2016 presidential choices: Beyond good or evil

Carmel V. Abao

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

2016 presidential choices: Beyond good or evil
We do not need another hero or a warrior or a saint. We just need someone who is visibly intent on deepening Philippine democracy.

 There is a silver lining to all the early campaigning (and mudslinging) that’s been happening lately. It gives us, voters, ample time to discern our electoral choices. It makes us ask early on: who should be president in 2016?  

In this piece I argue that the “who” question is necessary but insufficient. Our discernment must extend to the “what” and the “why”, and, we need to think of the presidential elections as the choice for a presidency, not just a president. It may no longer be enough to choose between a “good” or “evil” presidential candidate (or worse, between two or more “evils”).  

As in good music, good politics is always about the “singer and the song.” It cannot be either-or. While ethical and integrity issues should be part of our discernment, these must be combined with an analysis of the demands of the presidency as a public office and whether a candidate can satisfactorily meet these demands. This way, our choices will be based not only on envisioned human behavior and human relations but also on an envisioned design of public institutions and state-society relations.

Discerning electoral choices must entail not just an ethical/moralistic perspective but also an institutionalist one. The latter is important because electoral choices are political choices and politics is largely about the banal, complex task of organizing society through institutions. It is not about paths to a metaphysical heaven or hell. In electoral exercises, thus, even one’s concept of what’s good and what’s evil has to have some metrics.  

Stretching presidential prerogative

Politics, to a very great extent, is about running public affairs and administering public development. In a unitary, presidential system of government, the President is the chief administrator of a very large organization: the nation.   

Running a nation is never just a one-woman/man affair. In discerning the “good” presidency, we need to be informed of how a presidential candidate intends to choose (in cases where s/he can) and relate with other institutions that participate in a nation’s development. In this regard, we need to ask a number of questions: How will the presidency choose its Cabinet? From what political tendencies and/or social groups will the cabinet come from? Will the choice of political appointees go through a vetting process? How will the presidency relate with the bureaucracy? What is the envisioned executive-legislative-judicial relations? How does the presidency intend to engage with groups technically outside the governmental machinery but within the ambit of government (e.g  civil society groups, lobby groups, pressure groups)?   

These questions will be important in 2016 because thus far, the presidency that we have seen since 2010 is one that has been visibly increasing its presidential prerogative. Very early on, we saw how PNoy stretched the limits of executive-judicial relations by refusing to be sworn in by then Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona and later, by pushing for Corona’s impeachment. Recently, we saw how this presidency defended initially the PDAF and later the DAP as reforms in public finance, despite dissent from both the Supreme Court and sections of the general public.   

We should also ask how a presidency will relate with local governments. A colleague of mine recently pointed out that what is ironic about this government is that it stretches executive prerogative over national bodies like Congress and the Supreme Court but it cannot intervene in local governance even when necessary. For example, it has taken Malacañang quite a long time to resolve the issue of the Manila ports which local mayor (Estrada) has been practically lording over. Malacañang, too, has not been able to stop a local mayor (Duterte) from repeatedly saying he will kill criminals (obviously a human rights issue).  

The stretching of presidential prerogative should be part of public discourse leading up to 2016 because the idea actually cannot be framed in simplistic “good versus evil” terms. On the one hand, it could lead to executive tyranny that may or may not lead to martial law (i.e executive orders and legal instruments are employed instead of military force) but is, nevertheless, “tyrannical.” On the other hand, it could lead to a proactive presidency that may be of positive value given some vision of change or in situations that may require the pushing of constitutional boundaries (e.g the Bangsamoro issue). 

There are thus many questions to be asked of a 2016 presidential candidate: How will s/he use presidential prerogative? Will s/he increase this prerogative;  why or why not? Which additional presidential prerogatives does s/he want to ‘constitutionalize’ or legislate? How will s/he handle or manage dissent over her/his envisioned use of presidential prerogative? 

Message to the elite

In a country where poverty incidence is high and there is a large gap between the rich and the poor, a presidency cannot but address the issue of wealth creation and distribution. “Para sa mahirap” was popularized by Erap Estrada in 1992 but the slogan is in fact a staple in electoral politics – before and after Erap. Immediately post-Marcos, both Presidents Cory Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos vowed to turn around the country’s image of being “the sick man of Asia.” The current PNoy presidency, meanwhile, has vowed that “walang mahirap kung walang corrupt.” The truth of the matter, however, is that after 28 years of democracy, our country is not any wealthier. 

Income equality must be at the heart of the next presidency’s agenda. A growth agenda will not be enough because evidently, since GMA’s time, our GDP has been growing. Even an “inclusive growth” agenda may also not be enough, especially if it does not explicitly reveal how growth will redound to income equality.   

The metrics for this growth and income equality agenda have been forwarded by many quarters. The economist Prof. Ciel Habito, for example, has been repeatedly arguing for his PiTiK test – Presyo (Prices), Trabaho (Jobs), Kita (Income). Each of these tests represents a particular problem that needs particular solutions. The solutions, of course, must find coherence in broad economic policy but we need to know: How will prices of basic commodities be lowered? How will jobs be generated? How will incomes be increased?    

The next presidency must be clear on how each of these problems will be solved. Even PNoy’s successor will have to be clear: what will s/he do differently in terms of economic policy? What solutions have been tried and should be continued/discontinued? Will migration, for example, be continually promoted or should jobs here at home be the priority? What necessary solutions have not been tried? Whose voices have not been heard? What are the political requirements of an economic policy that puts premium on income equality and not just on growth? How will these requirements be met?  

Clarity regarding economic policy must include a message to the economic elite of this country. Thus far, only the message to the poor is clear (magtiwala sa gobyerno, magsakripisyo, etc). The presidency’s message to the elite has yet to be clarified. 

Functional versus radical presidency

There are a number of political theories on the “types of presidency.” In my mind though, and, thinking as a voter, there are just two types  (note: the plunderous type should be immediately out of the equation). 

The “functional” presidency is one that will improve on existing systems and faithfully implement constitutional mandates. This type of presidency is clear on what can and cannot be done given the existing legal and governmental environment. A functional presidency thus will curb corruption, deliver basic services and develop programs for social development, and, protect the nation’s sovereignty. It will be professional rather than personalistic. It will focus on tasks rather than on perks and privileges. It will also subject itself to accountability measures.  

In a country where political institutions can hardly be characterized as effective or clean, a functional presidency might in fact be already radical. The radical type of presidency that I have in mind, though, is one that will analyze which structures in society perpetuate inequality and will have ideas on how these societal (and not just governmental) structures can be changed. It may not be enough for a presidency to tell us how poverty will be alleviated, rather, s/he will have to tell us how the poor will no longer remain poor. It may also not be enough for a presidency to say “kayo ang boss ko” or to be “pluralistic” because doing so neglects underlying unequal power relationships in society. The next presidency will have to be clearer about which societal voices will be listened to and which social forces will be strengthened – and why. 

What voters should demand

Given all this, who then should be president in 2016? There is a process of elimination going on in my mind but I am well aware that this is not yet the time to make a decision. Choosing a president should not be done in haste. For one, not all choices have been presented.

For another, I think there are two things that voters should first push for before (or alongside) making electoral choices:  free and informed choice and democratic party politics. 

Free and informed choice. Elections are important because people’s consent is central in a democracy. As we have seen in past elections, however, this consent can easily be manipulated through a number of means: empty promises,  simplistic political advertising, money/bribery, intimidation, even murder.   

In this country, there are a number of social institutions that dictate the choices of voters. When political clans and organized religions and fraternities, for example,  require their faithful (membership) to take a particular electoral choice without benefit of deliberative processes, that choice becomes unfree and uninformed. In this connection, we must push clans and churches and fraternities to stop dictating upon voters.  

While “group choice” during elections is unavoidable, this has to be anchored on individual discernment. This is because it is only on election day that we can call ourselves truly equal. On election day, it doesn’t matter if one is rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight, religious or atheist, young or old, literate or illiterate, employed or unemployed –  we all get one vote each. This kind of political equality does not come very often, and this is why we should take elections very seriously.   

What we voters should be pushing for right now is more information, and, truthful information. In the Binay case, for example, it doesn’t really matter if the issue originated as a political strategy of the other (Roxas or Cayetano) camps. What is important is that we get to the truth because if the allegations are true, then the country might again find itself in the hands of a plunderous president.    

This is where media institutions come into the picture (as Prof Solita Monsod has pointed out, litigation of the Binay case will take years). Media has to be more investigative than sensationalist. It should give us citizens more information rather than conclusions (because we have to form the latter on our own).  In the Binay case, for example, it has to be established that the dummy corporations behind the “Hacienda Binay” are indeed dummies because the issue at hand is precisely the Binay family’s acquisition of massive wealth while in public office.  That is the truth that has to be uncovered. It doesn’t matter what Roxas or Cayetano says. What matters is the evidence that is available; there should be documentation somewhere of transactions surrounding the sale, acquisition and development of such a large property. At this point, it is only the media that can provide us this kind of information.  

Democratic political parties. Philippine political parties have been repeatedly characterized as weak and therefore the prescription is for them to be strong. I agree with this characterization because evidently, it is political families rather than party organizations that dominate our elections. I would like to argue, however,  that what we need are democratic rather than strong parties. I think what is plaguing our political party system is the absence of internal party democracy. In many cases, only party ‘higher-ups’ decide on who gets to be candidate,  what campaign strategies will be used, etc. There is no real political discourse within parties. 

Real political discourse within political parties is important because if government is the “output” institution, the party is the “input” institution. A political party is supposed to be the source of party leaders, political platforms and accountability mechanisms. It is supposed to feed into government structures and processes. Thus, before party leaders can earn the support of the public, they must first earn the support of their party mates; before legislative proposals are debated in the halls of Congress, they must first be debated within the party; before erring and abusive politicians face the law, they must first face party discipline. But the requirement of all this is that party structures are real and party processes are democratic. 

The demands for free and informed choice and democratic political parties are not likely to be fulfilled by the time of the 2016 presidential elections. But these can guide us to ask the right questions about those who are offering to govern us. Moreover, we can view each election as an opportunity to breathe new life into democratic values that are too often dismissed as either as a given or an impossibility. 

In 2016, what we will need is a candidate who can engage us in a collective, honest-to-goodness reflection on the limits and possibilities of our democracy and who, most likely, can lead us in the much-needed restructuring of Philippine politics and society.  

We do not need another hero or a warrior or a saint. We just need someone who is visibly intent on deepening Philippine democracy. – Rappler.com

Carmel Abao teaches political science at the Ateneo de Manila University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!