By LUIS V. TEODORO
Vantage Point | BusinessWorld
Five people are running for president of the Republic in the May 2016 elections. Six are contesting the vice-presidency, and several dozen are campaigning for a seat among the 12 available in the Senate.
Literally thousands more are running for:
• 297 seats in the House of Representatives;
• provincial governor and vice-governor of 81 provinces, and 772 seats in their provincial boards;
• mayor and vice-mayor of 145 cities and 1,489 municipalities;
• 11,924 seats on municipal councils; and, with the failure of Congress to pass the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL),
• governor and vice-governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and 24 seats in the ARRM regional assembly.
Free choice is at the heart of elections as an expression of a sovereign people’s will. With the thousands of candidates to in contention for elective posts, it would seem that every Filipino would be perfectly satisfied with the number of individuals from among whom he can name the country’s officials.
For president, he or she can vote for either the current vice-president of the Republic (Jejomar C. Binay, Sr.), one of two women senators (Grace Poe and Miriam Defensor Santiago), the mayor of the southern city of Davao (Rodrigo R. Duterte), or the former secretary of interior of the Aquino III administration (Manuel A. Roxas II).
For vice-president, there are five senators (Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Francis Joseph G. Escudero, Gregorio B. Honasan, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., and Antonio F. Trillanes IV) and a congresswoman (Maria Leonor G. Robredo) in contention.
To many thoughtful Filipinos, however, what the current field of candidates for president as well as for vice-president is offering is no choice, although some think that while Robredo may be a real option for VP because of her track record as congresswoman, her relative lack of public exposure, and her running with Roxas are diminishing her chances of being elected to the post.
Among people from academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), even some journalists, and certainly among those who, in the decades since the Marcos terror regime was overthrown by the military-civilian mutiny at EDSA in 1986, have been expecting that event to make a difference in the life of the nation, talk during the current election season has taken a pessimistic turn.
The choices for president, as many as the candidates may be, is after all limited to (1) Binay, who’s been accused of massive and systematic corruption; (2) Poe, whose citizenry is in doubt, and whose possibly divided loyalties could worsen the country’s already extreme dependency on the US; (3) Duterte, who’s been implicated in human rights violations and whose provincial approach to governance when applied nationally could tear an already divided country apart; (4) Santiago, whose choice of vice-presidential running mate suggests a disturbing incapacity to understand what really transpired during the martial law period and the possibility of its restoration; and (5) Roxas, whose cacique perspective only adds to his lack of leadership and shortcomings as an administrator in the many government posts he has held.
Although the country has survived the likes of Joseph Estrada, who brought into the presidency his film persona as a kind-hearted but clueless street roughneck, compared to Duterte, Estrada’s the epitome of social grace, tact, and gravitas.
Like Santiago, both Duterte and Binay are also said to have health problems, but all three have resisted revealing their medical records to a public that’s quite simply entitled to know what kind of damaged goods they may be electing to office this May. As for Poe, her changing citizenship when it suited her does raise questions about the sincerity of her claimed dedication to the country’s well-being.
Among the candidates for vice-president, the major source of distress for those who survived the martial law period and who understand that the return of authoritarian rule can come in many guises is Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. — who, the latest public opinion polls say, is either tied with, or a close second to Escudero in voter preference.
Escudero, a glib, fast-talking political operator, is himself hardly the best choice for the country’s second highest post, while, as in the case of Marcos, putting former coup plotters Honasan and Trillanes within spitting distance of the presidency would be something akin to mass suicide.
Cayetano, meanwhile, distinguished himself during the Mamasapano crisis of 2015 by demonstrating that he can always be counted on to pander to mass bigotry and to contribute further to the already dangerous division between Christians and Muslims.
Only Robredo comes close to being any kind of choice, but — so Filipinos eager to be on the winning side argue — she might not have the name recognition that primarily decides Philippine elections: meaning one shouldn’t “waste” one’s vote by shading her name in the ballot.
The problem of who to vote for under these circumstances is once more threatening to lead to even the most civic-spirited voter’s casting his or her vote for — once again — “the lesser evil.” In a demonstration of how widespread this tendency is and has been among many citizens, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has gone to the length of describing such a choice as a choice for evil, nevertheless.
As distressing as these may be, what’s even worse is that the vast majority of the electorate seems unable to break out of its accustomed indifference to track record and the lessons of history, even if those lessons were in yesterday’s headlines.
That means that they will go to the polls this May despite threats, long lines under the summer sun and technical glitches to cast their ballots for — the persons whose names they remember most. It won’t matter how corrupt, indifferent to public interest, poverty, corruption, authentic development, human rights, environmental issues, or even how close to the grave the winning candidates are. What will matter will be how well their public relations handlers packaged them, how effective their slogans were, and how much media exposure they received — which basically means how much money they had in their war chests.
A system run by money is neither free nor cheap, but extremely costly for everyone. Never is this being more clearly demonstrated than during these elections. And we’re not even talking about the senatorial elections, which are likely to add more clueless clowns and Bible-thumping bigots to that chamber’s already undistinguished character.
Meanwhile, in many communities across the country, the rule of money is as usual being supplemented by the rule of the gun, as indicated as early as this month by the mounting reports of politically-motivated killings.
It’s not only certain candidates for office who’re sick. The entire corrupt, elite-dominated system is ailing, but as in Santiago and company’s case, no one wants to reveal the extent of the disease, and what can be done about it. It explains why more and more people are throwing up their hands in frustration and hopelessness, and asking in all sincerity what it is that we did to deserve this travesty of the democratic process.
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro). The views expressed in Vantage Point are his own and do not represent the views of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.
www.luisteodoro.com
Published in the Business World
Feb. 18, 2016
