissions
involving fault or negligence, through a mere vote of “loss of confidence” in the assembly of people’s
representatives, rather than through an impeachment trial, administrative proceeding or criminal
prosecution.
Disadvantage of Collective Rule
One disadvantage of collective rule is that it is open to instability. Since the chief executive is usually
removable at any time by a vote of the majority of the members of the people’s assembly for mere loss
of confidence, there can be frequent changes in political leaders over short durations like every few
months or years. Changes in political leaders ordinarily involve changes in policy. This results in the
unpredictability of government that eventually hampers business and economic activity.
Nonetheless, this political disadvantage may be avoided if the method to hire-and-fire the chief
executive is modified. The modified method can make it easy to “hire” the chief executive (such as by
simple majority vote), and difficult to “fire” him (such as by qualified 2/3 majority vote). Once elected,
the chief executive can hold the position until the expiration or termination of his membership in the
people’s assembly, or until he is earlier removed from office by qualified majority vote.
This modified method of hiring and firing the chief executive may strike a balance between the need to
address the disadvantage of instability, and the need to retain the advantage of accountability.
This material was written ex-gratia by Demosthenes B. Donato
for Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.
All intellectual property rights are granted to the public domain.
24 January 2017. Makati City, Philippines.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of TanDem.
a “parliamentary system” assuming 100 districts with 100,000 voters per district, the party of a candidate for prime minister
(chief executive) needs to win only 51 seats in the parliament (national assembly). This would be 2,550,000 + 51 (or 50,000
+ 1 per district) or total of 2,550,051 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.
Another example, in a town with 10,000 voters and only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000 + 1 votes to win as mayor,
assuming that all voters vote in a “mayor type system”. On the other hand, in a “council type system” assuming 10 districts
with 1,000 voters per district, the party of a mayoralty candidate needs to win only 6 seats in the council. This would be
3,000 + 6 (or 500 + 1 per district) or total of 3,006 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.