Kabataan party list shows the way

For all intents and purposes, election rules be hanged, the campaign for the 2010 elections began several months ago. The ubiquitous paid political ads, the news headlines and opinion pages herald the fact. But except for the laudable efforts of a few media outlets, the academe and election reform advocates to draw out what the candidates stand for, the trend has been to focus on the admirable qualities of the candidates, be they pedigree, professional credentials, business acumen or government positions held.

And, oh yes, which showbiz personality or media figure is running with or has endorsed whom.

In an election season, one expects that candidates aspiring for national office will endeavor to explain the body of principles, objectives and policies on which they stand in appealing for the electorate’s vote. If it is not in the form of an official document called a platform, then by way of their innumerable speeches and other public pronouncements in the course of the campaign.

But this has not been the case. More often than not the public is left to deduce such an orientation or platform from the candidates’ safe, motherhood statements and elections promises that have no connection with historical precedents, current realities and future directions. The candidates merely pander to what they think the voters want to hear. Or else they try to hoodwink the public into thinking that programs and platforms are not all that important because in the end, it is the character of the candidate that matters.

Certainly, the many crimes of the Arroyo regime involving moral turpitude – stealing, lying, cheating – have so scandalized the people and dominated the political landscape that many of our people are led to throw up their hands in despair and look to heaven for the God-fearing Lot in the Philippines’ version of Sodom and Gomorra. In the process, key and substantive questions of public policy and governance are forgotten, set aside or papered over.

Such as how to revive an economy, create jobs and salvage livelihoods ruined by decades of anti-people, pro-elite and foreign-dominated policies and programs. How to protect the little that remains of our plundered and devastated environment. How to resolve intractable armed conflicts rooted in poverty, backwardness and social injustice. And, not least, how to keep the country from being a surrogate field of battle for the US and other powers bent on maintaining their strategic interests and spheres of influence in this part of Asia.

One political pundit who likes to “explain” things to those he thinks unenlightened or ignorant even posited his own scenario and theory of 3 stages in the current campaign leading up to the May 2010 polls. He does so to explain away why programs and platforms could not possibly be a prominent feature of the unofficial campaign so far.

There is supposed to be the first stage of “Hi and hello!” wherein the candidates “introduc(e) themselves, individually, to the public”. Upon the holding of party conventions, the same candidates will be “introducing themselves as standard-bearers of parties with platforms”. Then come the official campaign period, “they will be competing with the other candidates to convince voters… that they, their platforms, and coalition partners, deserve our vote.”

Thus the acceptable introductory spiel is supposed to be: "Hello, I'm running for President... I'm still looking for a running mate and we still have to build our senatorial slate. Let's talk about our platform later, okay?”

The thing is all candidates are paying lip service to the buzzword “change”, pretending to be the one who will change things for the better. Thus the public’s search for platforms and a serious discussion of issues doesn't stem from ignorance of the “stages” of the campaign. It stems from a demand to know from the candidates what change is needed and what they will commit themselves to.

Unfortunately, the logic that the slate must be put together and then the platform decided is that of the quintessential reactionary politician’s logic. To content oneself with this “staging” is obscurantism and tantamount to advocating things as they are. It even naively projects that at the 3rd stage - after the line ups have actually been formed – candidates will actually shift to a higher level of discussing the issues that people have been clamoring for.

The "explanation" also glosses over the fact that in the more economically and politically advanced countries, including the US, even in multi-party systems, the parties have clear political orientations which their members strongly adhere to. And the platform is a particular time-bound program for implementing that orientation under the prevailing circumstances and to address current issues.

In any case, there is nothing in the COMELEC rules which should prevent a prospective candidate from presenting his stand on the current issues of the day. There is not a single serious candidate on the national level who is still unknown and has to "hi and hello" himself or herself to the public.

The fact that there is no longer such thing today as a party orientation, and party-switching has become commonplace does not militate from the candidates' putting emphasis on their positions on issues and programs; if, as they claim, their new alliances are based on principle and not on political expediency and opportunism.

Thus, the demand on candidates, especially on those who claim they are frontrunners and harbingers of change, to base their introductions, alliances, and campaigns on issues and not on personalities, emotional appeals and other advertising devices is not only reasonable, but intelligent and wise.

One refreshing contrast to the prevailing political cynicism and opportunism dished out by the traditional political parties thus far, is the keynote speech of Kabataan Party List representative Raymond “Mong” Palatino in their recently-held national convention. In lays down simply but eloquently what it is these young, politically aware and committed Filipinos stand for, essentially what their component organizations have been fighting for long before their first foray in the electoral arena in 2004.

It is neither the first nor the last time they cogently articulate their advocacies and vision of what should and can be. First, quality education for all, serving foremost the needs of the Filipino people. Second, decent jobs for all and protection of the rights and welfare of working people so that the youth need not go abroad to get jobs and secure their future. Third, good governance starting with the prosecution of corrupt officials under the Arroyo administration. Fourth, protection of the environment starting with a stop to destructive mining and an earnest program to address the devastating effects of climate change. Fifth, charting an independent domestic and foreign policy that is not held hostage to the vested interests of foreign powers especially the US.

In general, national leaders who are patriotic, pro-people and democratic, who uphold and protect human rights and who are fully supportive of the youth’s aspirations for a happy, productive and bright future.

Kabataan Party and other like-minded parties competing in the party list elections, show us how to conduct a campaign based on issues and not on personalities. Where the hi-and-hello is immediately followed by, here-is-what-we-stand-for. #

Published in Business World
20-21 November 2009

The measure of victory

Not a few opinion writers have speculated and even attempted to pass of as profound and factual analysis some fantastic pieces of fiction writing about what the mainstream Left is thinking or doing in light of the twists and turns of events leading to the 2010 elections. One thing they are agreed on, the forces identified with such progressive party lists as Bayan Muna, Gabriela Women’s Party, Anakpawis, Kabataan and several new ones now coalesced under the Makabayan banner are joining the electoral fray in a big way and, like it or not, are a force to reckon with.

If anything, the emergence of the Left as a distinct and formidable force in the electoral arena since 2001, when they successfully elected three party list representatives to Congress, is bound to challenge the candidates for national office to raise the level of the campaign to a clash of platforms, issues and track records, rather than a contest of personalities, resources, lineages and backers.

The participation of the Left in national elections may force the candidates, including and especially the opposition, to put their mouths where their hearts (or pocketbooks) really lie; i.e. to declare and elaborate what kind of change they truly stand for, explain why they are to be believed and how they can deliver on their promises. The Left will hope to turn the elections from another periodic political circus into a nation-wide educational campaign to raise the people’s political awareness about what needs to change and how.

The traditional, elite-dominated elections has hitherto been all about "sino ang ipapalit" rather than “ano ang ipapalit”. One popular notion that persists is that what matters most in a candidate is his or her “character” because no matter one’s stand on the issues, the character will determine the elected public official’s performance. This flies in the face of the reality that even the most saintly of presidents must come to terms with a political system that runs on patronage, political debt, and powerful vested interests geared to maintaining an iniquitous social system.

Certainly, the depth and breadth of the social, political and economic crisis that has descended on this nation is inescapable. All the presidential contenders, except perhaps for administration candidate Teodoro who is forced to defend the Arroyo regime’s odious nine-year record, must profess to be for change. Yet several weeks after most if not all of them have announced their candidacy and started campaigning, a clear and comprehensive elaboration of what change it is that they stand for is still nowhere to be seen.

So far, it has only been Chiz Escudero who has started to present a categorical stand on such issues as contractualization, oil deregulation, the traditional party system and a candidate’s independence as well as the prosecution of Mrs. Arroyo and cohorts for plunder and other crimes against the people. But his recent break from the National People’s Coalition, his long-standing political party, could seriously hamper his candidacy unless he acquires or can quickly build an alternative machinery to carry out a viable campaign.

On the whole, what the public has been treated to so far is the worn out and nauseating appeal to emotions, personality hype and, inevitably and invariably, attacks on the personalities of opponents rather than an engagement on platforms and issues. Should the political discourse remain on this subterranean level, our people can expect little by way of meaningful change to emerge from this so-called democratic exercise -- no matter who wins.

Of all the Presidential contenders, it is Noynoy and his camp who deliberately rides the wave of popularity and mystique and parries attempts by his rivals to engage him in a more cerebral contest. Noynoy ignored Teodoro's challenge to a debate; his rah-rah boys' reply to Villar's reference to Noynoy's lackluster record is that what matters in this elections is not one's track record of achievements, but one's spotless record of no wrongdoings. It is reminiscent of the long-ago "No-talk-no-mistake" campaign strategy of Genaro "Gene" Magsaysay, who likewise aspired, unsuccessfully, for high office by banking on his famous brother's genes. Noynoy's recently released star-studded television ad ironically gives us a preview of what a Noynoy presidency could be -- glossy and promising on the surface, but utterly lacking in substance.

In contrast, Villar's and Teodoro's ads so far project them as achievers par exellence, with Villar highlighting his plebeian origins and his purportedly pro-poor, pro-people investments. But neither one has confronted, much less proposed, comprehensive solutions to the real issues of systemic and widespread poverty especially in the countryside, foreign domination of a weak and backward economy, and a bureaucracy of crooks and plunderers from the ruling classes that bleed the national coffers and the people's meager earnings dry.

The Left for its part will certainly endeavor to raise the level of the campaign because it will articulate its own vision and program for change -- “tunay na pagbabago”. It is real and substantive, not false or cosmetic, because it is concrete, consistent, extensive and far-reaching. To wit: uphold national independence against the dominance and dictates of the imperialist powers headed by the US; realize democracy through the empowerment of the working people and respect for human rights; develop the economy through national industrialization and land reform; promote a national, scientific and mass culture; protect the environment from imperialist plunder and destruction; and pursue an independent foreign policy for world peace and development.

It is not a farfetched possibility that the Left could deliver the swing vote. In the 2007 elections, the opposition senatorial candidates were able to preserve their lead in no small way through the Left's nationwide machinery manned by dedicated volunteer poll and canvass watchers. Whoever wishes to gain the support or endorsement of the Left now cannot avoid taking a clear stand on, if not making a firm commitment to, the progressive and patriotic principles and measures in the Left's platform.

Any serious student or observer of Philippine politics would see that by bringing to the public’s awareness the urgent and basic issues confronting our people and rejecting the crass, self-serving and personality-oriented electoral campaigns currently being conducted, the Left and the Filipino people as a whole stand to gain no matter who wins or loses.

Only the narrow-minded mental contortionists would stretch and strain to try to explain the Left's conduct and intent with the pre-conceived notion or conclusion that the Left could not possibly do anything right and walk away victorious from this forthcoming electoral exercise.

The Left cannot be faced with any dilemma in dealing with the vicissitudes of any and all of the candidates' fortunes. Its emergence as a significant force that cannot be ignored in the national electoral arena at this time constitutes incontrovertible proof of that.

The Left's final measure of success in these elections is by how much more adherents would have been added to the goal of freedom, genuine democracy and social justice – the change we need and truly deserve. #

The curious case of Chiz Escudero

Yesterday, Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, a popular contender in the May 2010 presidential elections, resigned from his party, the National People’s Coalition, in a clear bid to distance himself from NPC Chair, business tycoon and putative presidential kingmaker, Mr. Danding Cojuangco. The announcement sent shockwaves throughout the electoral arena. Other candidates and their respective camps, as well as political pundits of all stripes, will have a field day analyzing the underpinnings, implications and possible scenarios generated by Mr. Escudero’s bombshell decision until he makes his final announcement of his political plans in the coming weeks.

I first met Mr. Escudero when I, together with other victims of human rights violations under the Marcos dictatorship, sought a dialogue with members of the House of Representatives over a bill that would respond to the victims’ demand for justice and restitution. He was then a first term representative from Sorsogon. I ended up berating the cocky lawyer-congressman for seeming to trivialize the victims’ plaint and attributed his apparent lack of concern to the fact that his father had been one of Marcos’ loyal Cabinet members. Back then, he already struck me as somewhat of a jaded politician despite his youth.

In time though, Mr. Escudero has become a curious case, not unlike the hero in the fanciful film “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, who started out physically old and emotionally naïve, then inexplicably grew younger as he matured.

Sen. Escudero’s decision stands out because it is a refreshing departure from the display of political opportunism that has so far suffused the campaigns of the both the administration and the front running opposition candidates. It gives a premium to independence on substantive issues over patronage and finance/machinery/logistics, the so-called winnability factors.

Most broadsheets failed to mention or underplayed Sen. Escudero’s amplification of what he meant by taking an independent stance from the vested interests locked into his membership in the NPC, or any other mainstream political party for that matter. He pointed to the fight against corruption: what if those he needed to run after were members of his own party? Or, the political godfather himself, Mr. Cojuangco?

Sen. Escudero reiterated his rejection of the pork barrel system in Congress that undergirds and reinforces patronage politics, including Malacanang’s hold on Congress by the Chief Executive’s power to disburse the coveted “countryside development funds” of both congressmen and senators. He said that his membership in a party with a host of Congress members weakens his position.

He highlighted his stand against the contractualization of labor as part of his commitment to uphold the rights of ordinary working people. He categorically said he is against oil deregulation and pointed out how the small fry like jeepney drivers are strictly regulated when it comes to hiking passenger fees while giant oil firms are free to fix the price of fuel according to the dictates of profitability.

He also mentioned upholding the dignity and integrity of the work of government employees like soldiers, police and even ambassadors who are made to act as footstools of political bigwigs rather being allowed to do their job of giving service to the people unhampered.

Rather than safe motherhood statements about government reform, alleviating poverty and caring for the disadvantaged, Mr. Escudero concretized his position by taking on existing policies and ways of doing things. In the process he gave notice to big business, foreign and domestic, to his fellow politicians especially those who have yet to be made accountable for their corruption and other crimes against the people, and most of all to the people whose support he courts, where he stands on issues.

According to the senator, he left the NPC because he has come to realize that anyone who is planning to seek higher office should owe his loyalty not to any party but to the country and the people. Such lofty rhetoric is not original. We’ve heard it before and have learned to take such claim with a huge grain of salt.

Yet Mr. Escudero’s decision appears to go against everything a politician in this country learns as he makes the climb to the top; that is, to make sure one has the backing of those sections of the ruling elite who matter – the ones with the big bucks, the clout and the organizational machinery to get you where you want to go. Of course, one knows the quid pro quo.

To be sure, the scuttlebutt is that Sen. Escudero failed to get the kind of financial support that he was asking for from Mr. Cojuangco, thus the resignation. (A fantastic figure of 5 billion pesos was reported by one broadsheet unabashedly rooting for another presidential candidate.) This is supposedly the real reason for the senator’s junking of his party and his patron.

Even if we are to believe the imputed motive and alleged circumstances surrounding Sen. Escudero’s resignation, we do not necessarily come to the conclusion that his decision to go independent is an unprincipled one. In fact, it is an astute one. For why should the senator carry the onus of a Cojuangco anointment, by an unrepentant Marcos crony now reputedly the favored Arroyo crony who is helping to money launder the Arroyo family’s plundered billions, if it were not equivalent to a sizeable campaign kitty? He may as well not go by the rules as far as his presidential bid is concerned.

The possible return on this high-stakes gambit for Sen. Escudero is being able to take the moral and political high ground and possibly capturing the imagination of those among our people, the youth most especially, who are still looking for an alternative to the tiresome array of politicians cast in the same old, traditional (aka “trapo”) mold.

The many permutations of running mates or presidential and vice-presidential tandems made possible by Sen. Escudero’s exit from the NPC certainly indicates either (1) there is no fundamental difference in the different candidates’ stand on important issues; (2) they can easily compromise their stands (i.e. there is wide maneuver room for opportunism); or (3) both of the above. Witness how the Lakas-NUCD-Kampi lost no time in extending an invitation to Sen. Escudero to be the administration’s veep candidate. The Nationalista Party headed by its standard bearer Sen. Manny Villar has once more given him the moist eye despite an earlier rebuff.

Will Chiz Escudero squander this once-in-a-lifetime chance to wage an “out-of-the-box” candidacy over the better-oiled and media-hyped campaign of his rivals? Or will he take a stab at making history and achieve the biggest upset this country has seen in an electoral contest? #

*Published in Business World
30-31 October 09