Single issue voting a disservice to nation

One of the unfortunate developments in this election season is the rise of single issue groups. The issues at stake in our election are too complex to justify selecting a candidate on the basis of his or her stand on a single issue. Yet that is precisely what some groups are doing, to the utter disservice to our nation.

 It is an American thing, essentially propagated by the so-called Right to Lifers. But the Pinoy copycats are not far behind. Perhaps, it is something to be expected in this age when religious bigots are on the rise. The Taliban phenomenon is not just a Muslim problem but a Christian malady as well. Fundamentalist Christians are as unreasonably intolerant of contradictory views as their Fundamentalist Muslim counterparts, a condition anathema in a democratic society. 

A religious oriented group has announced they are dropping Noynoy Aquino because of his stand on the Reproductive Health Bill. This is utterly silly as it is dangerous. It is also unpatriotic. It will deprive the nation of the chance to have the most worthy leader on the basis of his stand on a single issue he was brave enough to make public. It will perpetuate the old practice of candidates being vague on their positions on controversial issues for fear of such a backlash. It prevents the public discussions of these issues so that all may be enlightened.

In the United States, many extreme rightist groups thrive on single issue politics. Powered by non thinking members of fundamentalist Christian cults who are prone to act in a herd or mob-like fashion, these groups are unable to appreciate the fact that we live in a more complicated world than any single issue can capture. Luckily for the world, these extremist groups are small minorities.

But it is never too early to raise the alarm. The horde of unthinking and intolerant fanatics is growing. This is particularly true during election seasons when it is important for people to get a good grasp of the panoply of issues that must be confronted by voters and candidates alike. No candidate should be dismissed simply because of a stand on just one of those issues.

In like manner, no candidate should be rejected because of just one perceived flaw. There is no perfect candidate and a decision of who to support must be made on the basis of a good appreciation of the totality of a candidate’s character and track record.

Only after a pattern of moral turpitude that can be seen in a candidate’s life story should he or she be declared unfit for high public office. Unfortunately, many people can be hoodwinked into believing black ops propaganda rumors that are even most often without basis.

Voters should take the time to analyze issues and candidates and make up their own minds on who to vote rather than blindly follow endorsements of religious leaders. Voting mindlessly is probably worse than not voting at all.

I recall a public forum I recently attended where former Budget Chief Ben Diokno shared with the audience his personal criteria in selecting the candidate he will vote for next month. He said he is looking for one who shows strong leadership: imbued with the political will to do what’s necessary to achieve sustained, high, and inclusive growth.

The second item in the criteria of Dr. Diokno is competence. He is looking for one who has adequate skills and incentives to govern well and pursue a program that is consistent with national interest. We have to be alert to potential conflicts between public service and private interest.

Finally, he wants the next president to be a good communicator. Good intentions are not enough. He must be able to communicate those intentions and implement them. He must be able to galvanize the people to think of national interest rather than regional, family or personal interests.

He must be able to lead by example so that he can convince the citizenry that he is a good steward of the nation’s resources. He should have the credibility and facility to explain to the Filipino people why they have to bear a ‘painful’ reform program.

Because he is an economist, Dr. Diokno’s main concerns are in the economic realm. The most pressing issues for the new President, in Dr. Diokno’s view include a slow-growing economy that does not create enough jobs for a growing population and a looming fiscal crisis. The new President must have an idea how to generate resources needed for social spending and public infrastructure and how to improve public spending to enhance private investment.

The most critical issues to Dr. Diokno and many other economists have to do with poverty and unemployment. It is not enough to target high GDP growth unless poverty and hunger rates go down as well. We need a leader who has a good idea of how government can make growth more inclusive. Arsenio M. Balisacan, another professor from the UP School of Economics has warned that “absolute poverty is widespread — it is threatening to rip the country’s social fabric.”

Dr. Balisacan describes our country’s poverty incidence as “disturbingly high, especially in comparison with most countries in East and Southeast Asia. Its reduction is so slow, particularly compared with that in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and China, that the country has become the basket case in the region.” The new president must confront this problem more effectively.

Yet, the new president will assume office hampered severely by serious handicaps. As Dr. Diokno puts it, the new president will inherit “a republic that is teetering on a fiscal crisis: large public deficits, low tax effort, and huge public debt. Fiscal flexibility is severely constrained. Primary surplus will be close to zero this year and could be in large negative the next few years.”

But the new president must find funding anyway to address crumbling public infrastructure and large backlogs in much needed power, water, highways and mass transit systems. He also needs to spend more money to improve a dismal education system, one that was once upon a time among the best among our peers (ASEAN-5) but is now at the bottom in terms of quality.

Thus it is clear that the magnitude and complexity of the problems our new president must confront makes it utterly silly and irresponsible to use a single issue as the basis for our selection process. Our religious leaders must not confuse matters of faith with more earthly but urgent concerns that our national leader must address.

It is unfortunate that we are unable to have the principal candidates face each other in a debate of the issues that matter. We should have a debate like the one the British are now having to help them scrutinize the leaders of the three parties contesting their parliamentary election next month. Mudslinging is not the same as debating the issues. And press releases can never replace a face to face debate as a means of assessing candidate quality.

Our religious leaders, who are all better educated than the mass of their flocks, should guide rather than dictate on how and who to vote. No one who would cast his or her vote based on a single issue is voting intelligently. And unless one casts an intelligent vote, one fails to properly exercise the most precious obligation in a democracy.

Three’s company

Rosan Cruz texted me this one.

These days… when you feel like nobody loves you… like everyone is against you…

DON’T PANIC!

Tatlo na kayo ni GMA at ni Agra!

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. This and some past columns can also be viewed at www.boochanco.com