Virtual runoff

I think everybody now agrees the present contest for the presidency has narrowed into a two-candidate race. And in that narrower contest, the choices are starker and the considerations larger than the mere personalities engaged in electoral battle.

It is time for followers of the lesser candidates to reassess their choices in the light of the real options now confronting the nation.

In most other electoral democracies with multi-party systems, a run-off election is provided for to ensure that the fractious election process ends up producing a majority government. That two-stage elections process ensures that multi-party systems do not end up perpetually creating weak governments and unstable leaderships.

In the first round of voting, all those fit to seek the presidency are allowed to run. But in the second round of voting, only the top two placers remain in contention. This two-stage process ensures that the eventual winner will have a majority mandate.

The framers of the 1987 Constitution provided for a multi-party system, anticipating a shift to a parliamentary form of government. But when, by a single vote, the Constitutional Commission decided to return the presidential form of government, the commissioners forgot to provide for run-off elections.

As a consequence, the two presidents elected under the 1987 Charter – Ramos and Estrada – were mere plurality presidents.

Ramos, with the smaller plurality, adapted to the predicament better. He moved quickly to build a "rainbow coalition", consolidate a majority party and reach out to the various political forces.

Estrada, with a bigger plurality, was more complacent. He did nothing to expand his effective political base, making him vulnerable to political isolation. We saw what happened as a result.

In the absence of a mechanism for a second round of voting to produce a majority presidency, the voters themselves must now assume the responsibility for providing the eventual winner a stable electoral mandate.

Fortunately, we have some of the most sophisticated polling organizations anywhere in the world. They have established records for accuracy in the previous electoral exercises. The polling organizations have provided us clear snapshots of voter disposition in the course of the present campaign.

The result of every survey is, of course, a snapshot of voter disposition at the moment the survey was taken. But we have at least two reliable survey organizations and several survey outcomes produced each month. Those factors allow us to appreciate trends in voter preferences.

The trends could not be clearer than they are now. We have seen the multi-candidate presidential race narrowing to two main contenders with any realistic possibility for winning on May 10.

The surveys tell us that the stage has been set for a virtual runoff.

There is nothing dishonorable in shifting one’s allegiance to either of the probable winners, depending on which one most closely resembles the voter’s imagination of the more desirable future for the nation. Shifting candidate preference happens all the time in electoral systems that feature a runoff election.

I can understand that supporters of the lagging candidates would appeal to voters to stick by their first choices – no matter the odds. That may be a romantic way of looking at the relationship between the voter and the candidate he most prefers. But it is also self-serving for candidates who insist on remaining in the game against the odds, in attendance of a miracle or despite physical disability to campaign or to govern.

Many of the most ardent supporters of the lagging candidates continue to hold on to the distant possibility that the tides of public opinion would suddenly shift and allow them to seize victory from the claws of defeat. It is a belief held against laws of probability – or one premised on some accident of history happening. Some are looking for a brilliant masterstroke of political maneuver: a merger here, a miracle there or a sudden blunder on the part of the survey leader that would send their candidacies crashing in flames.

There is no shortage of attempts to get a lucky shot through the statistical odds. Some candidates have tried to disqualify their main rivals by filing all sorts of disqualification suits. There are dark rumors of plots to physically eliminate rivals or pull acts of terror to break the momentum indicated by the slew of surveys that have been taken.

Unless anything really earthshaking happens, the trends indicate that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will win on May 10.

The incumbent has demonstrated a consistent momentum in gathering voter support. She has slowly but surely climbed up from fourth place to first in the voter preference measures so far taken. She is supported by a large political coalition that has at least one candidate for every elective post.

Now, she had the overwhelming support of the business community, the people who look far into the nation’s future. She will likely benefit most from the fallout from Roco’s departure. The normally critical NGO community is now reassessing its options and seems prepared to endorse her candidacy in the face of the stark choice realistically left our people.

The followers of Raul Roco and Eddie Villanueva are an idealistic lot. That idealism has earned our respect. But the two aspirants now have beleaguered bids.

But at some point, they will have to look at the larger picture and make painful decisions.

The starkness of the choices in what is effectively a two-candidate contest forces all of us to reassess our choices in terms of contrasting futures represented by the top two contenders.

One represents, despite all the imperfections harped on by rivals with no clear program of government to offer, a continuation of the modernization reforms to bring about a society that thrives in the 21st century. The other represents a resurrection of all the personalities, the cronies and the opportunists of the Marcos and Estrada periods – dark episodes in our national past.

This is no longer about choosing one candidate, warts and all, over the other. It is about choosing between the nation moving forward or moving back.

The clearer the larger considerations are for our voters, the more likely it will be that in the remaining three weeks we will see the dynamic of a virtual runoff election taking hold.