Don’t you know that in America, one can still win an election even if he/she is not popular or does not have the money which is the exact opposite in the Philippines? A poor, unpopular but outspoken and intelligent candidate can possibly win an election in the United States of America, because of debates, fundraising speeches, and primaries that do not actually exist in the Philippines. Usually, the best speaker wins the debates in the primaries and eventually the general elections in America, since good debaters and speakers are given preference by the electorate to lead. In this system, poor candidates can still win an election as long as they are good speakers and debaters because by becoming good debaters or speakers, they can hold fundraising speeches whose proceeds can be used in financing their campaigns.
President Barrack Obama won scintillating electoral contests in the primaries and in the general elections for the presidency in the United States of America, even if his political rivals were well off economically compared to him. Obama won over the former U.S. First Lady and Senator, soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, even if Clinton was considered to be financially stable compared to him. Obama went on to win the presidency against the late U.S. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, who was the husband of Cindy Hensley McCain, a well-known beer heiress. Four years later, Obama did the same remarkable feat by defeating former Massachusetts Governor, soon to be U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, the owner of Bains Capital, a big multinational company in the United States. These facts would point to us many things, that money is not the bottom line in American politics, that debates can win a candidate an election, and that by way of speeches, one can finance a campaign because many contributors would hand in the money needed for his/her campaign if he/she is a good debater/speaker.
Sad to say, this is not happening in the Philippines for there are no laws that set debates as the barometer in choosing party standard-bearers and the rightful winners in the general elections in the Philippines. The elections in the Philippines are free for all contests because there are no primaries in the early goings of the elections which may be the meter stick in choosing the official candidate/s of the political parties, be it in the national or the local levels. There may be political conventions and caucuses to be held in order to choose the official candidate/s of a party, but a losing aspirant for a political office in a party convention may establish his own party in order for him/her to suit his/her political ambition, thereby disrespecting the party caucus or convention which he/she has participated earlier where he/she lost, one concrete example of this was the 1992 Philippine presidential elections where the then-Defense Secretary Fidel V. Ramos lost to the then-Speaker of the House Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. in the party convention of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino which he soon bolted and formed his LAKAS TAO party which bloated into a gigantic party LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. Ramos went on to win the presidential elections and the rest became part of Philippine history.
Another example that would prove that the elections in the Philippines are self-help elections for one to win an electoral contest was the 1998 Philippine presidential elections wherein former Philippine Vice President Joseph Estrada rejected the debate challenge by former House of Representatives Speaker Jose de Venecia. Estrada never participated in the debates held by the Commission on Elections and other election-related civic organizations like the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) and the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), and yet Estrada was chosen as the runaway winner of the 1998 Philippine presidential elections.
If there are scenarios like these at the national level during election time, there is also a prevalence of such happening in the local level during election time and what can we expect from our leaders being elected by the people who are not properly screened by the populace because of the absence of debates?
In the case of political fundraising in America, most of the candidates rely on their campaign fundraising speeches, thereby giving more opportunities for the poor but intelligent candidates to raise funds coming from the affluent and concerned citizens of the state, American politicians usually hold fundraising activities like dinners where the candidates would hold speeches and the attendees would give money after the dinner and the speech, whereas in the Philippines, the candidates rely more on their pockets because the richer the candidate is, the better that his/her chances to win.
So what would be the bottom line and probable effects of these two contrasting political systems between the American and Philippine political systems?
Under the American political system, the effects would be: 1.)The poor but intelligent candidates can raise money which may be used in their respective campaigns because of their speaking abilities, and 2.) They may also win a political contest because of their debating skills.
Under the Philippine political system, the effects would be: 1.) Only the rich candidates can win an election even if they are not really good speakers and debaters; 2.) Political positions would just be a dream for poor but intelligent, politically aspiring individuals because of lack of debates and because of their lack of campaign finances; 3.) The Philippine political system breeds corruption because, under this system, the monies spent by the rich candidate during election time shall be recovered by the same after they would be at the helm of power in the form of kickbacks and forging political influence to solidify the hold of their power as if the same is just their personal properties.
In view of the foregoing premises and humble submissions, I hope and pray, that the Philippine political system be overhauled in the name of fair play, equality and political progress, so that corruption can be abated, and that those financial lightweights but mental heavyweights in the field of Philippine politics can also be given the chance to lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment