EDITORIAL - Bad to consider No-El, however remotely

Unless he was misquoted, and there is little reason to believe he was, the regional director in Central Visayas of the Commission on Elections was supposed to have said that there is a remote possibility that there will be no elections in 2016. All things being possible, the Comelec regional director is, of course, correct in that sense.

But it just does not sound right for the country's sole election governing body to suggest the possibility of having no elections, whether in 2016 or at any time when they are already scheduled. Even if the possibility is tempered by a qualifier, such as it being remote, the fact that it is being suggested at all, and by the Comelec no less, does not inspire much confidence in the democratic process.

The Comelec must remember that, aside from the courts and judicial processes, elections now remain as the only working democratic institutional practice that continue to inspire confidence in people. The system may be far from perfect, and questions never do seem to stop hounding many election-related events, but by and large they still manage to keep the democratic fabric of the nation together.

On the other hand, the failure or lack of any election, in whatever manner and for whatever reason, can be catastrophic to this country. Like the failure of the justice system, the failure to hold elections can lead to widespread disgruntlement, even possibly anarchy. For all its flaws, elections continue to place in the people that elusive sense of being in control of their own future.

There is no intention to tell the Comelec what to say and do, especially since it is an organization naturally led and peopled by highly principled and qualified officers and personnel. But if it is open to any suggestion at all, it is being humbly put forth that it refrain from issuing statements or comments that may tend to alarm people.

True, the Supreme Court temporary restraining order against Comelec's "no bio, no vote" policy may have thrown a monkey-wrench on the poll body's preparations for the 2010 elections. But people may not be faulted for thinking that the Comelec may have given up so easily. Some are even thinking, rather unfairly, that the Comelec acted like a cry-baby in suggesting that, because of the TRO, the remote possibility now exists that elections may not be held.

The Comelec, as the sole election body in the country, is presumed to eat elections for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Surely it must have in its arsenal all sorts of weapons to fight every sort of scenario that could possibly happen to a scheduled election. But in none of them must Comelec entertain a no-election scenario. The Comelec was instituted to conduct elections, not to do away with them.