PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 1 October 2008 Issue (Page E-3)
I’ve been looking forward to the Obama-McCain debate for quite some time now, but I must say that after watching CNN’s coverage of it last Saturday, I was rather disappointed.
I expected someone to take the lead in this campaign, but no one did. More emphasis was seemingly put on antagonizing the other candidate’s stances than on a fruitful discussion about policies. In particular, the debate became very intense when it came to the issue of Iraq and the Middle East. Obama continued to depict McCain as a supporter of the Bush administration; McCain continued to paint Obama as an inexperienced candidate. Afterwards, both campaigns released statements saying that their candidate had won. I don’t know who to believe.
Nonetheless, if there’s anything I admire about the political culture of the United States, it’s the fact that citizens continue to value these kinds of exchanges. Debates are an excellent avenue for presenting platforms and comparing policies. As far as government goes, these are the most important things we need to look out for when we elect a country’s leaders.
Funnily enough, while we’ve based much of our own system of government on theirs, this tradition of discussing platforms and policies through an intellectual clash is something that we’ve never inherited.
In our country, not much value is placed on the practice of debate in elections. Instead, our political culture (if it exists) is obsessed with pandering to images– and images only.
In the Philippines, the practice of elections approximates American Idol: it is mostly a battle of personalities. It explains why campaign jingles work, why actors win, and why few candidates seems to pay attention to making a real platform– which might also account for why there are no political parties here in the real sense of the word. We might as well turn elections into a reality show.
Then again, it’s not like there’s much we can do about that. If it’s true that history repeats itself, then this phenomenon of voting for the most handsome candidate is merely a repetition of how we used to select our datus based on who seems most charismatic. It’s all just a cycle that will continue to recur, and there is nothing we can do to change it.
Also, the idea of making Juan de la Cruz listen to some boring debate about whether candidates support the E-VAT is not quite as convincing as, say, the monetary ‘handouts’ that politicians would give to voters. The harsh realities of politics in the Philippines will continue to be there, and they will be much stronger forces than the force of reason.
It’s not like they’ll take these ideas seriously, anyway. Their ideas will not matter if they don’t put them into action. And it’s hard to put faith in a system that has promised us so many big things before, but have continued to fail us today.
But maybe that’s the problem. Since when did ‘progress’ or ‘poverty elimination’ become platforms? Why does no one ever talk about concrete measures, like the reform of relief programs, the passing of laws, or the repealing of policies? Allow me to be crazy and say that the reason why we there is no hope is because we’re not given something real to believe in.
I believe that there is a value in re-engineering the way we think and go about elections. I believe that more emphasis should be placed on the platforms and ideas put forth by candidates, instead of selecting leaders based on, literally, face value. I believe that there is room for the growth of a real political culture in the Philippines, that this will eventually ensure that we select the appropriate people for office. I believe that while there are many obstacles along the way, it is not yet too late to start. It took four centuries for the United States to get to where they are, and I think we have the capacity to do the same.
The Let’s talk politics by james.soriano, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm and is filed under iThink. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
White Power
No comment muna James.
–
Obama will win, no doubt about that.
Well, the roots of political evil are the people themselves. My mom is a corrupt government employee, but as if you can do anything about that.
Hakhak.
elyens
XXXxx
Wow.. this is my time to visit this site.. this is very good site to read especially for young adults out there. Excellent blog. God bless
In defense of the Philippines, James, it’s not the only country that’s apparently addicted to personalities/images. Many other countries’ political cultures are entrenched into this problem. That is largely assured by the phenomenon of media and its tendency to focus on individuals instead of ideas.
As a matter of fact, we can’t even dare say the USA doesn’t give attention to political personalities, primarily because their political culture also sees leaders over administrations (i.e. presidential candidates over parties). We see this in how Obama’s lack of experience and McCain’s lack of charisma are translated by the public as “defects” of their respective parties. While we may say that the two dominant parties in the US have strong ideological roots, their members do not exactly form a single branch. We know this because even some Republicans are not at all neocons in that they support the Middle East war, though of course they may still be called conservatives (basic difference I learned from Pol Sci 11 between neocons and “non-neocon conservatives”: neocons are against multiculturalism.)
As for what you said about Filipinos not really being offered pragmatic actions by candidates, it’s largely because major seats in government are taken by actual individuals. Genuine programs usually come from parties only, and not from individual politicians themselves. And because parties, as assured by our presidential system, are almost of no importance in government, politicians are therefore more tempted to use the old technique of charismatic hypnosis: appeal to emotion. So it’s more of an institutional fault rather than an irrationality from the common Filipino.
Cheers!
Sorry for not editing before posting the comment! Haha. “We know this because even some Republicans are not at all neocons in that they [don’t] support the Middle East war…”
Dr. Fuzzyballs - power to the black peoplez.
Camille - okay
rimewire - hahaha. yeah, like we can do anything about that. Actually, I think Obama just might lose this election if he doesn’t handle his lead well. Think Al Gore and John Kerry– AND THEY LOST TO BUSH. How annoying, right? hahaha!
Michael - thanks! hope you continue reading
JC - loved your comment. I super agree with what you said. Although my writing makes it seem like it’s the fault of the Filipino psychology, I think I hit a lot more on the system than I did on their irrationality. The fact that we don’t have a political culture, I think, is due to the fact that our institution continues to perpetuate the same old stupid stuff, and that’s why we never matured. Per se, it’s not our fault. But the fact that we still don’t have a system that remedies it, kinda is. Except I don’t know how we’ll solve it. Hahaha.
HAHA sorry. Hell week coming up. So my mind’s not functioning well for commenting. Nye Nye.
Anyway, I’m for Obama.
I think the only way to solve this system, really, is to first educate the masses. After all, if the people are stupid, then democracy is rule of the stupid. Haha!
Camille - Good luck with Hell Week (: I just finished with mine.
Dyeisi - Hahaha! I’d drink to that!
Well, again, in defense of the Filipino who so often is put in such a bad light, Americans aren’t all that sophisticated either.
True, it is enviable that there are actually forums for debates here and for the voicing out of political opinions and platforms, but really, the generally painted image of the american as the “well-educated voter” is not really that apt either.
To be “frank” about it, tjust remember the (dare i say) stupid dual-controversy that surrounded Obama just a short while back: there was controversy over his former pastor, while at the same time, he was being accused of being a “radical muslim”. Really, even the very idea of politcal ideas sometimes takes a back seat to what can be accused as “personal biases”- regardless of the fact that Obama and Hilary were in the same party, who can deny the (very) heavy first woman vs. first black man competition that went on?
In fact, just the other day, I was watching one of the “after the debate” commentaries on one of the local news channels here, and a startling number of people did not make comments or assessments based on the points discussed (as one might “stereotypically” assume they would). A lot still have marekdly more to say about McCain being old; Obama being inexperienced, etc. etc. After seeing it first hand, I think that we really just have a tendency to assume that the common American is a wholly more educated voter- truth is, there is still a big mumber of people who are just as clueless and as easily swayed as how you paint the Filipino to be. It’s more a matter of them being more vocal about their political stands that they are able to somehow associate themselves with a certain poilitical side. And even then, most Americans do not watch these debates to see for themselves who the better candidate is, and whom they should vote for- their choices are typically already made this far into the game; their predispositions are pretty much set into stone. They watch the debates to cheer their candidate on and look for opportunities to lambast the other.
Finally, to the Filipino’s defense- I don’t think its so much that we appeal only to jingles and fancy commercials and famous actors (although I’m not saying we don’t). I think its more because our judgment is based more on a system of morality. Its not so much that famous = better; we just like to see a man who’s (supposedly) morally upright lead the country- and actors, in their heroic roles, sometimes dupe the people into thinking that. But trust me, put someone as scandalized as, say, Mother Lily in the political race, and I tell you, she won’t win. Case in point: Pacquiao didn’t win the elections in Cebu. So in putting in those ditties and appealing to the masses, the candidates are somehow trying to put themselves on a moral high point. After all, with a majority of the populace being poorly educated, who can blame them for assuming that all candidates are more educated and more intellectually capable of leading the country than them. What do i mean? from their perspective, all candidates are smarter then they- the eVat and whatnot fade into realms of discussion that are above them- all they know is that a just man would fight for the common Filipino and let him spend less- hense, the search for a candidate who can associate him/herself with the masses. And again, going back, it’s not that different from other places, even here in the United States.
I agree with a number of points in your entry, but I just find it unfair that the general populace seems to be so ready to postulate that the Filipino is a stupid individual whose decisions (political or otherwise) are motivated only by the most shallow of reasons, because he is totally inadequate compared to (ooh) the Americans.
Points well-taken. Thanks, Anonymous. (:
Seems like LONG commenting’s IN right now. haha.
Try to right your own articles. hehe.
(I’m not being harsh ha.)
hahaha, even if you were being harsh, I wouldn’t have minded. We all have different opinions on things.
not be harsh either, but the idea of a comment to an article is that you are merely responding to what ideas may have been presented in the root article, or an insertion of personal opinions as to what arguments may have been cited.
first and foremost, it would be silly to write an article which would have no leverage on its own, seeing as how not all of us can commit to frequent writing. I admit to being a frequent reader, but a frequent writer, not so much.
Secondly, this topic is a very well-discussed topic, and I’m sure James was aware of this when he decided to write this entry. Therefore, it is only fair, if not appropriate for those of us with either corroborative or conflicting opinions to let our voices be heard.
Again, I do not wish to personally go against those who are not-so-welcoming of commenting, but I found that comment to be in poor taste.
HAHA. That’s not what I mean.
What I’m pointing out is, it seems that comments went too long to be posted. Well anyway, I’ve no problem with that. It’s James’ column anyway.
Sorry guys. I think my message was not delivered well. HAHA. apologies.
Sorry Anon.