Candidate Debates, Philippines? It's High Time, People -- Let's See Who Has Balls Enough.

Monday, 11 January 2010 19:03 Jester In Exile

Face_Off The headlines in recent news has this little gem, Presidential campaign gets more pointed as a result of the Kilalanin! forum held recently. My take: good enough for starters, but I want more.

See, if there's anything that watching the news could be teaching us, the value of presidential debates -- hell, candidate debates for any position, for that matter -- will help us in making better choices come election day, and that the lack of it now is hobbling our decision making. With candidate debates, not only can we get a good feel for our candidates' plans and policies, but we can likewise get good glimpses of our candidates' character. I believe that candidates will show their best sides -- and doubtless their bad sides if pushed to the wall -- during such debates, and as such we can see whether or not they deserve to be placed in public office.

Likewise, I believe that refusal to engage in debates is cowardice, pure and simple. If one is running for public office, one must be prepared to for public scrutiny; hiding behind the empty gloss of political ad campaigns without providing real means of determining the candidate's substance does not make him fit for leadership, I am convinced.

Let's look at a little bit of history, folks -- any inaccuracies are the product of poor memory, as I'm reconstructing these from what I remember (yes, it was only in 1998 that I had become old enough to vote).

***

1992. The first general elections after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution were the synchronized elections held in May 11, 1992. For president ran Fidel Ramos (Lakas-NUCD), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (PRP), Eduardo Cojuangco, jr. (NPC), Ramon Mitra, jr. (LDP), Imelda Marcos (KBL), Jovito Salonga (LP/PDP-LABAN), and Salvador Laurel (NP). Joseph Estrada (NPC/ PMP), Marcelo Fernan (LDP), Emilio Osmeña (Lakas-NUCD), Ramon Magsaysay, jr. (PRP), Aquilino Pimentel, jr. (PDP-LABAN/ LP), Vicente Magsaysay (KBL), and Eva Estrada-Kalaw (NP) contested the vice-president position.

Under the terms of the Charter, 24 senators would be elected; twelve would serve for a term of three years (thus necessitating senatorial elections afterwards), with the other twelve serving a term of six years. Provincial and local officials -- congressmen, governors, vice-governors, provincial board members, mayors, vice-mayors, and councilors -- had their elections held on the same date as well.

There is very little evidence available online indicating that policy and character debates were held between rival candidates; to the best of my recollection there were no structured debates between politicians. It is my belief that it was because of the lack of (to use a fairly graphic term) head-on collisions and thus a lack of informed choice that alongside president-elect Fidel Ramos, Erap Estrada gained the vice-presidency and Vicente "Tito" Sotto III topped the Senate roster.

1995. In May 8, 1995, twelve seats in the Senate and the seats of provincial and local officials were the subject of the elections. As I recall, it was a head-to-head contest between the administration coalition of the Lakas-NUCD, PDP-LABAN, and LDP and the then-opposition coalition of the NPC, KBL, and PRP. Not too different from 1992, there were no debates set up between rival candidates and political parties; to my way of thinking, it was the entertainment and popularity-oriented campaigning of the political parties that led political neophyte Juan Flavier, former Secretary of Health, to be elected as a senator with more votes than then-incumbent senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

1998. Perhaps the farthest away from the satisfying the need for informed choice was the campaign period leading to the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections. Joseph Estrada (LAMMP/PMP), Jose de Venecia (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP), Raul Roco (Aksyon Demokratiko), Emilio Osmeña (PROMDI), Alfredo Lim (LP), Renato de Villa (PDR-LM), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (PRP-Gabay Bayan), Juan Ponce Enrile (Ind), Santiago Dumlao (KPP), Manuel Morato (PBM) were rivals for the presidency; Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP/ Kampi), Edgardo Angara (LAMMP/ LDP), Oscar Orbos (PDR-LM), Sergio Osmeña III (LP), Francisco Tatad (PRP-Gabay Bayan), Ismael Sueño (PROMDI), Irene Santiago (Aksyon Demokratiko), Camilo Sabio (PBM), and Reynaldo Pacheco (KPP) were contenders for the vice-presidency. Political rallies in 1998 were more carnival spectacles than anything else; television coverage of a political rally showed de Venecia jumping up and down on stage like a pogo stick, another showed Estrada's close friend, popular actor Fernando Poe, jr., working the crowd; there was little or no effort to bring candidates together for the public to weigh their mettle via policy and character debates. Why I believe that 1998 was the worst elections in the sense of informed choice versus spin and entertainment is reflected by Erap's ascension to the presidency and the election of then-broadcaster Loren Legarda (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP) as the number-one senator.

2001. Post-EDSA II, the bloodless coup kicking out then-president Estrada, elections were held on May 14, 2001 for twelve Senate seats and the positions for local office. Noteworthy in the 2001 elections was that for the first time elections for party-list sectoral representatives were held, with left-leaning party Bayan Muna topping the race and gaining three congressional seats. There were still no character and policy debates held to educate the public; as I recall, the coalition parties People Power Coalition and the Puwersa ng Masa opted for grand miting de avance rallies all around the country. Once more, a neophyte ended up at the top of the Senate polls, likely due to popularity and visibility than anything else: Noli de Castro (Ind/ PMP).

2004. The May 10, 2004 synchronized elections is considered by many, to this day, to be fraught with electoral fraud. The presidency was contested by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Lakas-CMD/ K4), Fernando Poe, jr. (KNP), Panfilo Lacson (LDP), Raul Roco (Aksyon Demokratiko/ Alyansa ng Pag-Asa), and Eduardo Villanueva (Bangon Pilipinas Movement); candidates for the vice-presidency were Noli de Castro (K4), Loren Legarda (KNP), Herminio Aquino (Aksyon Demokratiko/ Alyansa ng Pag-Asa), and Rodolfo Pajo (Partido Isang Bansa Isang Diwa). A total of 48 candidates ran for senator in the elections, which is likewise noteworthy due to the exercise being the first to have overseas absentee voters (OAVs) cast their ballots in over 70 countries.

To my way of thinking, it was in the 2004 electoral exercise that there was a clamor for public debates; however, none were held, as candidates put pre-conditions towards the holding of such fora (in a manner similar to Floyd Mayweather, jr. giving conditions before agreeing to square off with Manny Pacquiao). It was a source of great personal frustration that no such events were held, resulting therefore in a reduced amount of information contributing to voters making informed choices; I join quite a number of others in the belief that had debates been held Arroyo may have had a larger lead over Poe (allegations of cheating notwithstanding) or another candidate may have become president in 2004.

2007 It was in the run-up to the May 14, 2007 legislative and local elections that mainstream media took the lead in providing the public with forms of candidate debates. Most noteworthy of these efforts was GMA Network's "Isang Tanong" series, aired on broadcast TV, enabling the public to get to know the individual stands of most of the 37 candidates who ran for senator (rival network giant ABS-CBN aired its "Harapan" on cable channel ANC). While then-incumbent senator and former broadcaster Loren Legarda (Genuine Opposition/ NPC) was elected as the number one in the list of senators-elect and highlighting effectiveness of visibility campaigns, many believe that these forums -- which were, strictly speaking, not face-off debates -- contributed to the election of first-term congressman Francis "Chiz" Escudero (Genuine Opposition/ NPC) and incarcerated candidate and former military officer Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV (Genuine Opposition/ United Opposition) to be elected with a significant lead over other candidates banking on popularity and money, such as Vicente "Tito" Sotto III (Team Unity/ NPC) and Luis "Chavit" Singson (Team Unity/ Lakas-CMD).

***

With due accolades to the organizers of BlogWatch.ph, and others similar, who have been making the effort in providing the public with as much information as they can on the candidates for this year's elections, I nonetheless make an appeal to mainstream media to set up policy debates between candidates. Let's let them face off, please? Not merely is it good for the public, these will be shows ending up with high ratings -- it's good business for you.

In the event such debates our set up, friends, I urge you to insist that the candidates support appear. If we can have the gumption to call Floyd Mayweather jr. a chicken-wuss for his eventual refusal to get in the ring with Manny Pacquiao, we sure could call candidates who shun policy debates as craven and unworthy of our votes.

'Nuff said.

***

Folks, here are the definitions of the alphabet soup used in the post (if there are any clarifications, do leave them in the comment thread).

K4: Koalisyon ng Katapatan at Karanasan sa Kinabukasan

KBL: Kilusang Bagong Lipunan KNP: Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino

KPP: Kilusan para sa Pambansang Pagpapanibago

Lakas-CMD: Lakas - Christian Muslim Democrats

Lakas-NUCD: Lakas ng Tao - National Union of Christian Democrats

Lakas-NUCD-UMDP: Lakas ng EDSA - National Union of Christian Democrats - United Muslim Democrats of the Philippines

LAMMP-PMP: Laban ng Makabayang Masang Pilipino - Partido ng Masang Pilipino

LDP: Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino

LP: Liberal Party

NP: Nacionalista Party

NPC: Nationalist People's Coalition

PBM: Partido Bansang Marangal

PDP-LABAN: Partido Demokratiko Pilipino - Lakas ng Bayan

PDR-LM: Partido ng Demokratikong Reporma - Lapiang Manggagawa

PMP: Puwersa ng Masang Pilipino

PROMDI: Probinsya Muna Development Initiative

PRP: People's Reform Party

Photo created by the author. Some Rights Reserved.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Comments

Add New

RSS

Disclaimer: Comments posted here reflect our readers’ views and not the opinion of The Philippine Online Chronicles.

jet lee 14 January 10, 01:21 AM

those candidates who deep down will not have anything substantial to say or offer to the electorate will start avoiding these debates like the plague. most especially if these televised debates make them look bad visually. many pinoys still equate looking good as doing good.

Kriek Dalugdug 21 June 10, 05:26 PM

Speaker: The Question is, That this House has no Confidence in the present Government.

[pointing to President GMA] Madam President!

President GMA:

Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is of course the right and duty of the loyal Opposition to challenge the position of the Government of the day. It is also their right to test the Confidence of this House in the Government, if they think the circumstances warrant it. I make no complaint about that.

But when our critics’ windy rhetoric has blown away, what are their real reasons for bringing this motion before the House, because there were no alternative policies, only a lot of disjointed, opaque words.

They can’t be complaining about the Philippines’ political standing, for that is deservedly high, not least because of the recently concluded, successful automated elections—the first for this country, and achieved only with the determined support of this Administration. They can’t be complaining about the country’s finances. We are a net creditor to the world in 2009, something which has not happened since the start of the Third Republic. And they can’t be complaining about this Government’s consistent economic policies—whose achievements were demonstrated during the recent financial crisis, when the Philippines became one of the highest-growing countries in Asia while our neighbors suffered through a recession.

The critics’ real reason is the perception of corruption and incompetence that pervades all media coverage over the Administration, a perception which is not based on fact but on opinion, based not on dispassionate analysis but on hateful emotion. It is a perception which is not in contrast to the record of the winning candidates in the last election for President and Vice President: one who has no record to speak of, the other, while in office, has simply stayed too long and earned too much—precious little competence and integrity there.

The real issue to be decided, by Members of this House, is how best to build on the achievements of this decade—how to carry this Government’s policies through to the next—how to prevent the fall of our political leadership unto the lap of a certain television personality.

Mr. Speaker, nine years ago, we rescued the Philippines from the parlous state to which our predecessor had brought it. I remind this House, that under President Estrada, this country had come to such a pass, that the exchange rate had gone to 55 Pesos to the Dollar, interest rates went through the roof, and the hope of Philippines 2000 had been extinguished; where a fragile political environment and a bankrupt government had resulted in the ouster of a corrupt President. The Arroyo Administration has changed all that.

Once again, the Filipino people can turn their hopes to a country that is admired for its economic performance compared to the rest of the world, and to a government that has made it all possible.

We have done it by improving our infrastructure: increasing farm-to-market roads by 6 times to nearly 18,000 kilometers, building one-and-a-half-times the length of roads built during the three previous Administrations combined, instituting the roll-on-roll-off nautical highway, and widening electrification from 80.1% to 99.39% of rural barangays.

We’ve done it by investing in education: 100,000 new classrooms built in this Administration, improving classroom-to-students ratio from 1:60 to 1:39 in primary school, and textbook-to-student ratio has gone up from 1:5 to 1:1 in many subjects in elementary and high school.

And we’ve done it by caring for social development: 11 million beneficiaries of food-for-school program, which offers incentives for young pupils to stay in school; and 1 million household beneficiaries of the conditional cash transfer program, which provide additional incentives for educating poor children.

Mr. Speaker, our stewardship of the public finances has been better than that of any Government for over fifty years. Using funds raised from the EVAT, we have been able to repay debt and improve infrastructure, and the resulting success of the entire economy can be talked about for years to come: the doubling of GDP per capita from the year 2000 to 2009, the halving of inflation and foreign debt-to-GDP ratio, and the tripling of Gross International Reserves. There have been fourteen million more jobs since 2000, and PhilHealth membership has been widened from 30 million to nearly 84 million people, or almost the entire population of the Philippines.

That is the record of nine-and-a-half years of the Arroyo Administration, and Arroyo policies. Mr. Speaker, all these are grounds for congratulation, not censure, least of all from the Members of the Opposition, who have no alternative policies.

Mr. Speaker, over the past nine years, this Government has had a clear and unwavering vision of the future of our democracy, and of the Filipino people’s role in it. It is a vision which stems from our own deep-seated attachment to Constitutional democracy, and this Government’s commitment to economic liberty, to enterprise, to competition, and to the free-market economy.

The fact is that, more than any previous Government, we have fought for charter change as the most basic way to enhance our competitiveness compared to other countries, which allow for the free competition of foreign entities with local businesses. For us, part of the purpose of the government is to demolish trade barriers and unfair subsidies so we can all benefit from the expansion of trade both within Asia and with the outside world, particularly those small and medium enterprises so crucial for job creation. It wouldn’t help them for our economy to continue to be dominated by Spanish-era conglomerates, headed by Spanish families, linked by a colonial old boys’ network; or for the bureaucracy to be concentrated in the capital city, far removed from the life of the rural peasantry. Our people deserve a country where there’s room for their growing sense of nationhood, and a place to decide their own destiny after a lifetime of deprivation.

Are we then to be censured for standing up for a free and open society through a free and open economy? No, Mr. Speaker, our policies are in line with the best interests of the Filipino people, and we shall not be censured for what is thoroughly right.

Despite the failure of our initiative, Mr. Speaker, we have never hesitated to fight for development and for the Constitution in other ways, particularly in the area of peace and security. This Government has received no thanks for its imposition of martial law in the aftermath of the event known as the Maguindanao massacre. Yet it was our swift action which enabled the Army and the Marines to arrest the Ampatuan family members responsible for the massacre, and which allowed the Commission on Human Rights to collect evidence without being disturbed by lawless elements.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our critics have been quicker to point out the definition of civil war and rebellion which should, they said, have guided the imposition of military rule. Yet at the same time they called for the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended and the Ampatuans to be arrested first and then charged later. The only difference between our action and their proposed action was that theirs was not called martial law -— it was just martial law by another name.

Clearly our critics want to prevent a replay of the events of the 1970s, when most of them came of age and and reached political maturity. But such is our forward-looking view of our society, of which 75 percent were born after martial law, that we do not believe it is right to take revenge upon the past by compromising our future. The previous generation might have failed in stopping the institution of a dictatorship, but it does not mean that this generation must fail as well.

Not for us this blind replaying of our past, this jaundiced reading of our history. Ours is a larger vision of our democracy, where Filipinos cooperate more and more closely to the defense of the Constitution.

Should we be censured for our strength, or the critics for their weakness? Surely the vigor of our Constitution has been strengthened more by our action than by any second-guessing of our critics. I have no doubt that the people of this country will willingly entrust their security in the future to a strong government that protects them rather than to socialists and academicians who put little faith in our Constitution and ascribe little hope to our Nation.

And we realize our hope, Mr. Speaker, in the conduct of future elections in this country. Since time immemorial, we as a Nation have desired automation for our elections, variously to improve the process of vote-counting and canvassing, and to minimize the incidence of cheating. Many attempts have been made to automate nation-wide elections, but none has succeeded until this year.

Despite the obvious success, a lot of voices, mostly of those who lost, have been raised to question the validity of the results. We have been here before, when the candidate who was leading the official count was also the one who had been leading in the pre-election surveys, in the exit polls, in NAMFREL counts, in the tallies by media organizations, and in the predictions of fortune-tellers. Independent foreign observers also said that while there had been irregularities, they were sufficiently few in number to have affected the results of the elections. Back then, the losing candidate made the same claims of “trending.”

Nobody believed that candidate, who later died an unhappy man, yet the following year someone let out a digital recording of a conversation between me and a Comelec Commissioner, ostensibly proving the existence of cheating. Never mind the evidence of all those surveys and independent observations, never mind that you could have given all the votes of Maguindanao to the losing candidate and he would hardly have made a dent in the one-million-vote lead: the allegation was believed nonetheless.

Twice in my time as President, we have sent our forces to discipline rouge soldiers who had staged a coup d’état against the legitimate government—both in the Oakwood mutiny and in February 2006, and to maintain order in street rallies that were led and paid for by those who, too cowardly to suffer the heat of the noonday sun in support of their politics, or to share the stench of their people on the ground, perverted the meaning of the people power revolution.

To those who have never had to take such decisions, may I say to them, that they are taken with a heavy heart, in the knowledge of the manifold dangers, but with tremendous pride in the professionalism and courage of our Armed Forces. But there is something else which one feels as well, Mr. Speaker. That is a sense of this country’s destiny, from nearly a century of history and experience, which ensure that the Filipino will always fight for his Christian, constitutional and democratic way of life.

It is because we in this Administration have never flinched from difficult decisions, that this House, and this country, can have Confidence in this Government today.