by Francisco Nemenzo Former President, University of the Philippines
Transparency should apply also to private citizens when they are performing a civic duty, like voting. That is why I am explaining my vote to my basic community: the faculty, students, staff and alumni of the University of the Philippines. Being retired from government service, I am no longer subject to the ban on partisan activities.
The long menu of candidates makes our choice difficult. In my case, the crude criterion of approachability is not too helpful because eight of the ten presidentiables are my friends. One is my fraternity brod, another gave me critical support for the UP presidency, yet another belonged to the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation (Philippine Council) of which I was chairman. Only two are unfamiliar: the councilor who moralizes like a priest and the mysterious Boholano whose nickname is the similar to mine. The three strongest contenders for the vice presidentcy are also my friends. For reasons I shall explain later, I will vote for only four senatorial candidates: Danilo Lim, Risa Hontiveros, J. V. Bautista, and Ariel Querubin.
As a political science professor, I have studied electoral systems here and in other countries. I do not consider elections as the essence of democracy; in most instances they serve as a façade for oligarchy. I cannot even consider elections in the Philippines a simula ng pagbabago. Change will not come as a result of the coming elections, regardless of who wins. The colossal problems we face today are rooted the system of elite rule. For as long as this system prevails, any change will be superficial and its benefits will not trickle down to the masses.
The democratic character of Philippine elections is questionable, even if the watchdogs and boto patrollers can keep them clean, fair and peaceful. Elections in this country are a game of the elite. They only allow us to choose which faction of the elite will misgovern and plunder the nation in the next few years. The candidates do not represent alternative causes, only alternative slogans. Politicians hop from one party to another because the major parties have no principled differences. Parties are temporary alliances with no other purpose than to win. The campaign focuses on personality flaws corruption, insanity, promiscuity, mendacity, etc. because nothing else distinguishes them.
Everyone is now aping Barack Obama. They are all for change, without telling us what it is they want to change, why and for what noble purpose. All promise to lift the poor out of poverty, without saying how they intend to do this and which of the ongoing government projects will be sacrificed to fund their anti-poverty programs. Even ardent practitioners rail against graft and corruption. Political discourse is reduced into an exchange of platitudes, of motherhood statements.
I did not waste time studying their platforms, knowing that these ghost written documents tell us more what they think we want to hear than the candidates true intentions. Deliberately couched in flamboyant but ambiguous language, they differ not in substance, just in phraseology.
We deceive ourselves if we think that we can hold the elected officials responsible for implementing their platforms. After the elections, these platforms will be consigned to oblivion. Until the next elections, ordinary citizens like us will not be major players in making national policies. The major players will be the Americans favorite technocrats, the lobbyists representing various sections of the elite, and the media lords.
If I dont believe that elections will change this political system, why vote at all? I have tried to grapple with this issue since the election fever started heating up. I have decided to vote not in expectation of pagbabago but as an expression of contempt for the system.
If Danilo Lim, Risa Hontiveros, J. V. Bautista and Ariel Querubin get elected, it would be unfair to judge them by the number of reform legislation they pass. They will be puny voices in the elite-dominated and trapo-dominated Congress. Their value is symbolic of our continuing struggle for system change, a cause they have consistently espoused. When the Garci tapes triggered a political crisis, they risked their lives, liberties and careers to rid the country of a wicked President. Two of them still languish in jail, gagged and denied the right to campaign. The multiple murderer has received better treatment; the PNP allowed him to hold a press conference in the Bicutan stockade. But, notwithstanding a court order, the PNP barred a TV crew who tried to interview Gen. Danilo Lim in the Crame custodial center.
Of almost 90 contestants for 12 senatorial seats, General Danilo Lim stands out. He is not the soldier we love to hate. He exemplifies a thinking military officer who sees his job as defending the Filipino people, not protecting their oppressors. He is painfully aware of what is wrong with the military and police, but he is not one who merely growls without doing something about it. In February 2006 he made the bold decision to withdraw support from Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, outraged by the revelation in the Garci tapes that soldiers were used to cheat in the 2004 elections. When Arroyos minions in the House of Representatives aborted the impeachment process, he realized that defiance was a patriotic act. He reminded himself that he swore allegiance to the republic, not to the incumbent President.
Danilo Lim is one of the few respected generals in the armed forces. His military education in West Point heightened his sense of nationalism instead of turning him into a little brown American. He earned exemplary combat record as an officer of the Scout Rangers. He was teaching mathematics in the Philippine Military Academy when he helped organize the Young Officers Union. He is a man of impeccable integrity and was never involved in human rights violation. Danny Lim would have been a strong contender for AFP chief-of-staff had he sold his soul to GMA. When it came to a crunch, he heeded the peoples clamor for the ouster of his commander-in- chief.
Now that Danny Lim is pursuing his advocacy for system change in the electoral arena, I shall vote for him and the three other senatorial candidates who stood for the ouster of the illegitimate president in 2006. If elected, they will symbolize our continuing struggle for a just, democratic, modernized and independent nation.
