Waiting for change

How much hope Filipinos pin on elections. Not that it’s a bad thing. After all, elections are supposed to be the real manifestations of people power in a functioning democracy.

In a government of, for, and by the people, when we are unhappy with the way the nation is being run, we wait for the next elections to change the system.

This is partly why, two years before the start of the campaign for the 2010 elections, aspirants for the presidency are already attracting a lot of public attention.

It’s easy to tell who are serious in their bids, who are simply waiting for offers to slide down to the vice presidency or to a senatorial post, and who want to be in the race simply for the fund of it. Some names are even being floated for flattery so they can later be parted with their money for other candidates’ campaign kitties.

Among the serious contenders, can we actually expect them to bring change?

There are heavyweights in this race with the capability to implement reforms in our rotten system. Even if they are swallowed up by the system of political patronage on their way to the presidency, people are hoping that the corruption that goes with that system can be minimized during their watch.

At the very least — unless one of them is “anointed” by President Arroyo as her successor — these heavyweights don’t have the baggage of rising to their positions on the wings of a divisive people power revolt, and will find it easier to unite the nation.

Or at least that’s the expectation of those for whom hope springs eternal.

*  *  *

In the meantime, we must brace for two more years of instability.

Fidel Ramos, when he was campaigning for Charter change so he could have a chance to seek a second term, famously said that six years is too short for a good president, and too long for a bad one.

What about nine years? We are seeing the consequences in the endless political turbulence and brazen corruption scandals. People who overstay in power also tend to enjoy it so much they plan to stay even longer.

In some countries, when there is deep political instability and civil unrest, elections are called even before terms are over to gauge public support for the government.

Naturally, heads of government with confidence in their mandate are the most willing to call special or snap elections.

In this country, you can see the level of confidence in the regular announcements from security officials themselves about persistent destabilization efforts.

Mention snap elections and someone can have an apoplectic fit and be rushed to St. Luke’s under cover of night for a “routine checkup.”

The argument is that term limits are set by the Constitution. And besides, who’s going to count the votes? Virgilio Garcillano and Lintang Bedol?

*  *  *

There’s the other thing we are overlooking in our excitement over the 2010 race.

When are we going to clean up the system that gave us the unresolved “Hello, Garci” vote-rigging scandal and, on a lesser scale, Bedol’s mess in Maguindanao?

Two years before the start of the next presidential campaign, the Commission on Elections doesn’t even have a new chairman. Let’s hope the next Comelec chief won’t keep himself busy with junkets in China.

Next month the Comelec will have more vacancies with the retirement of Commissioners Resurreccion Borra and Florentino Tuazon.

Perhaps the nominees for all three vacancies will be known by then. It can’t be any later if the administration is genuinely interested in changing the voting system before 2010.

A law was passed early last year for a new poll automation program following the aborted deal with Mega Pacific. We know from ugly experience that two years can be too short to prepare for the country’s first fully automated elections.

Simply cleaning up voters’ lists can be a Herculean task for our election personnel. In the 2004 elections, after making old voters register anew for a computerized list, the Comelec simply gave up and instructed its personnel to use the old handwritten lists if the computerized ones were too chaotic.

*  *  *

If we can’t even implement electoral reforms, there is no way we can see any change in the political system by 2010.

Like the congressional pork barrel system, the present political setup benefits politicians so much no one is going to lift a finger to change anything. It ain’t broke, as far as the politicians are concerned, so why fix it?

The only change they might want is a constitutional amendment to lift their term limits, and perhaps get rid of that silly best-efforts provision in the Charter to pass a law banning political dynasties.

The midterm elections last year showed us what politicians think of dynasties.

Campaign finance reforms? Transparency in campaign contributions? Even the heavyweights in the presidential race aren’t about to change the system that has benefited their personal finances so well.

And yet here we are, chattering endlessly about the best hope for the country in 2010.

Too early for election talk?

Malacañang should be grateful. All this talk about presidential aspirants distracts the nation from discontent with the incumbent.