Similarity and differences

Elections are also held this year in the USA, the supposed show window of democracy. Candidates for various positions from the Presidency down to the State offices are currently in the midst of a frenzied campaign to woo the sovereign will of the electorate. During the few days I have been here observing their political exercise and the rules of their electoral game, the striking similarity and differences with our own elections are at once obvious.

The adage that "you can’t fight city hall" is really true everywhere. A candidate seeking to unseat an incumbent official undeniably faces an uphill fight in the political battlefield. There is simply no such thing as a level playing field in politics when the fight is between the one in power and those out of power attempting to wrest it through the ballot. Some political pundits have termed this as the "equity of the incumbent". In our last elections, all the opposition groups have repeatedly complained and openly accused President Gloria M. Arroyo of using government funds and resources in her campaign for re-election. Some of them went to the extent of filing suits in court to disqualify her only to be rebuffed because they cannot substantiate their allegations. There is really no surefire way to distinguish the "official" from the purely "political" activities of an incumbent during an election year. In the US, the same holds true. The Associated Press (AP) reported that President Bush is using Air Force One for "re-election travel more than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by the taxpayers". The AP tally shows that in the 17 months since January 2003, Bush has made 114 trips aboard Air Force One. At a cost of $56,800 per hour to fly this plane, that’s a lot of taxpayers’ money. So while "Democratic rival John Kerry digs into his campaign bank account to charter a plane to roam the country, Bush often travels at no cost to his campaign simply by declaring a trip "official" rather than "political", concluded AP. It would thus appear that in any democracy, the incumbent is "more equal" than his rivals during an election. But this is as far as the similarity between the Philippines and the US elections goes.

More striking are the differences specifically in the enforcement of election rules. The American counterpart of our Comelec is the Federal Election Commission (FEC). But unlike our Comelec, the FEC strictly enforces the guidelines it promulgates in conducting the campaign and holding the election. It even requires the White House to declare when the use of Air Force One is purely political or official. And if the White House says that the use of Air Force One is for political purposes, it requires reimbursement to the government an amount equivalent to a first-class fare for each political traveler on each leg. This amount is definitely small to cover the $56,800 per hour cost of flying Air Force One. But what is more significant is that the rule has been set up and it is being enforced and observed.

Strict enforcement of election rules is really the biggest difference between ours and the US elections. This is most noticeable in the posting of campaign posters and propaganda materials in public places. Admittedly, there is a marked increase of posters and billboards dotting the American landscape this election year. Yet they do not uglify the surroundings because they are not indiscriminately posted in any place. Walls, posts and trees are spared. Campaign billboards are artistically erected on the ground along streets and highways up to certain height. The American way simply proves that compliance with the rules on the posting of campaign materials entirely depends on the candidates themselves who voluntarily choose to observe them. In the Philippines no such candidate exists. All candidates violate the election rules on campaign propaganda and the grossest violators of them all get elected.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]