In the parlance of Philippine politics, a strong reputation is a pre-requisite in winning elections. With reputation comes power.
Within the Philippine political culture, reputation is synonymous with “name recall”; no matter how that name is built– either of sterling quality or of mediocre substance or even of spurious elements. More often than not, integrity and rectitude are not essential attributes.
“Name recall” is the single most important ingredient for fielding candidates. It trumps the ability to govern, a sincere desire to serve the community and to advance the common good. Talent for political leadership is not configured in the equation unless it is an aptitude for singing and dancing at the “entablado” before the adoring mob. Talent inherent in other professions or vocation is transferable and preferable topublic office seekers – the reason for a preponderance of actors, actresses, TV and media personalities seeking elective office as “side line careers”.
This political and electoral process is focused more on personality than on substance and political acumen thus stunting our growth to political maturity. Celebrities and relatives with similar surnames use the aforementioned to full advantage.
So the country is subject to luck on a throw of a dice every 3 years – hoping that the persons elected through name recall, may by chance possess the heart for good governance sincerely able to uplift the electorate.
Over the decades, with this kind of politics prevalent in the country, Filipinos begin to trust the power of personalities reducing the criteria of values and concept of good governance to secondary and minor considerations. Good leadership is misconstrued and is rated according to how they are portrayed by the media. Such is the reason for the preference and election of leaders with the likes of Manny Pacquiao, Jinggoy Estrada, Tito Sotto and Bong Revilla among others who were installed into public office and whose political provenance are questionable but whose talents for mass entertainment are impeccable.
Manny Pacquiao for instance managed to maintain hisacquired reputation. After being recognized as the World’s boxing champ, opportunities widely opened. He fancies himself as an expert in everything: an actor, a businessman, a recording artist, a model, a playing basketball coach and most especially a politician. His orientation to people was positive since he came from the grassroots.Gaining praises such as, “Hindi na mangungurakot yan si Manny kasi mayaman na ‘yan” (Manny will not be corrupt since he is already rich); “Mabuting tao si Manny kasi namimigay ng pera” (Manny is a good man since he sends out money to the poor).
We laud Pacquiao’s contribution to the country as an artist yet digging deeper, we should not jumble it with his performance as a lawmaker of the country.
House Speaker of the 16th Congress Sonny Belmonte Jr. reiterates that:
“PacMan is the second topmost absentee of the House next to Former President Arroyo”.Out of the 69 sessions, he has only attended 38 of them.
This simply shows irresponsibility in his duties as a public servant and a disgrace to his constituency. Now, he has fielded his wife as a vice-governor – no doubt, both will aspire for higher offices.
***
This brings us to the other perversion of our democratic processes:
Political Dynasty
Once public position is attained, the motivation for the office holder is not only for survival but for the propagation of the species. This is the composite of the DNA of political dynasties. No surprise then that almost 80% of the elected senators and congressmen are related to elected local government officials. Their wives, children, parents and siblings are likewise, governors, mayors, board members and councilors.
The Masa construe lineage as a criteria for good leadership. They have the opinion that “Mabait yan si Junior kasi anak yan ni Senior na mabait din.”(The son is also good since the father is good). Our incumbent President, Noynoy Aquino III exemplifies this idea. PNoy won against his contenders after being seen as the “hope of the Nation” following the remarkable reputation that his parents, Cory Aquino and Ninoy Aquino have left behind.
The problems in Philippine politics aredecidedly structural and institutionalized yetClarence Henderson writes that “The impetus for true reform must also come from the political leadership.” (Pearl of the Orient Seas: Random Thoughts on Life and Business in Manila)
Clearly the task at hand is nearly impossible with the current crop of political leadership we have – opening up a “chicken and egg” conundrum. We have however in our midst an emerging group of like-minded “out-of-the-box” thinkers and doers prepared to engage the body politic in a new political paradigm.
These Centrist Democrats understand that we need to put in place a more responsive political system and that these reforms, by their very nature, are a protracted one. But they simply proffer those that are “doable” within the context of the realities of the Filipino political culture.
They are guided by their mantra that: “We need good political leadership but what the Philippines reallyneeds is a modern political system”, thus:
-
To put in place, by law, a real political party system that can aggregate the hopes and aspirations of the diverse Filipino society, led by known moral leaders with values anchored on clear platform of governance, presenting the electorate with clear choices. We have this Political Party Bill pending in Congress for the past 15 years or so. The recent version was shot down by President Pnoy and the Liberal Party.
-
Enforcing the rule of law and re-examine and reform our justice and electoral systems.
-
Amend the 1987 Constitution and introduce a more responsive Government structure where powers are not centralized and where governance is brought closer to the governed diffusing authority and responsibility.
- Introduce a market economy imbued with clear social underpinnings, dismantling monopolies and government disallowing non-competitive practices that distort markets.
The first 2 points above are clearly “doables” by a President exercising political will and moral leadership over both houses of congress and the executive branch of government. This could go a long way towards institutionalizing the choice of values-based leadership rather than one based on personalities. The two other points could thus be the subsequent work of the right type of leadership that will logically emanate overtime from the 1st 2 initiatives.
Let me end by quoting Harry S. Truman:
“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”
000
