State of the Race

I had written some weeks ago here that I would post a piece about the current 2010 Philippine elections. This is that post.

As I had said before, I believe that similar to the 2008 U.S. elections, 2010 will be a referendum on the policies of the past. And based on observable and verifiable reports and the facts on the ground, the policies of the past have largely been a failure.

In fact, in terms of all facets of government, not much has changed since 2001, when we had a different President sitting in Malacanang. Health care is still shoddy, public education is absolutely abhorrent, our roads and infrastructure are woefully inadequate, development in other parts of the country (i.e. not in the Metro) are almost non-existent. In fact, it can be argued, and it has been in many columns and blogs, that we have become worst than before.

Some argue that she is even worse than notorious dictator Ferdinand Marcos. I wouldn't go quite that far, but nonetheless it is still telling that some might say that this administration is worse than one that constantly jailed its opponents and tortured activists, journalists and those that would fight for freedom's cause.

Therefore, like in 2008, this election is about change and the individual who will win this election is the one deemed by the people as the most credible, the most capable and the most honest about bringing about this change.

Currently as it stands however, and this is my own personal opinion, there is no credible candidate for change. Unlike in the U.S. where they had Barack Obama as the clear candidate for change (whether he has brought the change he promised or will have the capability to is another matter altogether). Here the closest to a change candidate I see is former Defense secretary Gilberto Teodoro.

However, he is still so far and away from the ideal that his closeness to the ideal is only because everyone else is so far from it. The problem with Teodoro or "Gibo" as he is popularly known is that he carries with him the taint of the Administration as well as the endorsement of current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. These two might as well be the Kiss of Death for Gibo.

The best comparison I can give to Gibo is to John McCain, however not the ultra-partisan John McCain circa 2008, but a composite of his 2008 and 2000 self. Gibo is intelligent, articulate, has a lot of young people admiring him, and seems perfectly capable of running the country and turning the tide around. But he will never win.

John McCain in 2000 was a "maverick" as most people called him back then. He was never hesitant about crossing the aisle to get things done or endorsing positions that are antithetical to his party's positions. He was not afraid to defy his base as long as it served the best interests of the country. In 2008, McCain became the typical partisan that can be watched on Fox News endorsing positions he was so vehemently against (2001 Bush Tax Cuts a good example).

But the primary reason why he lost was because 2008 was a referendum on Bush and McCain was merely more of the same with Bush in terms of the policies that voters cared about then: the economy. Here however, Gibo has the taint of President Arroyo, who is in a similar position President Bush was in 2008: someone reviled by the majority, whose ratings are abysmally low and is perceived to be one of the worst Presidents in history.

I am almost certain that most of his opponents will just say that Gibo is more of the same with Arroyo (whether or not this is justified is a whole different discussion altogether) and this will resonate with voters: he is from the same party as Arroyo, he was part of the Arroyo administration and he was publicly endorsed by President Arroyo, as I said before, a certifiable kiss of death to him.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe this is the case. Moving on to the other candidates, there are only two other people that I will mentioning in this post: Senator Manuel B. Villar and Senator Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III. In my opinion, these two, plus Gibo who has a very small chance, are the only possible candidates to win the election in May. Right or wrong, these are the facts. These are reflected by various firms conducting national polls in the country.

Some might say that these polls, or "surveys" as they are called in local parlance, (I still don't know why they call it "survey" instead of a poll, "survey" sounds so derogatory to me.) are questionable and reflect bias, do not reflect the will of the people, etc. However, unlike in the U.S. where national polls are less important due to the Electoral College system, here it is of vital importance, even only as a barometer or a metric to benchmark against.

Here, the elections are held in one day for all positions and everyone has to vote for them, and a national tally is made for all the votes for a particular candidate that means each vote is equal. In the electoral college, it is a winner takes all (with some exceptions) contest with only electoral college votes being relevant. This why Al Gore lost in 2000 to George Bush despite winning the popular vote. If the Philippine system was used, Al Gore would have been President.

Therefore, national polls are truly important and while I agree that in this early going, the national polls do not reflect the winner yet. It is a good way to judge the state of the race.

My thoughts on Aquino and Villar are as follows: Of the two, I would rather see Villar win than Aquino win. One of these two men will win the election as it currently stands (unless something major happens in the next few months) and Aquino is currently the front runner. 

I feel that Aquino is an opportunist and is very disingenuous. This is because he only ran when his mother past away in August of last year. I feel that this is a situation where he is taking advantage of the situation because he does not have the merit whether on character or on competence. In 2008, if Obama was not able to show his competence and mettle in the primaries and the general, McCain would be President right now, no matter how good his change platform was.

It shows to me his character that he could not run on the merits alone. And this is a recipe for disaster if he knows it, which I think he does. I truly dread it if he wins. Cory Aquino was not a good President, no matter what people say. Rolling power outages, constant coups, unfinished and never finished projects. She might have lead people power, but that did not mean she did a good job as President. She might have been a moral force, but Noynoy is not her, and we should not project her moral force into him especially during a time where an election is extremely important.

As for Villar, I also do not believe in him as well. He seems to me like a snake oil salesman. He peddles good cheer and promises, but I truly doubt that he will be able to fulfill all the things that he has promised. He seems to be trying to put one over us, with that good smile and all that money and advertising. And the C-5 road extension controversy is really a dent in that persona of being the guy for the masses. Still, at least he seems to have a credible plan and some good ideas. And that is why given the choice I will still pick Villar.

It all boils down to the most important issue today: corruption. The fact of the matter is, corruption will never be eliminated, no one has done so. Not the U.S., not Europe, not Japan, not any country in the world. The difference is that the corruption there is not so destructive and blatant as it is here.

Here we give hundred peso bribes to traffic enforcers to get us off and 99% of the time, it does. Here we give a few thousand pesos to the agency of your choice to get "premium" service that those less fortunate cannot ever hope to achieve. Actually, I do not have a problem with offering premium service for more money, as long as it is part of the system. It's like how you can pay PHP 2,999 for 3 mbps internet instead of PHP 1,999 for 2 mbps internet. You pay more, you get more.

What I have a problem with is the underhanded nature of the transactions, done in the shadowy backrooms by those who have connections. And therein lies the crux: I do not believe that either of the two can eliminate corruption. I do not think anyone can do that. But I think Villar has a better incentive to lessen corruption than Aquino.

Corruption is one of the largest costs of doing business here in this country. Pay your taxes, the BIR will still try to say you haven't and will threaten you with closure. Want to have a business permit? Good luck unless you pay some "tribute" to the city hall. Small things that when summed up, show the corruption economy at work. Villar is a business man, he knows to make more money, there needs to be less of these things.

Large scale corruption will still exist, but those are easier to sniff out. Small-scale corruption on the micro level done all over the country crossing thousands upon thousands of small transactions that have been internalized? Those are extremely difficult.

I will oblige Villar his large-scale corruption, as long as he eliminates the small ones, he will get his comeuppance in due time. Aquino, I am sure will focus on large-scale corruption issues, and he will inevitably fail. These are intractable problems, they are like oxygen, they will always exist. People hate focusing on small problems because large ones have immediate impact and, more importantly, generate more publicity.

The bottom-line is this: of the three, Gibo is the candidate that I would vote for if he could win (he will not) and Villar is the candidate I would like to actually vote for (because he can win). We must not further our problems with illusions of improbability. We must focus on reality, who is the best candidate that can win the election. Only with this clear-eyed goal of realism and putting forward the tough task of righting the direction of the country can we actually get things done instead of bickering about this and that.

I'll have some thoughts soon about how to lessen corruption posted in a few weeks (or days if you're lucky). If you have a different opinion or you would like to shout to the world that I am crazy and that I don't know what I'm talking about, please comment below. Also, please tell me if I have made any mistakes as well.

Book Review: The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory by David Plouffe

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Win-Lessons-Historic-Victory/dp/0670021334

As I first read this book, it started off pretty well as I was having dinner by myself at an awful restaurant. I was engrossed by the tale weaved by David Plouffe during the historic 2008 election where Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.

The content was pretty good, some of it I, and probably most people who followed the race closely, already knew from reading articles online, watching cable and local news shows (although mine consisted mostly of cable because I lived in another country) and acquiring other forms of information, directly from the then-nominee as well as the media punditocracy in the U.S.

There were, however, plenty of insight and although one must always take a grain of salt when reading the version of the "winners'" history, all in all, I thought it was mostly a truthful and refreshing take on the election from an insider's point of view.

Some highlights include:

• How a campaign stuck to its guns despite the overwhelming clamor for them to change their strategy and tactics.
• How the campaign placed a whole lot of trust on people; knowing if that they failed to deliver they wouldn't even have made it past Iowa.
• How despite the errors they made along the way, they dealt with it in a calm manner.
• Most impressive of all, was how the candidate stayed focus, trusted his advisers and the people on the ground and was always calm, rational and made good decisions along the way.

These points all illuminated for me that the choice for the Presidency in 2008 was not mistaken, and that despite all the haranguing about Obama right now, I think that the U.S. is in a far better place than it would have been had a different outcome occurred in November of 2008.

To inject a little bit of context in terms of the local situation, some terms of contrast can be made:

• Point: The 2010 elections are about change similar to the 2008 elections.
• Contrast: There is no change candidate in our country.

• Point: The 2010 elections offer an opportunity for greater participation due to the large hunger for said change that can be capitalized by candidates, similar to 2008 where Obama's campaign broadened the electorate both in the primaries and the general elections.

• Contrast: It is likely that turnout will have little to modest growth, but not in the way 2008 inspired young people, who carried Obama to victory in terms of both votes and effort, will have here in the Philippines.

• Point: Digital media has transformed the way campaigns are run.

• Contrast: This country is still very weak in terms of internet connectivity, having only at best 25% broadband penetration. Plenty are still in the dark about this game and world-changing technology.

I am sure there are other points and contrasts to be made, but is best to leave it for another time. My time reading this book was further made enjoyable by allowing me to compare how the 2008 U.S. elections fared compared to how the 2010 Philippine elections will fare. I'll be posting my thoughts in this matter at a later date.

Recommendation: Read it Now!