Lazy politics

Philippine politics is often castigated for its traditional ways and much opprobrium is reserved for its professionals, the so-called tradpols. Yet, tradition in itself obviously deserves no automatic censure. There are traditions that are good and others that are not, traditions that remain useful and yet others that clearly have become dysfunctional.

In the minds of many Filipinos, however, it is the flawed political traditions that make the strongest impressions. Whether one is speaking of political punditry among the garrulous gaggle of news anchors, columnists and two-bit reporters or the much fancied, apparently less argumentative but equally fanatical "political analyses" of individual academics, or, finally, the simply inspired revelations of those with a direct line to God and Her minions, traditional politics is generally associated with all things dark and ugly, all creatures bad and worse. Those terrible tradpols, most Filipinos believe, are behind them all, actually made them all.

Election time highlights the popular sense of traditional politics as corrupt and corrupting, as violent and even murderous. Guns, goons and gold – the tradpols’ unholy trinity – are most remarked on during the campaign season. Dynastic succession, pandering campaigns and plundering politics are trademark characteristics of the country’s electoral process. Interlocked families are the traditional providers of candidates for public office; their obliging candidates dance, sing and declaim – mostly poorly – as the public mood whimsically demands in rallies and other venues for vote-seeking. Among those exceedingly lucky to be incumbents, the unmitigated plunder of government resources is a most visible feature of the campaigns. After all, paraphrasing a most telling rhetorical line delivered almost half a century ago, "What is one in power for?"

If one probes enough into traditional politics and its consummate practitioners, he is bound to make a remarkable discovery. It is laziness – a supreme dedication to laziness – that drives this kind of politics and those who perniciously gain from it.

It is laziness that fixates tradpols on the already ‘winnable" candidate rather than the most fit or capable who still would have to be sold to a remarkably segmentalized market – a market where much political education also happens to be a pressing need. Given a highly popular, presumably "invincible" candidate, tradpols won’t have to exert themselves much in preparing programmatic platforms of governance. They will not be burdened by programs seeking to political tutor a weak, undemocratic republic’s cynical citizenry. Neither will they have to work actively to organize latent and possibly even resistant sectoral constituencies.

It would be enough to engage in magical political illusions, casual mythmaking and fanfare politics. One then coasts to victory with an eminently "winnable", "invincible" and "breakaway" candidate. No need to work much. No need to seize the moment, only to savor each magical moment, from one hallucinating moment to the next.

The May 10, 2004 elections has a high probability of demonstrating the folly of political idleness.

Laziness is also the core value of politicians who, after decades of political preeminence, relies mostly on a political resource that they are essentially born with. Ethnic support is capital that one does not have to work for and yet gains immensely by having. While ethnicity is natural and is not bad in itself, many traditional politicians show incorrigible laziness when they do not actively work for even the legitimate interests of their fellow Kapampangans, Pangasinenses, Bicolanos or Ilongos. They simply exploit their ethnicity. No work, much gain is their favorite mantra.

The same syndrome is reflected by many tradpols who are descended from a long line of political patriarchs and matriarchs. Inheriting the politically salient name and all the resources that a political pedigree commands, these dynastic politicians seldom work to build up highly productive, modern constituencies; they wimpily conserve traditional interests that helped their families gain political power. The nation’s economic modernization might clearly counsel the contrary, but tradpols persist in comfortably cruising with oligarchs of yore, those associated with grossly inefficient industries and pernicious monopolies that drain the nation of much productivity and international competitiveness.

Lazy politicians have been the curse of this country. A critical mass of working, patriotic and humanist politicians will obviously be its singular blessing. It will be too much to hope for the latter breed to emerge in sufficient numbers from the elections of May 2004. Perhaps in three to four more generations, Filipinos will indeed witness truly hardworking politicians, not those who only appear to work hard. The former work for the nation, the latter only work for themselves.