Family dynasty makes politics/elections expensive

After an expensive mid-term election season of at least ?150 billion, with unsatisfactory political and economic results, we have to redo our “cost-benefit” analysis of this necessary democratic process. While politics is always part of human activities among groups of people, real/legitimate elections happen only in democratic societies. Autocratic governments even cite elections as a waste of time and money, so they don’t call for elections. If they do, they rig it and dictate the winners at minimal expenses.

The challenge for democratic societies is to have credible elections at a reasonable cost relative to the size of the country’s economy (GDP), and get the desired outcomes politically and economically. The more advanced northern and western European countries have elections that are 1/10th of 1% of GDP as compared to the Philippines 1% of GDP. Australia and New Zealand also at the same percentage, but not the US, which is behaving like a developing country in their election and politics, especially in the Trump presidencies. I am not sure if it has something to do with being a parliamentary or presidential form of government, as there are also very expensive elections in parliamentary governments. I suspect it has more to do with the level of income distribution and functional literacy of the voting population.

In the Philippines, there are two major factors that make politics and elections expensive and costly which can be addressed by the people. First, is the family political dynasties where immediate members of a family and close/or relatives can run simultaneously and/or sequentially for various elective positions. Since, they are making these positions as a business enterprise from which to make money and earn a living, they will spend any amount necessary, if the pay-off in terms of salaries, perks, benefits (legal and illegal) far exceed the amount needed to win the elective positions.

If political dynasties are banned/prohibited with defined limitations, the profit incentive will diminish greatly because the cumulative financial effect of successive/generational hold on power becomes uncertain. A non-family member taking over an elective position disrupts the influence to earn and coerce businesses. There is also the possibility that a non-family member who is not corrupt will eliminate the corrupt practices and other “SOPs”, so that it will be difficult to re-establish the coercive powers of the family dynasty politicians. This is happening in the case of Vico Sotto in Pasig and in Baguio with Magalong.

The other factor that has to change is the qualifications of candidates for elective positions. As everybody has already said, if the lowliest position in the government or in the private sector requires qualifications, then there should be educational and experience qualifications for local and national elective positions. If it takes 16 years of studies, practice, and experience to be a good doctor, lawyer, accountant, or manager to be effective in their professions, what can non-qualified candidates do in their three-year terms? The learning curve in some elective government positions may even be longer, like the senators, vice president and president. And brilliant competent advisers will not help or count, as the elected officials need to have the intelligence, training, and experience to understand and discern advice to make the right decisions. Most top executives in large private corporations really earned their chops and battle scars.

Having qualifications to run for elective positions will not only remove nuisance candidates who are off their rockers, those clearly unqualified, but also delinquents/drop-out family members of political dynasties. This will also limit ambitious celebrities who are banking on their fame and fortune to get elected, whose objectives are for more fame and fortune.

These two needed changes, anti-family dynasty and candidates qualifications need an enabling law and/or constitutional amendment to take effect. These can be done without a constitutional convention if both houses of Congress will pass it as constitutional amendments. As this is unlikely to happen, the people should push for a constitutional convention or mount a people power to force these amendments.