Negative campaigns and governance

In past columns, we’ve made the somewhat obvious point that elections do not exhaust the meaning or substance of democracy. However, this obvious point is lost on those who insist that our democracy "flourishes" by the mere circumstance that we have regular elections based on universal suffrage.

But as political analyst Fareed Zakaria reminds us, "free and fair" elections can produce dictators and ignoramuses or, as we often grouse in this country, movie actors and broadcast personalities. Demonstrably, democratic elections don’t always result in the most qualified and visionary leaders, but often, in the most popular.

In its best and most liberal sense, democracy means not only free and fair elections but also, Zakaria notes, "the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property." In addition, he says, a democracy’s political success is enhanced by its economic success. Many countries chart a route towards full democracy first by implementing economic reform, then political reform.

To simplify a complex argument, let’s just say that many leaders, particularly in Asia, choose to sacrifice some liberties temporarily while ensuring economic development or, specifically, high per capita national income. It’s not enough that a country as a whole gets rich, but it’s critical that each citizen has money in his pocket. That’s why all over the globe, Zakaria says, "Democracy is flourishing, liberty is not."

Many so-called democratic systems hold elections, but deny certain freedoms which might be considered fundamental. Conversely, certain democracies allow both elections and the full flowering of ostensible freedoms, but are poor. Is democracy more genuine in a system which, while allowing some measure of suffrage, denies certain liberties, but results in economic progress?

Or is it better to have a "full" constitutional democracy, but fail to achieve economic development because, arguably, of the obstacles those freedoms paradoxically present? Is a "transition" advisable, where are some freedoms are denied for a period of time, for the sake of single-minded focus on creating national and individual wealth?

What seems important, after all, in a democracy is not only the holding of elections, although that’s unquestionably important, but what the leaders chosen through that process achieve for the people who installed them as leaders. By that standard, as I’ve argued several times, Philippine democracy hasn’t worked that well.

The democratic ideal insists on quality candidates, as well as a clean and expeditious counting process, as essential to the success of democratic elections. There is little debate about that. Cheating is destructive, no matter where in the world you are. Stealing public office is never justifiable, especially by self-proclaimed messiahs.

But the devil can once again be in the details. For example, there is considerable argument on whether "positive campaigning" is more desirable than "negative campaigning," and over which mode ends up in better governance. Some think the campaign season is a time to let it all hang out, so to speak. Some candidates go to great lengths to speak only to the issues, and urge their opponents to do likewise. Failure to do so is ridiculed as demonstrating a bankruptcy of ideas, of concrete plans to improve the people’s conditions, and of a "vision."

On the other hand, there are candidates who play to the "mob" and media to indiscriminately hurl dirt at opposing candidates. It is argued that when one offers himself for public office, his personal life and past job performance are open to minute and critical examination by the public and his opponents.

In the United States, negative campaigning has developed into a black art. Its skilled practitioners are the most sought after and highly paid hit men in local and national political campaigns.

But Singapore seems to have a clear bias against negative campaigns. Critics complain that this simply reflects that nation’s well-known aversion to free-wheeling political debate. Defamation or libel suits, for instance, are allegedly used with alarming predictability against opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party.

The Straits Times editorial on the day of last weekend’s general elections argued: "What Singaporeans have no need for is negative campaigning aimed at muddying the waters and making adversaries look foolish. Mischief-making, name-calling, rumour-mongering and the making of empty promises do little to help the people understand the stakes they are to vote on. These tactics erode support, alienate voters and can be hazardous to elective politics. They divide the people. Singapore will be the weaker for it. Politicians of any good are supposed to galvanize a nation."

The positive thinkers say that "negative campaigning" diverts candidates from the issues that really matter to the people and eventually makes focused and results-oriented governance virtually impossible. Candidates whose political careers have been laid waste because of the personal attacks will look for every opportunity to hit the incumbents. The cycle of attacks and counter-attacks then perpetuates itself.

The unconvinced counter that, apart from being boring, "positive campaigning" papers over the unsavory characters of candidates and deprives the electorate of the best qualified leaders. These character flaws can manifest themselves later while in public office and present real obstacles to honest and efficient government that works primarily for the common good.

It is difficult to argue with the astounding economic success of Singapore, even as we are well aware of the deficiencies of their "social contract." One Straits Times columnist says that under that social contract, the people agree to vote for certain leaders (and, impliedly, to give up some liberties) in exchange for the government’s delivery of an economy that produces jobs for all Singaporeans, that is stable and prosperous, and results in generally good conditions to bring up one’s children in.

We are also familiar with Lee Kuan Yew’s disdain for the "chaotic" Philippine brand of democracy. But in our particular circumstances at the moment, it is time, I think for us to make a choice. Obviously, change always presents its own hazards, and we’re not even sure that people either want, or are willing to make, any changes.

Nevertheless, if it’s negative campaigning we choose, and if we opt for electoral democracy with limited economic growth, we have to realize that we have future generations to answer to.