Elections Philippine Style: A Foreigner's Comments (2)

By Ronald Meinardus

At last, it would seem, the elections are over. But then, this is only partly true. After the actual voting has come to an end, public attention is now focused on the counting, and also the securing of the votes.

For a foreign observer, elections in the Philippines offer many peculiarities. As in every country, the organization of the democratic process follows specific rules and regulations. I agree with local commentators that the electoral "methodology" in this country is not the most reasonable system available.

Over the years, I have observed elections in several countries. Nowhere else have I witnessed so complicated and tedious procedures as in the Philippines. "We have not changed the electoral system, the manner of conducting our elections since the first municipal elections in 1898," says Damaso G. Magbual, the deputy secretary general of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), confirming what every observer of Philippine elections will note: The process is complex, time-consuming, and regarding the usage of technology archaic, not to say primitive.

The mere dimension of the logistical exercise on election day is mind-boggling. While Namfrel has sent out no less than 300,000 volunteers to assist in a parallel quick-count, tens of thousands of additional poll watchers populated the voting centers. In some precincts, I encountered more watchers and volunteers than actual voters. This is not to say that the turnout was low, although in some polling stations, officials and voters alike could be heard complaining about erroneous voters' lists. Reportedly these bureaucratic deficiencies prevented scores of individuals from voting. Still compared with elections in other democracies, high voter turnout is arguably one of the more positive aspect of Philippine elections.

I am well aware of the efforts of modernizing the electoral process, and also of some of the reasons why Comelec failed to push through with the automation. While the election commission has been said to be mainly responsible for this sorry state of affairs, my impression after discussing this issue with Filipinos from different walks of life is that there is also a lack of political will to push ahead with the long overdue modernization process. Repeatedly, I have been told that certain political forces are more than content with the antiquated manual system, as this offers them familiar opportunities of manipulation not available in technologically advanced schemes.

Ninety days of campaigning has been a long time, I would even argue too long. Parts of the country's administration have been basically put on hold in the past three months. Considering the enormous challenges facing the country, I wonder if it would not be better to shorten the official campaign period as in other countries. To say the candidates need the extended period to communicate their programs of governance would imply that such programs actually exist. Looking back the past three months, I would agree with Filipino commentators that the campaign was virtually void of serious political content. "There were no serious issues in the campaign," writes a columnist in a leading daily newspaper.

To a degree, the media, too, is to be blamed for the poor quality of political discourse in the run up to the elections. There is a general perception that television, radio and the press failed to educate the electorate. On the other hand, mass media (and foremost television) did indeed play a decisive role by providing avenues for (some) candidates to communicate their sound bytes. Much of the airtime and ad space were allocated on a clearly commercial basis, thereby favoring those candidates who could afford to chunk out big sums of money.

A distinctive feature of elections in the Philippines is what I would term the tremendous personalization of the contest. Apart from very few exceptions, all candidates campaigned solely for themselves. Their name, their face, their individual success was all they cared for. One consequence of this personalization is the practical irrelevance of political parties in the electoral process.

The importance of political parties varies from one country to another. For a range of reasons, political parties in Asia play a less prominent role than in Europe or North America. But I cannot think of another democracy in Asia in which political parties are as marginalized as they are in the Philippines.

I was asked by media in Germany, where I come from, to report and comment on the outcome of the elections in the Philippines. As other correspondents, I begun my reports with a mention of the elections-related violence. It was not at all easy to explain how come the official spokesman of the military could go on record saying that the elections were "generally peaceful," when, at the same time, reports came in saying more than 100 people had been killed in politically motivated violence. To be fair, the spokesman said this against the background of fears of a Madrid-like major terrorist assault before or during elections here. Very fortunately, this did not materialize. Still, the bloody toll of elections remains an ugly scar on the overall democratic process in the Philippines.

While at the time of this writing, it is far from definite who will prevail, the President does look like a winner as the first unofficial results come in. More than a personal triumph for Mrs. Macapagal-Arroyo, her likely victory signifies a devastating blow for the opposition, particularly its informal leader. In a political sense, this may be termed a dramatic turn of events. At the outset of the campaign some months ago, many factors favored the challengers: The mood in large parts of the population was depressed and nearly one out of two Filipinos claimed that their quality of life had worsened; consequently, many voters were open to political change; at the same time, the opposition managed to field a candidate of legendary popularity.

In spite of these early advantages, the opposition failed to dethrone the President. The failure to unite behind one standard-bearer is doubtlessly the biggest blunder of the opposition in these elections. Eventually, the history books will record that in the May 2004 elections candidates Panfilo Lacson and Fernando Poe Jr. were defeated by incumbent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In a political and more short-term analysis, the big loser of these elections is former President Joseph Estrada who until recently was considered the center of power in the oppositionist camp, just waiting to take revenge for his unorthodox removal from office in a popular uprising in January 2001. Due to his waning authority, the former President not only failed to unite his disparate political allies, he also failed to install a leader of his personal liking in the presidential palace.

Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and will leave Manila late September for a new posting in the Middle East. He writes a blog at www.myliberaltimes.com