In the snap election that was among the catalysts of the 1986 people power revolt, there were only two candidates.
Because the political lines were clearly drawn, people voted for the tandem rather than crossing party lines for a “combi” president and vice president.
The revolt ended Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship and restored democracy. One of the reasons for celebrating the 36th anniversary today of the people power revolt is that the fragile democracy remains in place – unfortunately, with all the ugly warts of a democratic system.
Two bedrocks of representative democracy – politics and free elections – have been progressively weakened in the past 36 years.
Philippine politics has long been characterized by what American historian Alfred W. McCoy described back in 2009 as “an anarchy of families.” People power did not change this. Today political fortunes are locked in an even tighter incestuous embrace with private business interests. With such families dominating Congress, there is little hope of ever passing an enabling law that will curb dynasty building.
The political party system, weak as it has been in recent years, has collapsed in this election season. Genuine political parties have become irrelevant, replaced by groupings formed at the drop of a hat, for the moment’s convenience.
Even the battle for official recognition between the warring factions of the ruling PDP-Laban is becoming irrelevant. Sen. Manny Pacquiao simply filed his candidacy under the smaller PROMDI party, while the other faction has not fielded or supported a presidential bet.
With no solid political parties to speak of, you can’t accuse candidates of party-hopping and turncoatism.
And without parties, candidates’ positions on issues become even more amorphous. We want people to vote based on issues rather than personalities. But what do the candidates stand for?
* * *
There are 10 candidates for president, nine for vice president, 64 for senator, apart from aspirants for seats in local government (and 177 party-list organizations). How many people have the time to get to know all the candidates and what they stand for?
It’s easier to choose candidates based on personalities rather than issues.
People simply hitch their wagon to the candidate who offers the best prospect of personal advancement for the voter, such as an appointment or promotion, jobs for relatives, or a sweetheart business deal or behest loan.
Those whose day-to-day struggle for survival leaves no room for contemplating the complexities of politics simply look to community leaders they know personally or a clan patriarch for guidance on voting.
I know household helpers and personal drivers who say they will vote for whoever is supported by their employer. The idea is that anything beneficial for the employer will be good for the employee. This thinking also helps perpetuate political dynasties.
It’s but natural for voters, when assessing candidates, to ask, what’s in it for me? In progressive societies, however, people appreciate the idea that what serves the national interest and the greater good tends to redound to the benefit of the individual.
In our country, national interest and the greater good are abstract concepts, except perhaps for those who think about the welfare of the younger generations in their families. What kind of life, what kind of society will they leave to their children and grandchildren?
* * *
Today the collapse of political parties and the shameless greed for power of certain dynasties, with relatives vying for nearly all available elective posts in a locality and the national arena, has stimulated discussion on political reforms.
Among the reforms being discussed are the return to a two-party system or at least some limits to the multiparty system, a ban on turncoatism, and long overdue campaign finance regulation that can dramatically reduce the cost of vying for elective office.
Tandem voting is being eyed, although this could go against Filipinos’ propensity to pick the president and vice president from different parties.
Some groups actively campaign for such “combi” pairings, as in the “Noy-Bi” win of Noynoy Aquino and Jejomar Binay in 2010.
Today, President Duterte’s former agrarian reform secretary John Castriciones has broken away from the party he founded, the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas after it installed Bongbong Marcos as chairman last year. Castriciones’ breakaway group, which is courting the endorsement of President Duterte and his PDP-Laban faction, is openly pushing for an Isko Moreno-Sara Duterte-Carpio tandem in May.
Another political reform being discussed is an overhaul of the party-list system. The country’s experiment with the party-list, meant to give the marginalized a voice in Congress, has become a national disgrace and a huge waste of public funds. There are people who are planning to boycott the party-list vote in disgust.
There is also increased discussion about shifting to a parliamentary system, with the prime minister elected by his or her peers – the idea being that peers will know who among them is most qualified to lead. The cream then gets to rise to the top. This is seen by some quarters as the answer to personality-driven elections.
A parliamentary system, however, can be subject to frequent leadership changes due to political turbulence, as we see in Japan. That country is protected from the adverse impact of such periodic instability by a professional and highly efficient bureaucracy – something which the Philippines doesn’t have.
Most of the political reforms being eyed will need a rewriting of the Constitution. Every Charter change effort in this country, however, will have to contend with fears – not entirely baseless – that the initiative will include moves to allow incumbent officials to stay in power forever. This fear has doomed every Cha-cha effort in the past.
So here we are, stuck with rotten systems, grappling with compromised institutions. And the promise of long-term positive changes arising from the people power revolt is still waiting to be fully realized.