Brave new world of politics

In 2016, we will be electing not only the President and Vice President, but also half the Senate, the entire House of Representatives, all the governors, mayors and other local government officials. The common question is, how do we decide whom to support in this coming election? More and more, one criterion I hear about is “winnability.” This says that in selecting a candidate, he or she must have a chance of winning.

I suppose that is why many people have decided that their choice will be to elect the “lesser of two evils” and discount those who may be ideal candidates but have no perceived chance of winning. I have been told that politics is a pragmatic game and only realists should play the game.

Perhaps I am fortunate that I came from a generation when politics was only for the courageous or the idealists. It meant going against the forces of the Marcos martial law regime. Perhaps it is because I actively participated in several elections even though we knew we had no chance of winning.

In 1978, we campaigned for the LABAN ticket headed by Ninoy Aquino, and we were blatantly cheated and harassed by the KBL and military forces of Marcos. But again in the 1980 local elections we fought against the same forces in a non-violent political struggle which appeared to be a futile endeavour. This time, in the whole Philippines, three opposition leaders were elected — Joey Laurel as Batangas governor; Nene Pimentel as Cagayan de Oro city mayor; and Bono Adaza as Misamis Oriental governor.

Then in the 1984 Batasan Pambansa elections, we participated and the opposition — PDP-LABAN and UNIDO – won a few seats. Personally, I was very active in the campaign of Jaime Ferrer, the PDP-LABAN candidate who defeated Roilo Golez, the KBL candidate in the Parañaque-Las Pinas district.

Then in the 1986 snap presidential elections, I actively worked in the campaign of Corazon Aquino when she ran against Marcos. Strong forces said that we should boycott the elections, but we heeded the call of Cory Aquino to participate in the elections. After all, the only alternative was a violent revolution.

There are those who believe that politics is a power game and the most important thing about elections is winning and grabbing power. But for those who truly believe in the concept of participative democracy, elections and politics is the advancement and articulation of ideas and idealism.

When I broached this idea to a friend of mine, his response was that the Marcosian martial law era was a different time. But I wonder if there is ever an end to the struggle between good and evil. Do we support what is good only if it is “winnable”? Are we, therefore, willing to make democracy a struggle between “two evils”? What then will be the basis of our choice?

If the purpose of politics is simply to gain power, and the goal of politicians is to acquire power and influence, what is the objective of those supporting this concept? Do we then we choose the “evil” which will give us the opportunity to have influence?

Is politics really meant only for the ruthless, the power hungry and the so-called “pragmatist”? Pope Francis wrote about politics and politicians. I suppose there are those who will say that Pope Francis is too idealistic and, therefore, his words do not have any relevance in today’s world of pragmatic politicians and businessmen. But, here is what Pope Francis wrote in paragraph 204 of his Papal Exhortations:

“I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots — and not simply the appearances — of the evils in our world. Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation, and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.”

I have been fortunate to meet many politicians who I sincerely believe were in politics because it was a “lofty vocation.” There was Jose Diokno; Lorenzo Tanada; Jaime Ferrer; and Jess Robredo. Then there were Ninoy and Cory Aquino. I believe  these politicians are  the models for the type of leader Pope Francis wrote about:

“I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education, and healthcare. Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans? I am firmly convinced that openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help break down the wall of separation between the economy and the common good of society.”

The Pope continues: “The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to a new crisis. As long as the problems of the poor are not solved...no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problem. Inequality is the root of social ills.”

Who then is the pragmatic person? The one who tells us to vote only for the winnable candidate and the “lesser of two evils” and lets us live from crisis to crisis?  Or the Pope that tells us that we must not give up hope and continue to support those who are in politics for lofty purposes?

In a political world dominated by winnability and choosing lesser evils, I still firmly believe someday we will have a new world where the dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are the primary concerns of politics.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]