Sunday, April 28, 2019

Episode 20: EDSA Tragics and Voter Realists

There seems to be a message for the opposition contained in most recent polling. The slippage of support for Otso Diretso seems to reflect voter doubts over the false choice being presented to them.

As we reach the homestretch of the campaign, the final pitch for why we should vote for their slate seems to be that what we need is an independent senate that will block Duterte from having a supermajority that would amend the constitution.

Voters clearly don’t see it that way. They want to see the opposition present a credible alternative plan before voting for them. But what the opposition has presented so far, doesn’t really seem to appeal to them.


In any midterm senate election, both sides usually share in the spoils. Incumbency has its benefits for sure. But voters usually split their senate ticket, regardless of which way they are leaning.

Recent polls indicate, however, that a different outcome might be looming. It’s quite possible that none of the opposition candidates may get elected. Not only that, but the candidates being preferred - Revilla, Estrada, Marcos, Go and dela Rosa - all represent individuals either repudiated by the previous administration, or closely connected to the current one. And they are taking precedence over Aquino, Roxas, Tanada and Diokno - names associated with the historic struggle for freedom against tyranny.

Voters are putting in known bridge builders, as well, at the top of their ticket. Poe, Villar, Angara and Cayetano lead the pack. They belong to minor parties or the independent bloc. All have worked constructively with the Duterte administration.

Rather than hedge their bets with the opposition as an insurance policy, it seems voters are willing to take a risk by increasing the ruling coalition’s majority in the senate. This would buck the trend of midterm voting patterns, which has been evident ever since it restarted in 1995.

And it’s not as if this administration hasn’t given voters ample reason to doubt its intentions. Quite the contrary. The declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao, the brutal war against illegal drugs, the about face in our diplomatic strategy with China, the tax reforms that hit the hip pocket - any of these issues could have caused voters to want people in the senate who would perform a check on Duterte and his ruling coalition.

The question here is why are voters so sanguine about all this? Why are they so willing to take a seemingly huge gamble with Duterte’s coalition, when doing so might embolden it even further to pursue its agenda, which could include revising the current constitution?

My sense is that voters still have not forgiven the opposition for the perceived mistakes of the past administration, and are willing to give this one a clear mandate for doing things the way it sees fit, which is to say quite differently from the past.

The past mistakes stemmed from an over-simplified, over-romanticised notion of the world following the first EDSA revolt of 1986 and its nostalgic return in 2010. We thought we could overthrow corrupt autocrats, and usher in good governance with good intentions alone. The heady days of EDSA I turned tragic, with the farce of EDSA II and Daang Matuwid that followed. This three part epic came to a momentous close with Duterte’s election in 2016.

The 1987 constitution which was the operating system for the EDSA regime, was infected by the same virus as the 1935 Commonwealth republic. Corruption, congestion and criminality prevented citizens from enjoying the benefits of their freedom.

In opting for Duterte and his coalition, voters are expressing their disenchantment with this order. The spirit of EDSA held that if we set people free, they will behave in a civically responsible manner. Yumbang mag-kakapit bisig sila, at makikipagbayanihan, tulad ng nangyari sa EDSA. But if they don’t behave appropriately, then democratic safeguards and the rule of law would deal with them. The problem is the system just isn’t equipped to deal with the stresses we have put it under.

Duterte’s realism seeks to compensate for this weakness by overriding the system, and reimposing guardrails on society to prevent it from careening off the cliff into an abyss of narco-statehood.

As brutally honest as Duterte’s approach might be, it could eventually pave the way for the realisation of the liberal ideals that the EDSA forces have been aspiring for all along; namely, people empowerment, through government programs meant to unleash their full human potential. Capacity to fund these programs was inconceivable only a few years ago, but is now being made possible thanks to the fast growth of our economy and successive installments of fiscal reforms instituted by previous and current administrations.

Duterte’s realism accepts that people cannot actualise their full potential unless they have their basic needs met first. What are these needs? Food, water and shelter, followed by safety and security (according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs).

The dreams of EDSA for a nation founded on liberal democratic ideals can only be achieved once you have a thriving middle class, and have freed people from the bonds of these lower order needs.

After that, integrating everyone into national life, by operationalizing good governance at the grassroots and empowering local governments to exercise greater autonomy, as per what Pimentel’s Local Government Code did, and what Angara’s Seal of Good Local Government builds on, and what the fiscal equalisation fund proposed under PDP-Laban’s federalist charter, seeks to do.

Finally, putting safeguards in place that allow political parties to thrive and conduct policy independently without the need for personal enticement from the ruling party or from corporate interests, is needed. Permutations of bills that address this have floated around since the 12th congress, all the way back to JDV’s time as speaker in 2003, and have garnered support in different quarters from the Angaras (both father and son), and more recently by CGMA, the Estrada brothers (Jinggoy and JV), and the PDP-Laban Federalist Study Group.

The senate has been the perennial stumbling block to getting this reform passed. Credit that to having too few senators with too many committees, or having too many investigative hearings, or simply competing political interests of ambitious senators who are seeking higher office. The election of a ruling coalition supermajority might eventually pave the way for much needed political and electoral reforms to happen. At least, it should give them a mandate to pursue a less obstructionist agenda.

The liberals’ democratic ideals can only be achieved by taking pragmatic steps. Expecting elected officials to transcend the laws of political dynamics based on good intentions and noble ideals alone will only lead to disillusionment and disenchantment, which then gives rise to populism.

Clearly what voters want, and deserve, is a better life, for them and their children. How we get there, is perhaps of secondary importance to them, for as long as we get there. Concerns over alleged human rights abuses of criminal suspects, stifling of some press outlets and creeping authoritarianism are valid, but they don’t seem to be uppermost in most voter’s minds, right now.

These are concerns, but what people seem to want are not for legislators to raise concerns, but to propose solutions. These proposals need to be credible, coherent and complementary to the goal of achieving a better life. Otherwise, they don’t really pass muster.

As our economy improves, and as people’s living standards improve, they will want better governance. They will want their politicians to get things done for them. The role that dissent plays in all this, must be prefaced with being able to develop clear, credible, coherent policies and alternatives to begin with.

And to do that you need well-functioning, well-resourced, ideas-based political parties, which don’t depend on the administration or corporate donors for support. This is the next transition that we need, to get us to our next stage of development as a nation, as the problems we are facing will only get more complex and challenging. We need our policymakers to, and I hate to use this phrase, level-up.

As people elect a new Congress in May, let’s hope that those with the right mix of idealism and pragmatism are chosen, who would move us closer to that ultimate dream that once seemed possible at EDSA, and still unites us all. That dream is for a better life for all.

No comments:

Post a Comment