Policy

It is a good thing, this rising interest in the policy positions of the presidential candidates. That rising interest is fostered by a conscious effort among media organizations and reform-minded groups to conduct policy debates among the major candidates.

For too long, we have allowed our politicians to run atrociously lobotomized campaigns: driven by personality cult-building, animated by patronage promises and fueled largely by entertainment value. The main artillery used to be smartly conceived campaign jingles combined with thinly disguised character assassination.

The temptation to pander to populist expectations has always been great and candidates respond with soaring promises: food on every table; jobs for all who want to work; cheaper this and cheaper that. They fall just short of saying they will ban inflation and prohibit natural calamities.

In this early stage of the electoral season, we have a presidential candidate who issued a rehash of the 1987 Constitution and called that a platform of government. It is a nice pitch — because it is all motherhood statements. You know, clean government and all that.

Another major candidate issued what appears to be his platform. It consists mainly of large promises and a commitment to “review” nearly every policy item touched by some hint of controversy. He is not saying the existing policy will be altered: only that they will be “reviewed.”

Promising to “review” policy items is a cop-out. Every functional government should be doing that on a daily basis. Policies must be constantly pitted against results and illuminated by changing realities. Expressing an intention to review items of policy is not a program of government.

There is every indication that a sea-change in our electorate could be underway.

The televised debates are watched intently. People talk about points raised and positions taken by the candidates. There is a constant stream of commentary in the blogs. Young people, mainly, are discussing policy.

That is a far-cry from shallow impressions about the character of candidates, rumor-mongering about their personality flaws or emotional defects, and casual commentary about conspiracy theories. These could only cause our politics to be immature and our elections a dangerous ritual vulnerable to the most irresponsible behavior of voters.

After all, presidential elections should be all about selecting statesmen. Statesmen articulate policies clearly and build support behind policy choices. Government is all about sustaining the best policy architecture that will ensure our people’s safety and welfare.

By paying attention to the policy issues, our voters will better appreciate what presidential leadership is all about. Bad presidents make bad policy. Weak presidents produce weak policy. Confused presidents results in confused policies.

In the worst of all worlds, there are presidents who have no policy convictions at all. When the electorate is not policy conscious, we could elect presidents with no policy convictions. Indeed, we have done that before.

Presidents without policy convictions tend to be swayed by exigency, seduced by vested interests or, worse, allow policy to be a commodity available to the highest bidder. The integrity of our policy architecture will be compromised. Policies will serve the short-term and imperil the long-term. They will profit a few and impoverish the many.

As this drum-roll of nearly weekly debates among the candidates progresses, it will not be enough to merely mouth generalities and repeat aphorisms. The candidates will be constrained to be more and more specific, more and more defined in their policy positions.

That will leave us with an indelible record of what they stand for. It will be a record that ought to be the basis of our choice. It will be a record we could hold up to the eventual winner as a means for enforcing accountability from those who rule us.

Recall that, in the course of the 2004 presidential campaign, candidate Fernando Poe Jr. refused to speak about anything in particular. He outlined no policy program. He offered no vision on which to anchor his government. He was content to let his popularity win him the election.

As the campaign progressed, his base of support eroded. His lead began to dissipate. He eventually lost the elections.

That is a signal of what is to come. Our new electorate, reinforced by a new generation of voters better informed about their world, raises the bar for the aspirants for the highest office of the land.

Our voters want the next president to go through as intensive a job interview as possible. After all, this election is about our collective future and not just a candidate’s ambition.

Two-thirds of our voters, according to the surveys, will make their judgment on the basis of what they see on television. What they see on television will not just be the polished ads produced by experts at selling products. Our voters will now also be treated to frequent debates among the candidates.

That will be a democratizing process. It will cause a more even playing field that gives less advantage to better funded campaigns or better-known names.

Hopefully, as we near decision day, the intense media focus on the candidates, consciously magnifying policy statements, will produce a more mature electorate ready to choose statesmen for the nation.