During elections, politicians are very critical of government policies that fail to curb poverty in the country. They see poverty and government failure everywhere. But after elections, poverty mysteriously disappears. The new winners belittle the impact of Really Existing Poverty in the country. They even accuse the lazy, noisy, and non-competitive poor of destroying the image of a progressive and soon-to-be First World Philippines.

To win over the trust of the poor, politicians depict themselves as saviors of the poor. Macapagal was the Poor Boy from Lubao; Ramos vowed to help the Mang Pandoys of the Philippines; Erap was para daw sa mahirap; Gloria was Inang Bayan, Ate Glo, and Gloria Labandera. Patronizing the poor is a sure-win formula, even if it is insincere.

Villar was aware of the power of the masa vote. This was evident in his campaign slogans, “Ang galing sa hirap ay tumutulong sa mahirap” and “Tapusin ang kahirapan” which made him an early frontrunner in the 2010 elections. Even Noynoy had to re-calibrate his campaign, initially focused on the anti-corruption fight, by linking poverty and corruption – “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Afraid of losing the support of the poor at the start of the campaign period, Noynoy had to pander to the masses by assuring them that he is also concerned about their plight – which was quite different to his pre-campaign pledge of “Hindi ako magnanakaw.” And most important of all, Kris (minus Baby James) was dispatched to entertain the crowd. Let ‘em eat Kris.

But the masa vote is ridiculed. The poor are condemned for selling their votes to the highest bidder. They are mocked for joining hakot rallies. The poor are stereotyped as unthinking beggars who are willing to sell their principles, kidneys and even their children for a small amount of money (preferably dollars).

These accusations are harsh and unfair. The behavior of the poor must be interpreted in the context of their concrete conditions. It is more precise to claim that the poor, because of their circumstance, are forced to make absurd and unreasonable decisions. But from their point of view, these choices may not be irrational especially if these will allow them and their families to survive during these difficult times. What we should ruthlessly examine is the unjust social order which perpetuates the exploitation of man by man. Those who deserve our politically-incorrect indignation are the defenders of this abominable social set-up.

The actions of the poor during elections are not necessarily uncritical. Their motives are more sophisticated than we think. There are voters who sell their votes in order to earn or acquire something tangible from entrenched political families. They believe that selling their votes is a wise economic choice because they do not expect the winners anyway to perform good politics after elections. Others just wanted to spite the electoral process, a meaningless political event for many people.

Money is not the only reason why poor voters participate in hakot rallies. They want to be entertained. And they do not want simple entertainment; they want politicians to entertain the crowd. They want to see the candidate warlords and landlords humiliated or even booed in public. They want to witness how politicians perform like clowns on stage. After all, these dancing and singing politicians will not be seen in public again after three or six years.

Maybe the poor are not hesitant to ask for money during the three-month campaign period because it is the only opportunity to demand something from politicians without being refused. And politicians during elections are very willing to distribute money to the poor because this cash hoard does not really belong to them. It belongs to the public, to the poor, to us.

Can we then describe the actions of the poor during elections as acts of resistance? The poor are unaware of their untapped political power. Today they sense that the only political option is to sell or not to sell their votes. But one day, and that day will come thanks to the power of collectives, the individual poor will realize the radical potential of being an organized poor. That solving poverty, defeating the oppressors, and reclaiming humanity are possible without the fulltime intervention of elitist politicians. That politics is more than just elections because real politics involve the conscious and bold attempt of the collective to assert its power in the community.

In summary, do not simply instruct the poor to reject vote buying. Organize them. Make them militants of politics fighting for democracy and justice.

Related articles:

Poverty indicators
Balik Probinsiya
Urban displacement
Poverty and system losses

The local official is not exaggerating since politicians are really expected to shoulder the financial burden of their constituents. They are supposed to donate a small or big amount of money every time they receive a request for financial assistance. There are members of Congress who are afraid to go home to their districts because they have no more money to give to their constituents.

That people seek monetary assistance from local politicians is an indicator of the failure of the national government to provide adequate social services at the grassroots level. For example, if there was an efficient universal health insurance system as was promised by the president, there would be no relatives of sick patients begging for money inside the offices of local politicians.

But politicians are also to blame for people going to them for financial aid. The precedent is set during elections, when politicians distribute small value items like clothes, food, school supplies and even cash gifts to buy the votes and loyalty of voters. Other election giveaways include movie tickets, eyeglasses, hats, kitchen aprons, shoes, graduation medals, water pumps, health insurance cards, scholarships and free burial services.

Politicians also often claim credit for the construction of various government projects even if public funds were used for the implementation of these programs. They plaster their faces and names on giant billboards to remind voters of the services and free items they have given to the community out of the goodness of their hearts. During campaign rallies, the beneficiaries of numerous social service programs are identified by politicians.

Instead of encouraging individuals and groups to be self-reliant, politicians are ready and willing (and even happy) to offer financial responsibility for the everyday needs of their constituents during elections.

The practice of asking politicians for money should be discontinued because it promotes mendicancy. Worse, some politicians justify corruption by citing the need to provide assistance to their constituents.

If gift-giving is the preferred tactic by politicians who want to win in elections, then only the rich and super rich candidates will win every three years. Rich politicians who won in 2010 will be defeated by richer candidates in the future.

Politicians should offer good governance and not their pockets. Let other groups and individuals practice charity. Politicians should not be distracted from their real work. Besides, distributing gifts to voters during the campaign period is a form of vote buying and it is illegal.

Politics versus Pork

But why discourage charity? Because solidarity is the better approach if we are sincere in helping the oppressed. Eduardo Galeano reminds us that “unlike solidarity, which is horizontal and takes place between equals, charity is top-down, humiliating those who receive it and never challenging the implicit power relations.”

If giving “pork” is to be dissuaded, what will legislators distribute in their territories? What “bacon” will they bring home to their constituents? The answer is simple: Politics. Distribute politics. Bring home politics. Promote politics. Practice politics.

Politics has a negative meaning since it is associated with power-hungry leaders and corrupt politicians but it should have a broader interpretation and value. Politics should not only refer to elections and to the persons who hold public offices; it should also involve the continuous but often tenuous interaction between leaders and citizens of a polis.

Politics is not something that only few people can enjoy; it should be familiar and useful to everybody in the community. Politics that truly empowers the oppressed; politics that promotes genuine democracy and solidarity in society. Politicians should bring politics, not Pork and monetary perks, to the grassroots.

Politics is more powerful than Pork. Infrastructure projects do not last forever since they can be damaged by natural elements and the next administration can order the destruction of these structures. If there is budget deficit, there is no Pork. After ten years, the people will forget the pork barrel initiatives of a politician. But politics is infinite since its source of strength is the inexhaustible will of the people. Through politics, the people can assert what programs and projects should be prioritized by the government. Through politics, the people can become the government.

The principal task of politicians, especially those who claim to be servants of the poor, is to create and enhance opportunities for the people to practice politics. Adopting the popular concept of good governance is part of the agenda but it is insufficient. Politicians should not just strive to be moral public servants, they must also believe in the primacy of political actions. Otherwise, performing personal acts of kindness will continue to be misinterpreted as a function of politics and this distorts the radical potential of politics.

A politician who renounces politics and concentrates on pork projects is a dangerous political creature. This is someone who deliberately obscures the political field which deprives citizens a better chance to engage in politics. The motive is to weaken and distract the political fighting capability of the people. A politician who rejects politics is a politician who is afraid of his constituents. He abandons the political project in order to embrace the politics of pork, whose sustainability is dependent on the personal generosity of the Mafia Master in Malacanang. In this case, the porky politician’s source of confidence is not the politics of the people but the violent machinery of the ruling State.

Practicing politics should be enough. Legislative performance can be easily measured by using various quantifiable indicators but how do we measure the “political” performance of politicians? It is the community who will judge the “politics” of politicians but History will give the final verdict. Let us include “politics” in the debates and we can begin by reminding the people that through their activities they can jolt politicians into action. It means politics is alive as long as the people are active and interested in creating a political event.

In summary: dump the Pork, practice Politics.

Remember Ramon Magsaysay’s famous line – “Can we defend it in Plaza Miranda?” There was a time when politicians were capable and willing to engage in public debates, often in a town square like Plaza Miranda. They could speak for hours advancing their positions or belittling the arguments of their rivals. Through these debates, national leaders emerged and many of them were outstanding orators like Ferdinand Marcos and Arturo Tolentino.

Today campaigning has changed. Magsaysay’s line is no longer appropriate since the validity and popularity of a political statement is determined if politicians can defend it not in Plaza Miranda but on national television. For political partisans, the decisive question is – “Can we defend it in facebook?”

In the recent elections, candidates became winnable bets if they performed well in the talkshow-inspired debates of Harapan (ABS-CBN) and Isang Tanong (GMA-7). Candidates were given 30 seconds to one minute to address the public. They have to articulate their platform, discuss national issues, and mock their rivals in this limited time. They lose support if they speak too long.

Can you imagine asking Sergio Osmena to explain the Hares-Hawes Cutting Act in one minute and then Manuel Luis Quezon is given 30 seconds to oppose the measure? Unthinkable in the 1930s but in today’s real-time world where conversations between human beings have been reduced into 140 characters, it seems quite fair to require politicians to deliver instant soundbytes.

The debate format (and the TV medium) does not favor the untelegenic and slow speaker. On the other hand, the winners in McDebates are not those who said something substantial but those who delivered memorable quotes. For example, Chiz has already mastered the science and art of issuing “digestable” press statements while Erap’s one-liners are often headline news material. This is also the reason why TV broadcasters have been topping the senate race in the past decade. Poor Gloria Arroyo – for ordinary TV viewers, her masungit na mukha and insincere smile are always a turn-off.

What is worrisome is that McDebates have the power to influence the voting decision of the TV audience. Voters actually believe they could adequately and intelligently judge election candidates by watching these fastfood debates. They should recognize that the primary aim of giant TV networks is not to perform public service but to improve TV ratings.

*************************

Sensing that many voters behave like costumers in fastfood outlets, candidates are using “McDonaldized” methods in presenting themselves to the public. In other words, candidates have to acquire the features of a fastfood menu: easy to remember names (Noynoy not Benigno Simeon), bright and colorful images (yellow ribbon, orange check), intriguing slogans (Gusto ko happy ka!), and McSize platforms (Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap). Using superheroes is also cool (JusticeMan).

Candidates are “packaged” like a consumer brand. They have to be appealing to all types of consumers. They also have to use persuasive labels to clinch the support of discerning customers.

That voters can change preference throughout the campaign period is often mistaken as proof of existence of genuine freedom and democracy in the country. This so-called voter preference is no different from how neoliberaloids use the term consumer choice to defend the free market. We are free to choose as long as the choice is limited to what the single market has to offer. We are free to choose our leaders as long as the choice is limited to what bourgeois parties are offering.

But how do candidates determine the public sentiment? They hire PR firms which rely on opinion polls to measure the voting trend in the country. In the past, political parties use their ground machinery to investigate the needs and desires of their constituents. (Activists prefer to use the term Social Investigation). But today this political activity has been transformed into a pseudo-scientific (objective) enterprise. The masses and classes have been reduced into numbers. To empower the grassroots is to target the audience profile of TV networks.

PR firms are now more decisive in establishing the image and campaign content of a candidate. Parties and politicians have no choice but to submit to the wisdom of these modern-day astrologers and alchemists. They use various techniques to condition the minds of the public. The goal is not to democratize public opinion but to highlight a particular opinion, or emotion, or mood (usually, panic) even if it doesn’t serve the general well-being of the public.

*************************

May 10 didn’t start well. Long lines in voting centers, disenfranchised voters, erroneous flash cards, broken PCOS machines, bomb explosions, vote buying. But all these problems were instantly forgotten when the Commission on Elections announced that it already received 50 percent of election returns in the country just a few hours after the closing of voting precincts, For Philippine standards, this was fast, super fast. And this was enough to declare the auto polls as a successful election exercise.

The tragedy in the recent auto polls was not the malfunctioning of the machines but the immediate acceptance of the public that the machines delivered credible results. Equating speed with accuracy is a dangerous thinking but it is the dominant belief today. Anything fast is convenient, true, modern. Fast delivery of pizza, instant pregnancy test result, realtime conversations, live coverage of events, Wikipedia search results.

One reason why we are bothered about the slow canvassing of results in Congress is the fact that we have already accepted the results of the elections. For many people, they were not simple election results; they were super fast transmitted results and they have to be precise. To believe that the digital results contained erroneous data is to accept a dangerous idea that the realtime world of exchanges on our TV and computer screens is also infected with false reality.

If we are ready to believe that instant wealth can be created and then vanish in split seconds in the mysterious stock market, what is so harmful in the belief that trapos can also win and lose in a virtual game?

Behold the emergence of digital democracies.

Barring any unforeseen events or extra-legal surprises over the coming days and weeks, Sen. Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ Cojuangco Aquino III of the Liberal Party will likely be proclaimed the next president of the Republic of the Philippines.

Noynoy topped the exit polls and unofficial canvassing of the May 10 elections and, based on tallied results, he received more than 12 million votes, with the next candidate trailing him by about 5 million votes.

Noynoy’s apparent victory is historic for two reasons—he’s the first Philippine president to win an automated election and the first bachelor president. But it could also be a historic presidency for another reason—it could be the country’s last.

If the Lakas-Kampi Party, which still dominates the country’s Congress, succeeds in its plan to adopt a parliamentary form of government by amending the Constitution, Noynoy could be the Philippines’ final president.

Noynoy seemed to many destined to lead the country—his grandfather was the Speaker of the Congress, while his father was a senator and martyred opposition leader; his mother was herself once president. So when Corazon Aquino died last August, Noynoy’s supporters prodded him to run for president, reminding him of his duty to continue the legacy of his parents.

But it would be unfair to attribute the surge in Noynoy’s popularity solely to his ‘royal’ blood line. After all, for many, Noynoy has a spotless reputation as a public servant—no mean feat considering he was a congressman for nine years and senator for three. Throughout his time in public office, Noynoy has not, so far as we are aware, been involved in any corruption scandals or anomalous government contracts, and there were no reports of him having abused his position as a presidential son when his mother was president.

In a typical election year, even this squeaky clean record wouldn’t have been enough to win the presidency, but it seems Filipinos today are desperately looking for leaders like Noynoy.

Or to be more precise, Filipinos today want new leaders who are the opposite of incumbent President Gloria Arroyo. After nine years in power, Arroyo will step down next month as one of the most hated politicians in the country’s modern history, if surveys are to be believed. Aside from being accused of committing electoral fraud, human rights violations and abusing her presidential power, Arroyo is also embroiled in numerous corruption cases.

Noynoy succeeded in presenting himself as the antithesis of Arroyo, promising not to steal and vowing to prosecute Arroyo for all the alleged wrongdoings committed by her and her underlings. If Noynoy’s candidacy was jumpstarted by the death of his mother, his victory was made possible by fanning the anti-Arroyo flames in the country.

But like any heroic figure, Noynoy still had a real fight on his hands during the election. Throughout the three-month campaign, Noynoy had to fend-off criticism from rival political camps and overnight critics. Some accusations were baseless, such as Noynoy’s supposed mental illness. But there were also some more serious allegations that affected his campaign. For example, Noynoy’s qualifications as a national leader were questioned when rivals exposed his uninspiring legislative record, while others believe he exploited the memory of his beloved deceased parents to ‘inherit’ the presidency.

Meanwhile, critics from the left took him to task over the decades-old promise of his family to distribute a huge sugar plantation estate owned by the Aquino family to more than 10,000 small farmers. The estate, known as Hacienda Luisita and located in Tarlac Province, is the second-biggest family-owned plantation in the country and has become a national symbol of the continued reign of feudal landlords and oligarchs in rural Philippines.

So how did Noynoy address the legitimate issues raised by his political enemies? Asked about his lack of experience and underwhelming performance as a legislator, Noynoy’s spokespersons highlighted his integrity and sincerity as a leader. Noynoy for his part downplayed the land ownership dispute by accusing his critics of politicizing what he said is, to him, a simple business matter between landowners and farmer-tenants (Aquino was later forced to pledge to place the controversial estate under the land reform programme in the next five years).

But if Noynoy seemed evasive when responding to charges levelled against him, he was aggressive and precise in identifying the many alleged sins and weaknesses of his main rival, Sen. Manny Villar. Noynoy described Villar as a dangerous and corrupt leader no different from the incumbent president, and went so far as to describe Villar as Arroyo’s secret candidate. This propaganda drive was instrumental in undercutting Villar’s growing support base, which at one point threatened Noynoy’s once insurmountable lead.

During the last leg of the campaign, Noynoy’s celebrity sister was able to broaden the appeal of Noynoy among the poor by joining the campaign sorties of the Liberal Party. Noynoy also bombarded the public with TV infomercials (a move that contradicted earlier Liberal Party claims that Noynoy didn’t have the resources to match the deep war chest of his billionaire rival). After securing the official endorsement of an influential church group last April, Noynoy’s victory seemed assured.

And so it apparently was, according to exit polls and unofficial canvassing tallies. The poll body’s unfinished official count showed Noynoy leading by more than 5 million votes over his closest rival, meaning that even claims of irregularities would be unlikely to tarnish Noynoy’s win. Indeed, Noynoy’s lead is one of the biggest in the country’s election history.

But this landslide victory has been overshadowed somewhat by Noynoy’s failure to completely vanquish the party of the incumbent president. Not only has President Arroyo succeeded in her unprecedented bid to clinch a Congress seat, her party remains the biggest political bloc in the lower house.

Arroyo has the numbers for the speakership, and even if she fails in her bid to become speaker of the House of Representatives her party remains a formidable threat to Noynoy’s new government (Arroyo could use the Congress’s impeachment powers to win concessions from the executive branch).

And should Arroyo become speaker of the lower house, she could ‘command’ members loyal to her to pass a resolution that would empower Congress to amend the Constitution and adopt a parliamentary form of government. Lakas-Kampi Party members, including Arroyo, have been advocating this change for more than a decade.

The only impediment to such a plan in the past has been the recalcitrant opposition of the senate. But today, Noynoy doesn’t have enough senate members to dictate the chamber’s leadership, meaning an anti-Noynoy leadership could end up controlling the senate and working with a pro-Arroyo lower house to undermine the new government. If this happens, and the Constitution is amended, the next national elections might be to select the country’s members of parliament for a parliamentary system of government.

As the new leader of an impoverished nation of more than 90 million people, Noynoy is faced with a daunting task. He has to turn around the economy, restore public confidence in government and unite a deeply divided nation. But with a soon-to-be former president having decided to postpone her retirement from politics, Noynoy’s attention might, sadly for the Philippines, be divided into two: fulfilling his promises to the nation while trying to protect his presidency from those who want to steal it.

1. So Far, Not so Bad
2. Disenfranchised Voters
3. Philippine Elections: The Good, the Bad, and the Funny
4. Replace or Retain Voting Machines?
5. Election Bugs
6. Battle of the Endorsers
7. And the Winners Are…

I’ve also written weblog reports about the ongoing political tension in Thailand. My focus is the citizen media coverage of the protest crackdown in Bangkok. These roundups were written for the Global Voices:

1. Thailand: Protest blockade ends in violence
2. Bangkok clashes: Pictures, Videos and Twitter reports
3. Thailand: Red Shirt protesters remain defiant
4. Thailand: Arson in Bangkok, protests spread to other provinces

“Smorgasbord of snippets”

On the new batch of senators – Their mandate will end on 2016. Six of the 12 winners are incumbents, while four are former senators. Two are children of former presidents, three are children of former senators, and three are grandchildren of former senators of the Republic. Four are actors and five are lawyers. Seven are from Luzon Island, four are from the Visayas, and only one came from Mindanao. Nine are candidates of the opposition. The top senatorial candidate received more than 18 million votes while the 12th senator garnered almost 10 million votes. Surprisingly, a TV/film star topped the senate race. No actor won in the 2007 senatorial elections.

On effective endorsers – There are winners, losers, and endorsers during elections. The list of winners and losers are now posted online, but it’s also worthwhile identifying the effective endorsers in the recent elections. Candidates need endorsers to improve their ratings, but sometimes even the most famous celebrities can’t reverse the sentiment of voters. It’s not enough to buy the support of well-known individuals and groups; candidates should first and foremost convince the public that they are superior over their rivals.

Unbelievable numbers – The recently concluded automated elections in the Philippines were immediately hailed as successful for producing quick and credible election results. Indeed, the counting and transmission of votes were quick. But were they accurate? Some candidates are claiming they were cheated and they say they have the numbers to prove it. The auto polls are now finished but canvassing of results is still ongoing. Reports of auto fraud continue to rise prompting some analysts to rethink their earlier judgment about the auto polls.

On the PCOS machines – Filipinos may be satisfied today with the performance of the PCOS but once the euphoria has died down maybe they will remember the flaws of the PCOS machine which affected the credibility of the automated election system. Maybe Filipinos will cite the inadequate security features of the machine and the awkward ballot design that was used in the elections. There are more advanced voting machines used around the world and the government should seriously consider looking for better alternatives than PCOS. If the government opts to use the PCOS again, it should correct the weak features of the machine. More importantly, the poll body should start training its personnel so that it will be more competent in handling the next auto polls

Who are the Red Shirts? There are Reds, Yellows, Blues, and Pinks in Thailand. Let’s call them Thailand’s colored protesters. The political drama in Thailand can be compared to the Edsa Dos experience of the Philippines. I believe Thaksin is Thailand’s Erap but there are obvious differences. The Red Shirts are not the original provocative rallyists of Bangkok. The Yellow Shirts were more daring. Now these Yellows are in power

Check out my shelfari profile and review the books in my library.

If you believe in democracy, then vote on May 14. If you want deserving candidates to win, then encourage others to vote as well. If you want to remove incompetent leaders, then volunteer to guard the counting of votes. This is our duty as responsible citizens. Our vigilance is the price of freedom we are enjoying today.

Forty-five million voters are expected to flock the polling centers next Monday. First-time voters will comprise a significant block. It is hoped they will make informed choices. We trust the capability of the young to be more discerning in voting the next leaders of the country.

Some of our young voters have expressed disappointment over the electoral process. We cannot blame them. Election-related violence and visible signs of impending poll fraud have forced many of our youth to turn their backs on the elections. But we must assure them that their votes will make a big difference this year. Refusing to participate in the elections will allow traditional politicians to dominate and manipulate election results. Our youth must be reminded that elections may not bring fundamental reforms in our society but a change in leadership is a step forward in our crusade to uplift the conditions in our country.

Cheating can be abetted if only few people will dare to pinpoint how politicians are exploiting the weaknesses of our electoral system. We need more warriors who will stand up, speak and fight against the enemies of freedom and democracy.

We can start by voting wisely. It may mean nothing to others, but through voting alone, we can actually hinder poll fraud incidents. We can deny flying and ghost voters the chance to use our names during Election Day. By filling up our ballots (please don’t leave any blank spaces), we can be assured that no name of candidates we abhor will be added in our ballots. If the forty-five million registered voters will all vote on May 14, we can discourage poll fraud operators to pad the votes for certain candidates. We can make it difficult for dagdag-bawas architects to implement their evil plans.

During the next few days, we can still engage candidates to specify their program of action for the next three to six years. Now is the right time to review news articles, election podcasts, interviews and candidate profiles in order to be certain whether we will be voting for the right leaders the country needs at the moment.

Our starving people may find it hard to refuse cash gifts and other forms of bribery offered by desperate candidates. We should stop blaming the ‘beggar mentality’ of voters; instead we should start doing something to expose and punish politicians and candidates who are engaging in bribery. There are worse examples of vote-buying which are usually overlooked. Shouldn’t we also condemn the following: media payola, payment in exchange for religious endorsement, collusion with big business in exchange for protection, and accepting dirty money from crime and drug syndicates?

Three months of election campaigning have revealed the flaws of our election process. We should now embark on meaningful, sincere and quick election reforms in preparation for the 2010 elections. The Comelec, with the help of peoples’ organizations, can easily identify the roadmap of change we need to implement. Otherwise, we will continue to produce election results with little credibility which further undermines the elite-dominated system we call democracy.

The local elections can be viewed as a battle between rich families seeking to maintain or grab power in a particular territory. Sometimes the feud between political families can be settled peacefully, especially if all parties are willing to compromise. In 2004, President Gloria Arroyo united all families in Cebu Province which helped her gain a one million vote lead over her main rival in that province alone. Another way to end the rivalry of political dynasties is to divide a province or create a new district through legislation. For example, political tension in Cavite Province was somewhat defused when Congress subdivided it into seven legislative districts.

But most of the time, political families are violently resisting the idea that another family is trying or preparing to challenge their leadership in a city or province and they use all means necessary, including violence, to remain in power. The bitter rivalry between the Mangudadatu and Ampatuan families in Maguindanao Province resulted in a gruesome massacre which claimed the lives of 57 civilians last November. Most of the country’s election hotspots are areas where two or three families are competing for dominance in the elections. Many voters are delighted to see these families ‘destroy’ each other in the campaign, but many are also worried that the verbal fighting might turn into a bloody duel between the candidates themselves and their supporters.

And there’s another aspect of the family feud in Philippine politics worth mentioning – candidates are challenged by their own relatives in the polls. This is hardly surprising in small towns since all politicians are related by blood or affinity to most residents in these places. Still, news of a power struggle inside the same family continues to bewilder many Filipinos since family ties are highly important in the country’s culture. Some examples involve former presidential daughter Imee Marcos, who is facing off against her first cousin for the top local post in Ilocos Norte Province. Governor LRay Villafuerte of Camarines Sur Province is publicly feuding with his father, Congressman Luis Villafuerte. The major election rival of the Mayor of Mabalacat City in Pampanga Province is his eldest daughter.

Elections are interesting and at times funny in these places because feuding family members are cleaning their dirty linen in public.

But to democratize Philippine politics, dynasties must be dismantled. If this isn’t possible at the moment, citizen groups must continue to work for a better political system where everybody, not just family members of oligarchs, has an equal chance of participating in the elections.

All in the family

‘Power, wealth, and prestige tend to merge in the same hands.’

This was written in the 1960s by a university professor who proved that politics in the Philippines is dominated by only less than 200 families. More than 40 years have passed but this analysis is still valid. Then and now, Philippine politics is controlled by select political dynasties.

The Arroyo Family is the most powerful political family today. President Gloria Arroyo, whose father is a former president of the Republic, has been in power since 2001. Her two sons, brother-in-law and sister-in-law are all members of the House of Representatives.

The leading presidential candidates in the 2010 elections have many relatives in politics as well. Senator Richard Gordon is the uncle of Councilor JC De los Reyes. Senator Noynoy Aquino and former Defense Secretary Gibo Teodor are second cousins. All of them are running for president. Aquino is the son of former President Cory Aquino. Two cousins of Teodoro are members of Congress.

The wife of Senator Manny Villar represents the city of Las Pinas in Congress. Former President Joseph Estrada’s eldest son is a senator. His other son is an incumbent Mayor of San Juan City.

Many members of the senate also belong to influential political families. Senators Alan and Pia Cayetano are siblings. Their father was a former senator as well. Senator Bong Revilla is also a son of a former senator. His brother is a mayor of Bacoor, Cavite. Senators Chiz Escudero and Migz Zubiri are children of veteran politicians. Escudero’s father is a congressman who used to be a Cabinet Minister of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Zubiri’s father is the governor of Bukidnon province. His elder brother sits in the Lower House. The sons of Senators Rodolfo Biazon, Miriam Santiago and Edgardo Angara are members of the House of Representatives. The daughter-in-law of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is also a legislator representing a district in Cagayan province.

In 2007 former Senator Kit Tatad described the senate body as a ‘mad and shallow Family Ball.’ He went on to lambaste the goal of some political families to dominate the senate:

‘Political dynasties are either appreciated or hated, tolerated or feared. But even in the worst of cases, dynastic family members try simultaneously to occupy as many different offices as possible, or else they alternate or rotate in holding on to a particular office that allows them to exercise power. Never do they sit together in the same office at the same time.’

The 1987 Constitution clearly prohibits political dynasties. Article II, Sec. 26 of the 1987 Constitution says, ‘The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.’ There have been proposals in the past 20 years to pass an enabling law that would ban political dynasties but all of these were ignored by Congress. Indeed, why would lawmakers pass a bill that would prevent their immediate relatives from running for public office?

Many politicians believe that it is not wrong to promote political dynasties because it brings stability to a province or region. They claim that their relatives have the proper education and breeding that make them qualified to run for public office and also insist that it is the voting public which demands the continued reign of political dynasties. These self-serving arguments are ludicrous but only few would dare challenge the political dynasties in their local fiefdoms.

The holding of elections is an opportunity to bring about a change in the country’s leadership. In the Philippines, elected leaders are barred from running again after three terms which give other families and individuals the opportunity to occupy positions of power. But no genuine change will happen as long as political dynasties are allowed to poison the democratic potential of Philippine politics.

Last Monday, 86-year-old Curita Villar addressed the media for the first time at her Las Pinas City home to defend her son, presidential candidate Manny Villar. The Villar matriarch cried in front of the cameras when expressing her pain after hearing negative reports about her son. She said that all corruption allegations hurled by other parties against Sen. Villar are false and insisted that Villar was telling the truth when he claimed that he came from a poor family in Tondo before becoming a billionaire through his real estate business. Tondo is a working-class district in Manila. Ms. Curita Villar ended the press forum by singing ‘Stardust’.

Asked if it is wise to use their mothers in the campaign, one of Sen. Villar’s siblings reminded the media that it’s the other party that’s drawing on memories of a dead mother for their campaign. She was referring to presidential candidate Noynoy Aquino, whose candidacy only materialized when his mother, former President Cory Aquino, died last August. After sensing that many Filipinos had renewed their support for the Aquino family during the wake and burial of the former president, Sen. Aquino was immediately nominated by his party as a presidential candidate. In his various infomercials during the campaign, Sen. Aquino has been invoking the name of his good mother.

After learning about the public appearance of Curita Villar, former President Joseph Estrada described it as an ‘act of desperation’ on the part of Sen. Villar. Estrada is also a presidential candidate. But critics reminded Estrada that he also has used his mother in the past to advance his political objectives. When he was still detained for plunder charges, Estrada always cited the need to visit his ailing mother in the hospital every time he asked for court approval to temporarily leave his jail. One of the reasons why he was granted a pardon by President Gloria Arroyo was to allow Estrada to be close to his dying mother.

But the most famous active matriarch in the Philippines is former first lady Imelda Marcos. At 80 years-old, she is aggressively campaigning for her two children who are running for governor of Ilocos Norte Province and senator of the Republic. Imelda is also aiming to win a seat in Congress this year. If she becomes a congresswoman again, one of her colleagues will be another matriarch–President Arroyo, who is almost a sure winner in her bid to represent the second district of Pampanga province in the House of Representatives. The two sons of Arroyo are also candidates in the elections.

It’s often said that behind every successful man is a woman. In the Philippines, we could say that behind every successful politician is a mother.

…and mistresses

All candidates are open during elections, or at least they are about the dark secrets of their rivals. They perform a public service by exposing the hidden wealth, extra-marital activities and illegal government transactions of their rivals. These revelations are all black propaganda, but this does not necessarily mean they’re not true.

A few days ago, vice presidential candidate Jejomar Binay publicly admitted that he was unfaithful to his wife. He made this confession after the internet was flooded with unflattering pictures of Binay’s alleged mistress. Binay confirmed that he once betrayed his wife, but said this was a long time ago and that he had already apologized to his family. Stories and pictures about Binay’s mistress surfaced when he placed second in pre-election surveys.

Binay’s decision to admit his marital infidelity is brave since religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, can use this confession to weaken his candidacy. But as a veteran politician, (more than two decades as Mayor of Makati City, the country’s premier financial district) Binay may have calculated that this issue would have little impact on his chances. By immediately confronting the issue, he may have gained some sympathy votes from voters who dislike the campaign tactic of invading the privacy of candidates and their families.

Maybe Binay is also aware that politicians who are unfaithful to their spouses continue to get elected to public office. He should learn some tips from his running mate, former President Joseph Estrada, who has not lost a single election despite the public knowledge that he has at least 11 children by six women and some other rumored mistresses.

Binay should talk to his former mistress and convince her not to disclose anything that could further ruin his reputation. Pictures were uploaded on the web, but there could be videos as well. Binay should remember how the mistress of former President Ferdinand Marcos shocked the nation when she called a press conference in 1970 and proved her special relationship with Marcos by playing an audio recording of their lovemaking.

If Binay really wants the issue to die down, he could leave the country for a while. This is what the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo did when a senator exposed his alleged extra-marital activities a few years ago. President Gloria Arroyo defender her husband from critics, but on one occasion she said that she would just focus on her job as president because she is married to the country. Will Binay also claim that he is married to the country?

Binay’s critics and rivals will use his confession to remind voters about his moral weakness. They will argue that since Binay cannot remain loyal to his wife, he’ll also betray the country if he becomes vice president. As Binay’s numbers continue to improve in the homestretch campaign, he should check his closet and hide the remaining skeletons that could be unearthed by his rivals.

And the question now is, will Binay retaliate and throw some dirt at his enemies?

Related articles:

sons and politicians
dovie beams
departure gate

Actor Joseph Estrada became president in 1998 while his showbiz pal, Fernando Poe Jr., almost became one in 2004. TV stars topped the senate race in 1992, 1998, 2001 and 2007. There are three actors in the senate today and all of them are running for re-election. Based on latest survey results, two actors are competing for the top position in this year’s senate elections. The vice presidential bet of the administration party is a popular TV host and actor. The major candidates of the local elections in the key cities of Metro Manila like Paranaque, Manila, Quezon City and Caloocan are former film stars.

But actors are not automatic winners in elections. Yes, they are well-known and this is a clear advantage, but it is not enough to dismantle the political machinery of well-entrenched families and parties. In 2007, showbiz candidates in the senate race were rejected by voters. World boxing champion and national icon Manny Pacquaio was ‘knocked-out’ by a scion of a political dynasty in General Santos City in Mindanao Island.

But despite these celebrated setbacks, parties continue to field actors in elections because the popularity and rapport of actors with the poor make them winnable candidates.

On the other hand, it is not just film stars who want to enter the world of politics. Most of the time, it is politicians who want to enter the showbiz world. To gain fame, many politicians and aspiring politicians seek affiliation with the entertainment industry. Even President Gloria Arroyo appeared in an afternoon TV series during the early years of her presidency. Her son was an actor first before becoming a politician. Analysts believe that Kiko Pangilinan and Ralph Recto became senators in 2001 because they have superstar wives who are on TV everyday. Some politicians succeed in having their life story featured in TV drama shows. Last year, vice presidential candidate Mar Roxas proposed marriage to his celebrity fiancée on a noon-time variety program.

All major candidates are aggressively hiring actors to endorse their candidacies. Super rich politicians are able to solicit the support of famous young actors of the industry. Presidential candidate Noynoy Aquino is lucky because his sister is the lead actress and host of numerous top-rated shows while his brother-in-law is a basketball superstar. Not to be outdone, Senator Manny Villar was able to convince other showbiz icons to endorse his presidential bid. Even Pacquaio, the idol of the masses, has endorsed Villar. Being a former actor, it seems former President Estrada has no need for too many celebrity endorsers. Besides, his son who is a senator today is also an actor.

It is not illegal and wrong for actors to join politics as their entry brings entertainment, glitter and fun in an otherwise boring and ugly election campaign. Also, some actor turned politicians have performed well in public service. They can also help challenge the dominant rule of oligarchs in provinces and many of them are sincere in their desire to serve the poor.

But actors must not bank on their popularity alone to succeed in the elections. They must be ready to articulate a coherent platform of governance and they must prove that they are competent to hold public office. Meanwhile, celebrity endorsers should be more discerning in choosing the candidates they will support because their opinion is highly valued by their loyal fans and supporters.

In the end, it is the voting public who will decide whether a celebrity candidate or endorser deserves to win in the elections.

Nuisance

Nuisance candidates are supposed to be instantly weeded out by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) once they have filed their certificates of candidacies. Those who were immediately eliminated from the 2010 presidential race were ‘bizarre candidates’ like Rigoberto Madera who identified himself as the ‘Ultimate Messiah,’ David Torralba Alimurung who wanted to re-forest the deserts of the Middle East and Daniel Magtira who vowed to lead the switch from the country’s usage of its standard 220 volts on electricity sockets to 110 volts. Perhaps the most famous nuisance candidate in recent history was Eddie Gil who found brief success as TV star after being dislodged from the presidential electoral contest in 2004.

The criteria used by the Comelec to disqualify candidates have been questioned by some parties and candidates themselves. Presidential candidate Nicanor Perlas and Senatorial bet Danilo Lim were initially disqualified by the poll body before finally getting the approval to participate in the elections. Senator Alan Cayetano wanted the Comelec to declare his colleague Senator Jamby Madrigal, as a nuisance presidential bet. Activist lawmakers have branded President Gloria Arroyo, who is aiming to win a congressional seat in Pampanga province, as a nuisance candidate.

A nuisance candidate is also someone who deliberately causes confusion among the voters by running against candidates with similar names. As in previous elections, there are many candidates today whose intention in joining the race was to weaken the candidacies of contenders with similar names. In some instances, Comelec failed to quickly resolve disqualification cases against these nuisance candidates. When the Comelec finally disqualified these dubious candidates, the damage has already been done because the election ballots were already printed. These were empty victories in favor of the real candidates because on Election Day, the names of the supposedly eliminated nuisance bets are still included in the official ballot.

The Comelec was also criticized for its delayed action on the disqualification case against presidential candidate Vetellano Acosta. It was only last month when Comelec finally removed Acosta from the official list of candidates. This was too late because the ballots have been printed already. Acosta’s name will still appear in the official ballot next month. The Liberal Party believes the delayed decision was intentional in order to prevent the name of its standard bearer, Noynoy Aquino, from appearing first on the list of presidential candidates.

There is another type of nuisance candidate; although their candidacies cannot be legally questioned. Some candidates are fielding fake candidates in order to weaken their rivals. Fake candidates with similar names can be easily disqualified by the poll body but politicians or former leaders who enjoy a certain level of social reputation can be asked by parties or fellow politicians to run in the elections in order to divide the votes of other candidates. These candidates, though legitimate in the eyes of the law, are no different from other nuisance candidates whose real intention is to collect money and not to win.

It is important that voters distinguish the real from fake candidates. There are still nuisance candidates and other undesirables who have been allowed to run in the elections.

To bolster his anti-corruption campaign message, senatorial candidate Teofisto Guingona III made a somewhat funny TV ad which showed him punching an animated crocodile. At the end of the video, Guingona shouts that he is angry at crocodiles (‘Galit ako sa buwaya’). Corrupt politicians in the Philippines are often compared to crocodiles.

Critics of vice presidential bet Loren Legarda have lampooned the lady senator as a ‘political butterfly’ in reference to her frequent changing of party affiliations. Members of Congress are called ‘porky’ solons because of their obsession with pork barrel projects. Presidential son Mikey Arroyo was compared to a pig by activists because of his intention to become a partylist representative. Partylist bets are supposed to come from the marginalized sectors of society. The ‘pig’ label is a metaphor for what activists describe as the bastardization of the partylist system. Meanwhile, administration members who are defecting to other parties are called rats who are abandoning a sinking ship.

Political mudslinging by animal-calling is not new. Former presidential daughter Imee Marcos described Malacanang Palace as a snake-pit. President Gloria Arroyo called her critics termites destroying the foundations of the Republic. Senator Miriam Santiago mocked a fellow lady politician by calling her an ‘anonymous little insect.’

If in other countries calling someone chicken is an allusion to the weak character of the person, in the Philippines it means the person is backed by a powerful leader. A candidate who is identified as manok (chicken) of Arroyo means the candidate is a favored candidate of Arroyo. Meanwhile, sisiw (chicks) is a term used by confident candidates to refer to their weak rivals.

Some politicians are proud animal lovers. Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson has opened a mini-zoo in his residential palace. His Siberian and Bengal Tigers are always shown on TV. Mandaluyong City Mayor Benhur Abalos also uses the tiger as symbol of the city. Former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza prefers the eagle as an icon. One of his campaign slogans is ‘Pagbabalik ng Lawin’ (Return of the Hawk). A group of cockfighters wants to enter congress through the partylist system.

Most animals are gentle beasts but they are often misunderstood by humans. The perceived ferociousness of animals is often compared to the wild behavior of politicians. This is unfair to animals. Maybe animal rights groups should warn politicians and writers to stop abusing the good image of animals. They may be animals but they are not as greedy, slothful and vicious as their human counterparts in politics.

Underworld politics

Gambling lords. Warlords. Drug lords. Despotic landlords.

These are the superstars of the Philippine underworld. Their armed goons and almost limitless wealth make them powerful political kingpins and kingmakers. Businessmen go to them for protection, priests request donations from them and politicians want to be cozy with them. Today, many of these ‘dark lords’ are aspiring for public office. Maybe, like Michael Corleone from the film The Godfather they wanted to be legitimate.

Gambling lords are more popularly known as ‘Jueteng’ lords. Jueteng is an illegal numbers game in the provinces. It is similar to a small town lottery but it is outlawed by the state. There are jueteng winners everyday and most of them are farmers and small income earners who hope to receive extra cash from betting on their favorite numbers. But the bigger winners are jueteng lords who operate the game and collect the dividends every evening. To escape arrest, jueteng lords pay protection money to police, local officials and national politicians. Former President Joseph Estrada was impeached in 2000 because of an allegation that he was receiving jueteng protection money.

Some suspected jueteng lords have crossed-over to mainstream politics. Lilia Pineda, wife of an alleged jueteng boss in Central Luzon, was elected board member of Pampanga, the home province of the president. Pineda’s son is even godson of the president. Pineda is now running for governor. Armand Sanchez of Batangas is another suspected jueteng strongman in the Southern Tagalog region. Sanchez was elected governor of Batangas and is hoping to reclaim his seat this year.

Drug lords are in the limelight today because of a recently released US State Department report which warned that drug money would be used to influence the results of this year’s elections. The value of illegal drug trade in the country is estimated at about $8.4 billion. Government officials admit that narco-politics is already entrenched in various parts of the country. A city mayor in Metro Manila was tagged last month by the police as coddler of suspected drug lords.

A warlord is a broad name for politicians or leaders who control a private army. Warlords are feared because they act as little presidents and little generals in their turf. The most notorious warlord today is Maguindanao leader Andal Ampatuan who is accused of masterminding the gruesome election-related massacre of 57 civilians last November. But Ampatuan is just the kingpin of Maguindanao. There are 85 provinces in the Philippines and each province is dominated by one or several warlords. According to the police, there are at least 112 private armies operating in the country.

Despotic landlords are the royal families of feudal Philippines. These landlords continue to own huge tracts of prime agricultural lands despite the implementation of numerous land reform programs in the past decades. In many provinces, despotic landlords are also the reigning political dynasties and warlords. Landlords who own the biggest land in the province can easily win during elections because majority of voters are their tenants. Activists have accused the Cojuangco-Aquino family, the owner of the biggest family-owned plantation in Southeast Asia, of being despotic landlords who ordered the killing of 14 protesting farmers in 2004.

The other prominent ‘dark lords’ of Philippine politics are the smuggling lords, quarrying lords and fake lords who invoke the name of God during elections.

The underworld bosses become more influential during elections because of their money and armed machinery. Instead of herding them to jail, they are glorified as kingmakers and philanthropists. Some suspected shady characters are even running for public office. The influence of ‘dark lords’ in politics is often compared to the sun. On a cloudy day we do not see the sun yet we feel its mighty presence and harmful ultraviolet rays.

‘Dark lords’ are an anathema in a democratic country like the Philippines. Like the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun which destroy life on the planet, ‘dark lords’ and other underworld untouchables weaken the democratic potential of politics.