Ever since I could vote, party affiliation was never a serious consideration for deciding whom to vote for. It always boiled down to good guys versus rotten eggs. Later on, I learned to differentiate between the really good guys and those just posing as good guys. Now I even try to consider “the-will-this-good-guy-stay-good?” factor, with some imprecise forecasting along the way.
As far as I am concerned I have yet to see the reason for the existence of political alliances, which should be more accurately described as dalliances. The voters can hardly keep track of political butterflies fluttering from one party to the next. Coalitions are even more confusing since they merge and break apart like Lego pieces that can form anything one can imagine. In this country, what does a party bring to the party?
There have been attempts to curtail “turncoats” but again the term seems harshly inappropriate since it means a defector or traitor. To what? One can only defect from an ideology or a vision or even just a party-principle that the group adheres to. One cannot become a turncoat to a “get-together” of people who agree to stick collectively for the campaign duration, and then move on. In this environment, that’s hardly a defection. It’s more like serial dating. But those who engage in the practice too often are likely to become positive for HIV (High Incredibility to Voters).
To rephrase, what SHOULD a party bring to the party? Noted author and analyst, Andrew Heywood, defines a political party as “ a group of people organized to gain formal representation or win government power; usually displays some measure of ideological cohesion.” He describes its functions in the political system.
1. Representation - respond to and articulate the views of both members and voters.
2. Elite Formation and Recruitment - mold the political elite tasked to govern the body politic.
3. Goal Formation - develop programs of government with popular support.
4. Interest Articulation and Aggregation - combine and harmonize different demands and translate them into coherent policy formulation.
5. Socialization and mobilization - form a national agenda and create a public discourse to raise political awareness and build the necessary values and attitudes that would constitute a larger political culture.
6. Organization of Government - political parties that gain the necessary votes have the power to constitute the government elite and fill governmental post with members from the party.
In 2010, Comelec identified three types of political parties: Dominant Majority party (Lakas-Kampi); Dominant Minority Party (Liberal Party); plus six other parties namely: Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC); Nacionalista Party (NP); Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP); Partido Demokratiko Pilipino (PDP); Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (Laban) and Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL). Except for a few prominent personalities that can be identified with an acronym, I doubt if anyone can tell the parties apart, much less what they stand for.
Part of the problem is that most of the parties spawned from Nacionalista, the oldest party founded in 1907. Splinter groups such as LP, NPC and KBL broke away not because of ideological differences, but mostly from political ambitions or clash of personalities. It’s the usual all-chiefs-no-injuns situation, or egos too big for one headquarters. The 1987 Constitution allowed a multi-party system that blurred party philosophies (if any) even more.
And so the circus is back in town for its regular run — bigger, noisier and more chaotic than ever. The United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), a coalition under the troika, VP Jejomar Binay, Senate President Enrile and pormer President Estrada immediately announced a senatorial slate for 2013. With a motley aggrupation of dynastic relations, old and really old comebackers and GMA allies, UNA has taken an aggressive leadership posture. From the acronym to the early announcement of its anointed standard bearer for the presidential race in yet-so-far-away-2016, they are raring to spar.
The tactic is neither new nor without risks. Get the public used to the idea of Binay as the would-be president, using 2013 as the litmus test or a dress rehearsal for its drawing power. If UNA finds out the hard way that GMA-collaborators and trapos are unacceptable to the voting public, a valuable but costly lesson would have been learned. And it won’t be too late to shift gears for the real goal in 2016.
UNA’s reaction to Koko Pimentel’s rejection of the invitation to join their slate shows that the group doesn’t stand on any ideology. That’s why Erap was visibly irked and puzzled at what he described as Pimentel’s lack of understanding and accommodation for the decision to include Migz Zubiri. It was incomprehensible that Koko, who fought tooth and nail to get what remained of his purloined term, could not temporarily lay aside his advocacy for electoral reform. If Erap can forgive GMA for putting him in jail, even adopting her rah-rah girls in the ticket, why can’t Koko do the same for a “smaller” misdemeanor?
The Liberal Party set down some universal beliefs: “We make a commitment to always maintain allegiance to the principles of individual freedom and human rights, pluralism and participatory democracy, equality of opportunity and social justice, rule of law and good governance, international solidarity, and nationalism in all our political actions. We present to the Filipino electorate a Vision of Philippine Society, which draws inspiration from the ideals of our revolutionary forefathers who fought for democracy and self-determination based upon liberal values, yet prepared to face the many challenges facing our country as we approach a new millennium.”
But the malleable merger among past adversaries LP, NPC and NP is raising hackles. The yet unnamed coalition seals the deal. The looming contest is between creedless parties. Both coalitions’ “selection process” for their final slate, unapologetically excludes a-principle-based criteria. Everything is transactional in nature: quid pro quo. Politics in the Philippines is in dire need of deep reform.
It’s the same old circus, with the same performers, and the same acts. To expect a different outcome would be insane.
* * *
Email: citizenyfeedback@gmail.com