Elections

Watching US elections always makes me wonder why, after our so-called 50 years of Hollywood and several more decades under Uncle Sam’s umbrella, we ended up with our chaotic and violent election system and politics driven by personalities rather than issues.

It was fascinating to watch the US presidential debates, with President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney defending their divergent views on matters affecting Americans’ health care, taxes, jobs, national security, energy and the environment. No motherhood statements there; no promise that can’t be precisely tracked along the road to implementation.

In our country, divergent views and party stands are practically non-existent in the race for the Senate and in local contests.

But in the presidential race, we actually saw some improvements in 2010, when several of the major contenders presented detailed plans ‑ in public debates and in newspaper interviews ‑ on how they intended to deal with our country’s problems.

The biggest divergence was on their views on corruption, and how to deal with the scandals of the Arroyo administration.

Sen. Manny Villar, who peaked early and eventually settled at third place behind Joseph Estrada, believed economic prosperity would eliminate corruption. Erap, convicted of plunder, could not take up the anti-corruption cause; he simply promised voters more of himself (and nearly won).

Noynoy Aquino believed that eliminating corruption would lead to economic prosperity. Among all the candidates, he was the only one who unequivocally promised to prosecute anyone involved in corruption scandals in the Arroyo administration, starting with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself. Pinoys liked the message and gave candidate Noynoy a landslide victory.

Even the team of daang matuwid, however, left much to be desired in its declaration of campaign contributions and expenditures.

*  *  *

Many of the ills plaguing our society emanate from our electoral process.

There’s the deadly violence that no administration has managed to control, ensuring more violence long after the elections are over.

There’s the glacial pace of resolving election protests, which rewards cheating. Where’s the justice in a cheated candidate being declared the real winner with only a few months left to serve in the disputed position?

With positions in the House of Representatives and local governments (plus 12 seats in the Senate) good for only three years, most of our elective officials are in perpetual campaign mode, preparing for re-election or election to another position long before the official start of the next campaign.

This is part of the reason (apart from sheer shamelessness) for the proliferation of the epal billboards and streamers bankrolled by Juan de la Cruz. For the shameless, it’s never too early to work on name recall.

Government auditors should do their job and compute how much public funds are wasted on such self-aggrandizing materials.

The opaqueness of campaign financing breeds large-scale corruption, with winning candidates repaying their unidentified financial supporters with the spoils of public office: lucrative government contracts, appointments to public positions, sinecures in government-owned or controlled corporations.

After over a decade of kicking around various proposed bills regulating campaign finance, the House of Representatives finally passed a measure: one that seeks state subsidies for political parties.

It’s supposed to level the playing field for smaller parties that lack financing. But we can be sure that by the time this bill hurdles the bicameral conference committee, all political parties big and small will be entitled to public funding, without the corresponding requirements to compel transparency in campaign contributions, fund-raising and expenditures.

In the US, campaign contributions are meticulously tracked and candidates’ declarations of donors and amounts given are closely scrutinized. Candidates raise funds openly, with big-ticket donors attending formal dinners and their party affiliations clearly delineated. You can’t have incorrigible political butterflies being rewarded with the tag of “common candidates” in that setup.

Flitting from one party to another is, of course, facilitated in our country by our multiparty system, and the fact that there are no discernible party lines on many raging issues. For a candidate, what difference does party membership make if the major contending parties have the same stand on various issues?

Political butterflies also take comfort in the fact that Filipinos don’t vote along party lines in the first place. Most of us don’t vote on issues either.

Who do we vote for? Those who can entertain us, who allow us to escape even briefly the drudgery and daily tribulations of Pinoy life.

We also vote for those who might have a job or government deal waiting for us in case he wins. We vote for those who remembered us in our times of need and celebration: “KBL,” or kasal, binyag, libing (wedding, baptism, burial), and toss in birthdays, too.

Where do we think public officials get the money for KBL? Pinoys who don’t pay taxes and have no financial stake in good governance don’t care. As long as some of the wealth is shared, does it matter to many people if the money is ill-gotten?

We can try to spread the word that good governance can empower people, allowing them to earn enough so they don’t have to depend on occasional dole-outs from political patrons.

Or we can turn social safety nets into a case for good governance ‑ something that can be jeopardized by corruption and therefore affect the poor.

Advances in information and communication technology are boosting voter education programs. There is a popular anti-epal website, and a similar tack can be taken by the movement that has just been launched against political dynasties.

Change is possible in politics and our electoral system. The pace may be slow, but change is in our hands and we can speed it up.