The Irony of Philippine Elections

Enlightened citizens who live in a democracy look to elections as mechanisms with which to effect change, both in leadership and in policy directions of the country. The irony of Philippine elections is it perpetuates the status quo of old-style, personality-driven politicking that judges candidates on the basis of their dynastic legacy, celebrity status, or social and economic standing.

This Washington Post article, “In the bright glow of a political legacy,” rightly portrays Benigno Aquino III as a legacy candidate. A low-key personality, who, several months ago had no intention of running for president, Aquino was catapulted to national fame when her mother, former President Corazon Aquino, died of cancer. Her death, according to the article, evoked “a mass outpouring of grief” . . . “that fired up the dynastic machinery of Philippine politics,” and her son “has come to embody a national yearning for decent leadership . . .” Despite an unimpressive political resume, Aquino seems poised to win the elections, although he’d be the first to acknowledge that “his candidacy was an invention of voters nostalgic for the moral clarity they associate with his parents. ‘It became an entry point,’ he said. ‘All of this became possible because of the people.’”

But who is driving the people to make these political choices? Where do Filipinos get their political education but from the political elite and the mass media who constantly intrude into their daily lives with all kinds of propaganda messages. How much of the people’s political choices is driven by political hysteria, or by celebrity endorsements, or even by bribes (for in many parts of the country, vote-buying is still the norm)?

I posed these questions to my friends in the Philippines. Some of them did say that since the Filipinos are genuinely disgusted by the rampant corruption committed by their politicians, and Aquino, whose record is thin but clean, is deemed more promising than the rest. But while this premise can only be half-true, the rest is fallacy. And it affirms my point: that Philippine politics revolves around personalities rather than on institutions (yes, those cold, hard, and impartial institutions whose check-and-balance mechanisms can correct the very corruption that eats at the heart of Philippine politics), and on the rule of law that replaces the whimsical, capricious rule by men.

Elections are supposed to be partisan battles over principles and visions.