The biggest casualty in this election is likely the political party system.
That was evident from the start. For the most part, political factions regrouped around candidates rather than candidates being drafted to espouse party positions. Personal networks were more pronounced than party formations.
This is not healthy for electoral democracy. The absence of strong political party formations makes electoral democracy vulnerable to charismatic flashes-in-the-pan. That implies a high possibility of discontinuity in policies and uncertainty in governance. A strong party system is the best guarantee for policy continuity and a selection system that provides competent statesmen for a polity.
Our electoral democracy is notorious for being personality-driven rather than platform-based. That accounts for the high degree of bureaucratic and policy discontinuity that happens when we change administrations.
The fact that our electoral politics is personality-driven encourages the circus-like atmosphere that constantly pervades our political stage. Politicians resort to anything that will enhance name-recall and build a personality cult around them. Personality-driven politics has poisoned our electoral democracy.
At no time has our party system appeared weakest than today.
At no time in the past have we seen party loyalty so diminished as a virtue as we do today. Local powerbrokers shift loyalties as casually as they change socks. They secure their own political futures by hedging their affiliations and switching to the more likely winners at the slightest excuse and with no tinge of repentance for acts of treason.
The recurrent defections constitute only the tip of the iceberg. At the local level, party identities are virtually non-existent when local leaders endorse national candidates.
Over the last few days, high profile individuals with some degree of electoral influence have endorsed candidates. Almost as a rule, they endorse people across party lines and based entirely on personal linkages.
For instance, Chiz Escudero endorsed Noy Aquino for president and Jojo Binay for vice. Joey Salceda defected from the ruling coalition to support Aquino for president. Loren Legarda, however, now claims she has Salceda’s endorsement for the vice presidency.
The textbook case for eclectic candidate-choices (and, possibly, political hedging) has to be Cebu governor Gwen Garcia.
Gwen leads a loose alliance called One Cebu. She has endorsed Gibo Teodoro for president and Legarda for vice-president. Her own son-in-law is working for the candidacy of Joseph Estrada.
Gwen’s senatorial list covers all the major factions: Ramon Guico, Bong Revilla and Lito Lapid from Lakas; Enrile, Tatad and Jinggoy Estrada from PMP; Bongbong Marcos, Adel Tamano and Gilbert Remulla from the NP; Ruffy Biazon and Frank Drilon from the LP; and Tito Sotto of the NPC.
Gwen likewise withdrew support from an erstwhile party ally, Congresswoman Nerissa Soon-Ruiz who is seeking reelection, to support an LP candidate for the district. Soon-Ruiz subsequently defected to the NP.
This textbook case of Gwen Garcia in Cebu demonstrates why, after nearly three decades since electoral democracy was restored in this land, the political party system remains severely undeveloped. There is little the national party formations can do to discipline nominal members who, at the local level, cut deals that favor their own political fortunes even as they undermine the viability of the party system.
If we look at the odd deals cut by the Cebu governor, it is easy to conclude that political parties are, at best, merely nominal tags and, at worst, functionally irrelevant.
There is every indication things will continue this way. As a people, we seem incapable of transcending personalities and investing in institutions. Institutions are the more reliable building-blocks of our public life.
In which case, our electoral politics will remain in constant flux, dependent on the stray entries and exits of charismatic personalities capable of cutting separate and anachronistic deals with local powerbrokers.
The implication is clear: regardless of whoever wins or loses in the crazy-quilt alliances-of-convenience that abounds this season, transactional politics will remain the rule of survival in the political jungle.
Gwen said it herself. In justifying her mixed bag of political endorsements, she said her choices were all about who would work “for Cebu’s agenda.” That can only underscore the triumph of particularism in our politics and, consequently, the defeat of national vision.
Over the next few days, sample ballot issued by powerbrokers — local elites as well as block-voting groups — will begin to circulate. Like Gwen’s list, these sample ballots will be mixed bags, representing the quirks and conveniences of whoever is making the endorsement.
Since party affiliation is unreliable, party identification is ultimately of little value to a candidate possessing personal resources or sufficient charismatic appeal to seek office. Since party identification is of little value, party loyalty is of little virtue.
The only benefit party identification brings is the possibility campaign funds could trickle down to local candidates from national candidates who are expected to raise money for the “party.” With electoral financing becoming scarcer with every electoral cycle, the glue that commands loyalty diminishes by the day.
The future is not bright for platform-based party politics — and therefore not bright for principle-centered leadership.