The Political Democratic Institution
Photo courtesy of philnews.ph |
In part I, I focused on the 1965 national election, considered as the
longest and most hotly contested campaign in our political chronicle where the
late Ferdinand Marcos won over then incumbent President Diosdado Macapagal. Marcos'
reign continued followed by his re-election in 1969. Not content with 2- 4
year term presidencies, Marcos fortified his authoritarian regime by declaring
Martial Law in 1972, justifying his decision due to a heightened communist
rebellion and deteriorating civil obedience.
Photo courtesy of namfrel.com.ph |
Despite the massive election fraud, Marcos
declared his victory over Corazon Aquino, widow of the assassinated opposition
leader. This was the last straw that “broke the camel’s back” so to speak.
Nationwide, enraged Filipinos protested in the streets and stormed Malacanan
Palace. Virtually all military forces led by Marcos’ Defense Secretary joined the
demonstrators, leaving no other option for Marcos but to flee the country.
Corazon Aquino was installed to power as President and since then democratic
electoral transitions were seen in the election of Fidel Ramos in 1992 and
Joseph Estrada in 1998.
The fragility of the democratic
government however became evident again when in 2001 then President Estrada was
ousted and removed from office because of alleged embezzlement of state funds and
abuse of power that resulted in another (EDSA II) rebellion. Then Vice
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was sworn into office to serve the remaining
term of Estrada. Amidst a huge electoral
fraud through the scandalous “dagdag-bawas” vote counting scheme, Pres. GMA eventually
won the 2004 Presidential election over opposition candidate Fernando Poe Jr.
Once more, the frail stability of our democratic institution was rocked
by a staged siege of Oakwood Hotel in Makati in July 2007 by more than 300 military
officers and soldiers. Fortunately, the attempt to overthrow the government
under then Pres. GMA was brief and swiftly overcome by the military.
Many research studies have been made on the political elections in the
Philippines since the country was established as an independent democratic
republic in 1898. Yet there is not one among them that clearly enlightens the
skeptics and elucidates on the complexity of the political democratic process.
The High Cost of Running a Political Campaign . The Power of Money
Today, a serious issue in every political poll anywhere in the
democratic world including the Philippines is the escalating expenses for
election campaigns.
A typical example would be the case of the last US Presidential
election late last year. The political campaigns of Democrat Pres. Barack Obama
raised US$ 1.0726 Billion and spent US$ 985.7 Million while Republican Gov.
Mitt Romney raised US$ 992.5 Million and spent US$ 992 Million. Individual
candidates Obama and Romney personally raised US$ 726 Million and US$ 467.3
Million respectively. These are
staggering figures that make many wonder why this incredible is the amount of money
for election campaigns are spent to win the election.
Photo courtesy of 2010presidentaibles.wordpress.com |
This is also true in the Philippines. In the last 2012 Presidential
election, records have shown that Sen. Manny Villar’s campaign spent
approximately P431 Million while eventual election winner Pres. Noynoy Aquino’s
campaign expended more than P 400 Million. WHOA!
Another sickening example of a questionable campaign expense is that of
AKAP BATA, a party list group claiming to represent poor children. According to
Malou Mangahas, Executive Director of the Phil. Center for Investigative
Journalism, Akap Bata was able to afford an advertising contract with ABS-CBN
worth P 23.6 Million in the 2010 election contrary to the fact that the
party-list group is representing a marginalized sector. Where is the logic on
this one?
The escalating campaign expenses showed lesser amounts for Senators,
Representatives, Governors Cities and Municipalities Mayors, Vice Mayors and Councilors
but still the amounts are enough to boggle the human mind as to why political
candidates have to spend millions to get the much coveted political
position.
Maybe it is for this reason that only wealthy individuals or candidates
with big fund contributors could run for public office with success thereby isolating
highly qualified candidates with poor financial resources and without moneyed
backers.
The high and swelling cost of running for public office has raised grave
concerns since fundraising fastens elected officials to political
“kingmakers”, who devise ingenious backdoor funding channels, affirming the
already deep perception that politicians in office serve the interests of their
donors over the interests of their constituents.
Critics of the current system of campaign financing affirm that the
high cost of seeking public office not only distract elected officials from
their primary task of public service and leaves the door open to “influence –peddling” of funds donors,
relatives and political supporters. This is so that when a politician is
influenced by either the need to solicit fund donations from special interests contributors
to finance a costly election campaign, the politician may no longer represents
the interest of his constituents because of the sense of obligation to his
benefactors.
Money is the top resource in political elections especially so that
deficiencies in weak areas of a candidate can be easily overcome by “vote
buying”, where other campaign resources fail. Furthermore, the ability to
influence election results with the infusion of money poses a significant
challenge to the principle of equality expressed as “one man-one vote” upon
which a democratic government is anchored. Naturally when election results can
be greatly settled by the amount of money spent in political campaigns, the
special interests benefactors have greater power to influence the election rather
than the voting public.
March 6, 2013 Fresno , Calfornia, USA
Part III and Final Part will follow.......
No comments:
Post a Comment