"Voters should see beyond the fiery rhetoric, the simplistic allure of populist policies and entertaining campaign sorties."
"Voters should see beyond the fiery rhetoric, the simplistic allure of populist policies and entertaining campaign sorties."
Our Constitution states that a senator should be “a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least 35 years of age on the day of the election, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election” (Section 3, Article VI).
The same qualifications go for a congressman but with a younger age limit of 25 years (Section 6, Article VI). If you meet these qualifications, you can file your candidacy for the Senate or the House of Representatives. No reference to competencies, educational training, experience, track record or character, requirements that are basic to any job application even to the lowest positions of public service.
Less than two months before the 2019 elections, that circus known as the campaign period is truly upon us. Like all midterm polls, this one will no doubt serve as a referendum of sorts for the sitting administration, and in this case that includes the unique firebrand politics and populist tendencies that Duterte continues to represent. All signs indicate, at least for now, that the message this election will send out is an affirmative one.
A recent Pulse Asia survey showed eight officially endorsed candidates by administration ruling parties will make the cut if elections were held today. This puts to rest, at least provisionally, the question of whether the President still enjoys some measure of influence in the political landscape; the incumbent typically begins to surrender some of his or her political influence at this time, when he or she is pejoratively branded a “lame duck.” Clearly, for one reason or another, that is not the case with Duterte.
Most illustrative of this is the case of none other than former Special Assistant to the President Bong Go, whose main claim to fame is literally his physical association with the President in disseminated photographs and who surged from the sixth to the 12 brackets in the January edition of the survey to the third to fifth bracket in February. Here is a senatorial aspirant whose only political capital is Duterte himself, and by virtue of that alone it had virtually guaranteed him a Senate seat, something that even the scions of political dynasties are fighting tooth and nail to get.
To a certain extent this should come as no surprise. The President continues to buck the odds and enjoy high approval and trust ratings way beyond the typical honeymoon period and despite the plethora of controversies that would have obliterated the standing of a less charismatic president.
Needless to say, this hardly bodes well for the Senate, which many see today as the last bastion of checking a broadly powerful Malacañang. That Duterte’s endorsements can rake in votes for a candidate sends a dangerous message, as it rewards, as early as now, kowtowing to the powers that be instead of providing the necessary oversight and critique, which is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.
It is possible that voters may lose sight of the main functions of a senator, which include creating and reviewing laws and investigating issues in aid of legislation. Loyalty to the sitting president figures nowhere in this set of tasks. Otherwise, a Senate filled with grateful administration allies reduces the chamber to a mere rubber stamp, the senators as puppets, the gateway to authoritarianism.
The responsibility thus rests on the voters, to see beyond the fiery rhetoric, the simplistic allure of populist policies and entertaining campaign sorties. The quality of governance that we will see depends on the names that we will select in May.
A Social Weather Stations survey commissioned by independent think tank Stratbase ADR Institute revealed that the top quality that Filipino voters look for in a senatorial candidate is someone who “will not be corrupt,” with 25 percent of the respondents answering so. This is followed by “concern for the poor” (22 percent) and “good personal characteristics” (21 percent).
While hardly surprising, these findings sharply contradict the names that currently occupy the top 12 or so spots in the surveys, which includes people who have been charged with plunder, who have blatantly launched a massive premature campaign, who have led the government’s bloody war on drugs, and who has continued to deny the well-documented plunder of the nation’s coffers by her late dictator father.
It’s clear then for many voters it is easy to be beguiled by either celebrity status or a ringing endorsement from an idolized political figure, in the process losing track of what elections are all about—finding the right people for the job, finding quality leaders for quality governance.
If the elections are in essence a job application process, foremost in the criteria ought to be qualifications. Does he have the skills necessary to do the job? Will he be able to effectively debate on complex issues en route to crafting effective laws? What are his intentions in running? Who does he intend to serve when he assumes office? Does his closeness with the president compromise his loyalty to the public? Does he have a track record of integrity and honesty in his field of endeavor? Has he shown accountability for his actions?
It’s important to remember that government officials, be they senators or mayors or congressmen, represent the will of the people. The elections take place as a means of providing legitimacy to such representation. Thus, if we elect leaders who are morally rotten, patently unqualified, and who will serve the president more than the public, their ascent to office speaks also about our quality and decisions as citizens.