Testing One, Two, Three…
December 7, 2003 | 12:00am
If polls mean anything, the people’s pick for the next Philippine president has swung a complete reversal in about a week – from an (according to some) ineffectual trapo to a high-school-dropout-turned-action-star.
Ugh. Only in the Philippines could there be such dread leading up to democratic elections. So what’s a Filipino voter to do?
I know this may be hard to accept, but perhaps this democratic election stuff isn’t really the ticket. Hey, it hardly even works in the United States (more on that later). Nor do I agree with bringing back a benign "dictator type" like some folks who are fed up with the choice of leaders have suggested.
No, here’s what I propose instead. Mandatory testing.
That’s right. I would implement a battery of tests – physical, mental, managerial, ethical – that would objectively choose a leader based on his or her strengths, rather than their hidden weaknesses.
And think of it. Since this is the Philippines, such a contest could quickly be turned into a TV show. (Gyrating sex-bomb girls in the background? That’s an option...) It would in fact be the ultimate reality show: Who Wants 2 Run Da Country?
This show would combine elements of Fear Factor, The Amazing Race, Survivor and "brainier" programs such as Jeopardy and Weakest Link. Yes, there would be some math required. But also endurance tests to measure how well a candidate copes with full working days. (I wonder how many in Congress could pass that?)
In fact, the program could easily get underway right now, as the would-be presidentiables prepare to file their candidacy papers. How about video crews following every move and misstep of those threatening to run for office? Just think how viewers would enjoy watching their favorite candidates squirm under the relentless gaze of 24-hour TV coverage.
Then you’d really get a chance to see the presidentiables in action: on the ground, unguarded, behind the scenes. Warts and all. You’d see just how many SUVs they have parked in their driveways, how many square hectares make up their "compounds," and witness just how they treat their househelp. It’d be an invaluable education in democracy.
And that would just be the early campaigning. Once the race is down to two or three candidates, then the serious testing begins. The first round would feature would-be presidentiables answering questions on live national television, measuring their basic stock knowledge. It would be like a trip back to high school for most candidates (too bad for those who never graduated): Philippine history, math, science – reading and writing, too! Upon such lofty skills are great leaders founded, I say.
That would be the "buzzer" round, of course, on Who Wants 2 Run Da Country? Whoever scores the most points would quickly pull ahead in the "mental competency" category. Physical prowess could be measured next with marathon races along Roxas Boulevard, hikes up and down Mt. Apo, you name it. And while this test may seem like more physical strength than is required of even the average Filipino voter, well, think of the strength it takes to put up with lousy leadership year after year after year.
After the "action" part of the program, there would have to be some measure of ethical competency. A series of multiple-choice questions could ferret out wayward tendencies among the candidates. Here’s a sample question:
"You are surprised to enter a room packed wall-to-wall with gold bars. Do you: A) Quickly measure the doorway to see how many bars you can cart off in one trip, B) Use your cellphone to call a helicopter which could easily carry the whole load, C) Start drawing maps and break out the shovels, or D) Turn the questionable find over to the proper authorities (assuming there are any)?"
I know what you’re thinking: it’s easy to fudge on such tests. History has shown there are charismatic leaders who are shrewd and intelligent but largely corrupt and evil. Look at Marcos. That’s why I propose a live, televised polygraph examination by the NBI to weed out some potential pitfalls.
Sample questions:
• "True or False. I have never cheated on my income taxes."
• "True or False. I have never, to my knowledge, killed anybody or ordered anyone to do so."
• "True or False. Neither I nor anyone in my family has opened or kept a secret bank account under an obviously false and easily traceable nickname."
And that’s about it. The candidate with the most points in all categories (disregarding the swimsuit competition) would then be sworn in and move their stuff into Malacañang Palace. The whole thing could be accomplished in a week or two, depending on ratings and advertising. It sure would be less painful than counting ballots.
Yes, I know. Counting ballots is a time-honored foundation of democracy, almost as time-honored as stuffing ballot boxes. But, as I say, democratic elections don’t always quite work, even in the US.
Most people recall that in the last US presidential election, George Bush lost to Al Gore by about 500,000 popular votes, but still won in the "electoral college." I’ve participated in about four US elections, and I still feel a sense of confusion about the electoral college. Electors are elected by voters in each state, but personally, I’ve never seen the name of a single elector on a ballot. Who are these people? All the US Constitution tells us is that the electors "may not hold federal office." The electors traditionally vote for their political party’s candidate, but they’re not required by law to do so. They could all simply be disgruntled Wal-Mart employees, as far as US voters know. Imagine the fate of the US presidency being held hostage by 538 Wal-Mart employees who don’t get coffee breaks.
As a group, the electoral college is about as shady as the famous "Nielsen Family," whose TV viewing habits determine what Americans watch on television. In fact, the two groups may be one and the same.
The US electors meet six weeks after national elections are held (on Dec. 18) to vote and turn their sealed ballots over to members of Congress, who sit around buffing their nails until January 5 of the following year, then open and count the 538 ballots to name the new president. This is all in the US Constitution.
So theoretically, a candidate may win the popular vote, declare victory, start picking out wallpaper and new table lamps for the White House, hire a U-Haul truck to move his belongings to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, only to be told on Jan. 5 that, no, sorry… it was the other guy. I’m sure Al Gore, for instance, is still trying to get his deposit money back from U-Haul.
My point is simple. US democratic elections may be wacky and unpredictable, but they can’t hold a candle to Philippine elections. And if the Nielsen family ever got a chance to watch Who Wants 2 Run Da Country?, I’m confident they’d know a hit when they saw one.
Miraculously, there are still copies of The X-Pat Files and Kano-Nization: More Secrets From The X-Pat Files available at local bookstores this Christmas season. Please be advised.
Ugh. Only in the Philippines could there be such dread leading up to democratic elections. So what’s a Filipino voter to do?
I know this may be hard to accept, but perhaps this democratic election stuff isn’t really the ticket. Hey, it hardly even works in the United States (more on that later). Nor do I agree with bringing back a benign "dictator type" like some folks who are fed up with the choice of leaders have suggested.
No, here’s what I propose instead. Mandatory testing.
That’s right. I would implement a battery of tests – physical, mental, managerial, ethical – that would objectively choose a leader based on his or her strengths, rather than their hidden weaknesses.
And think of it. Since this is the Philippines, such a contest could quickly be turned into a TV show. (Gyrating sex-bomb girls in the background? That’s an option...) It would in fact be the ultimate reality show: Who Wants 2 Run Da Country?
This show would combine elements of Fear Factor, The Amazing Race, Survivor and "brainier" programs such as Jeopardy and Weakest Link. Yes, there would be some math required. But also endurance tests to measure how well a candidate copes with full working days. (I wonder how many in Congress could pass that?)
In fact, the program could easily get underway right now, as the would-be presidentiables prepare to file their candidacy papers. How about video crews following every move and misstep of those threatening to run for office? Just think how viewers would enjoy watching their favorite candidates squirm under the relentless gaze of 24-hour TV coverage.
Then you’d really get a chance to see the presidentiables in action: on the ground, unguarded, behind the scenes. Warts and all. You’d see just how many SUVs they have parked in their driveways, how many square hectares make up their "compounds," and witness just how they treat their househelp. It’d be an invaluable education in democracy.
And that would just be the early campaigning. Once the race is down to two or three candidates, then the serious testing begins. The first round would feature would-be presidentiables answering questions on live national television, measuring their basic stock knowledge. It would be like a trip back to high school for most candidates (too bad for those who never graduated): Philippine history, math, science – reading and writing, too! Upon such lofty skills are great leaders founded, I say.
That would be the "buzzer" round, of course, on Who Wants 2 Run Da Country? Whoever scores the most points would quickly pull ahead in the "mental competency" category. Physical prowess could be measured next with marathon races along Roxas Boulevard, hikes up and down Mt. Apo, you name it. And while this test may seem like more physical strength than is required of even the average Filipino voter, well, think of the strength it takes to put up with lousy leadership year after year after year.
After the "action" part of the program, there would have to be some measure of ethical competency. A series of multiple-choice questions could ferret out wayward tendencies among the candidates. Here’s a sample question:
"You are surprised to enter a room packed wall-to-wall with gold bars. Do you: A) Quickly measure the doorway to see how many bars you can cart off in one trip, B) Use your cellphone to call a helicopter which could easily carry the whole load, C) Start drawing maps and break out the shovels, or D) Turn the questionable find over to the proper authorities (assuming there are any)?"
I know what you’re thinking: it’s easy to fudge on such tests. History has shown there are charismatic leaders who are shrewd and intelligent but largely corrupt and evil. Look at Marcos. That’s why I propose a live, televised polygraph examination by the NBI to weed out some potential pitfalls.
Sample questions:
• "True or False. I have never cheated on my income taxes."
• "True or False. I have never, to my knowledge, killed anybody or ordered anyone to do so."
• "True or False. Neither I nor anyone in my family has opened or kept a secret bank account under an obviously false and easily traceable nickname."
And that’s about it. The candidate with the most points in all categories (disregarding the swimsuit competition) would then be sworn in and move their stuff into Malacañang Palace. The whole thing could be accomplished in a week or two, depending on ratings and advertising. It sure would be less painful than counting ballots.
Yes, I know. Counting ballots is a time-honored foundation of democracy, almost as time-honored as stuffing ballot boxes. But, as I say, democratic elections don’t always quite work, even in the US.
Most people recall that in the last US presidential election, George Bush lost to Al Gore by about 500,000 popular votes, but still won in the "electoral college." I’ve participated in about four US elections, and I still feel a sense of confusion about the electoral college. Electors are elected by voters in each state, but personally, I’ve never seen the name of a single elector on a ballot. Who are these people? All the US Constitution tells us is that the electors "may not hold federal office." The electors traditionally vote for their political party’s candidate, but they’re not required by law to do so. They could all simply be disgruntled Wal-Mart employees, as far as US voters know. Imagine the fate of the US presidency being held hostage by 538 Wal-Mart employees who don’t get coffee breaks.
As a group, the electoral college is about as shady as the famous "Nielsen Family," whose TV viewing habits determine what Americans watch on television. In fact, the two groups may be one and the same.
The US electors meet six weeks after national elections are held (on Dec. 18) to vote and turn their sealed ballots over to members of Congress, who sit around buffing their nails until January 5 of the following year, then open and count the 538 ballots to name the new president. This is all in the US Constitution.
So theoretically, a candidate may win the popular vote, declare victory, start picking out wallpaper and new table lamps for the White House, hire a U-Haul truck to move his belongings to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, only to be told on Jan. 5 that, no, sorry… it was the other guy. I’m sure Al Gore, for instance, is still trying to get his deposit money back from U-Haul.
My point is simple. US democratic elections may be wacky and unpredictable, but they can’t hold a candle to Philippine elections. And if the Nielsen family ever got a chance to watch Who Wants 2 Run Da Country?, I’m confident they’d know a hit when they saw one.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>