More on 'If you don't know, don't vote'

The part of my column yesterday “If you don’t know, don’t vote” refers to British voters. It was from an article by Frank Skinner. Voters, whether in the UK or the Philippines, share a common problem of ignorant voting. Skinner demonstrates that ignorant votes dilute intelligent votes. Therefore the “obligation to vote” works against the intelligent vote. Ignorant, random votes far outnumber those that were made after much thought and consideration.

It was a good point of departure to discuss elections 2010 in the Philippines and the enthusiasm being whipped out by do-gooders who have championed “honest elections” against constitutional reform. So when someone asks what is this “voyage of discovery” we must be reminded that it would be different in the Philippines. First, the problem of ignorant voters in the Philippines is not just ignorance or a lack of knowledge although that is also part of it. The problem is much wider.

Election in the Philippines is an industry. What are on sale are votes and offices for candidates who are, in turn financed by big business. It is a marketplace of interests and has little to do with voters interacting with candidates or parties offering programs of government. This refers to intelligent and unintelligent voters. Elections are not understood as the democratic process of selecting those who could govern us best.

So in a sense no amount of research as Skinner exhorts British voters will help. The lady I met in Bicol who said she would boycott Elections 2010 was speaking about an act of conscience. She could not bring herself to do something that was repugnant to her idea of elections for good governance. She is incensed that if election is the vehicle through which these candidates come to power and rule over us, then she will withhold the act, the vote, that makes it possible. She is just getting back.

She is for Charter change that would give greater autonomy to local governments so there would be more money in the province’s kitty for jobs, health services, education etc. etc. Since elected officials have ignored Charter change she has no reason to support a system that benefits only politicians. Charter change was to her the one issue that would directly affect her life.

I understand why, to some, not voting in 2010 will be a futile act. As one online reader of this column said “Even if you don’t vote, somebody will win. That’s the downside. Unless a law is passed that nullifies elections if less than 50% of registered voters fail to vote. Then, what? Will the incumbents stay on as OICs? What mechanism will operate to ensure that no vacuum will ensue? The politicians, crooked or otherwise, will really have the last laugh all the way to the proverbial bank. Hopeless na tayo because our leaders have perfected the art of corruption. Our military? No way it can serve the interest of the people because there is life in government for its leaders after retirement, forced or otherwise.” Maybe.

To Skinner, quality votes in elections give at least a greater chance for the better candidate to win and he uses the example of Britain’s Got Talent Contest and how it comes up with credible winners.

* * *

Whoever is handling the publicity machine of Senator Mar Roxas is not doing him a favor. He might have sounded clever with his “kokak” and “palaka” criticisms against the Lakas-Kampi merger but nobody is laughing. I don’t know what it is about him but he can’t even be funny while cracking a joke. Neither can he be credible as a “man of the people” just because he rides the pedicab. True, his Mr. Palengke may have worked the last time but it will be out of tune now.

His latest joke can be described as an attempt to be makamasa. But it does not raise his image as a serious contender. One expects more intelligent statements about what he intends to do if he were elected. Does he have a vision for the country? Kokak. Does he have a party program for the Liberal Party? Kokak. Haay. If that is all he can do, he better say good-bye to the Presidency or making Korina Sanchez into a First Lady.

But let us give him the benefit of the doubt. I know some movers and shakers who have been eyeing him as their candidate because he is one of them, “can understand trade and finance” and at home with liberal economics, etc. Moreover he is part of the oligarchy and a scion of one of the richest families in the Philippines created partly through the use of political power. It was an earlier Roxas who presided when Americans were granted parity rights. Pictures showing this very rich, glamorous man driving a pedicab or going marketing grate. Fortunately, there are many who see through this “pretend” poverty and do not find it funny either. If he is so against “trapo” politicians he does not need to look very far.

* * *

I am more sympathetic to FVR’s complaint about the haste with which the merger was organized. He is right that if he were to deliver an inspirational talk to the merger he was concerned that CMD (Christian Muslim Democrats) was not part of the name of the merged parties. He reminded them that CMD is the basic philosophy of the organization. He also asked what would happen to Lakas CMD and its affiliation with the Christian Democrat International after the merger.

I have attended countless of meetings of Lakas CMD and CDI but neither did I see a serious plan for integrating the Muslim component of the party except through international conferences most of which were attended and organized by Christian politicians. My late husband did raise the question once in a meeting sponsored by a German Foundation with only a token presence of a Muslim in the group. Neither were the topics in the agenda intended to deepen or widen the Muslim component of the party. But CDI brand was always there. The Philippines would be a beacon for other countries with a huge Muslim population. After all, it was the only political party in the world with Muslims and Christians working together, not just in name but in reality.