Letdown

In the end, no one really talked about the elephant in the room: reforming the constitutional order that predisposes us to failure.

All the contenders held their colorful kick-off rallies last Tuesday. All of them delivered speeches promising the nation a better future. All of them professed empathy for the plight of the poor, disdain for corruption and anger at rising criminality.

All of them said what everyone expected them to say. They postured. They promised. They pandered to the crowd.

This is the way elections are won under the flawed constitutional order we labor under. We are constrained to entrust the nation’s future to ambitious personalities rather than committed political parties, to populist punch lines rather than principled programs.

This is why the constitutional order is flawed. That is the elephant in the room. It is a letdown none of the candidates addressed the issue.

Whoever wins in May will serve under this flawed constitutional order. The new president will need to coopt Congress to govern effectively. The coopted Congress, like the one preceding, will continue to be hampered by quorum problems because there is little incentive for the legislators to do any work in a system where the chief executive must have his way at the risk of a systems breakdown.

At any rate, in our first-past-the-post method of district representation, the old political aristocracy will remain unchallenged. The solution does not lie in passing an anti-dynasty law. The solution lies in changing the system of representation. Of course, the traditional political aristocracy will resist that.

This constitutional order rewards birthright and popularity, not effective leadership and sustainable policy architectures. That poisons our politics from the start.

Over the past few decades, those who governed us sought quick fixes rather than lasting solutions. Whoever the next president is will labor in a thicket of laws where penalties were increased rather than enforcement strengthened. That is the way the indolent political class preferred.

This thicket of unnecessarily punitive laws undermined effective government. Government procurement has been made more difficult. We have imposed capital punishment on an odd array of newfangled crimes – from “electoral sabotage” to “plunder.” There are enough disincentives to public service to stave off the competent and attract only the corrupt.

For years, we clamored for constitutional reform. Every president since Cory Aquino (with the exception of the incumbent) convened some sort of effort to review the 1987 Constitution and propose changes. Each time, conservatives (and the political class) defended the constitutional status quo, perpetuating the calamity.

Unfortunately, constitutional renovation does not rank very high in the public agenda. There is nothing that compels the politicians to address the issue of a constitutional order that dwarfs our future.

And thus are we trapped in this deficient constitutional order for at least another presidential term.

Sanders

There is a rebellion going on in American politics. Voters on either side of the partisan divide resoundingly chose outsiders over establishment politicians.

While our politicians were busy launching their respective campaigns, voters in New Hampshire were holding their primaries vote. There were no surprises here. Pollsters accurately predicted the outcomes. But that is precisely the surprise of it all.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump, a self-funding contender for the conservative party’s nomination, trounced all his rivals. Those who could not bring themselves to take this demagogue seriously (me included) can only stare in disbelief. The man, who wanted all Muslims denied entry to the US and denies climate change is a problem, actually leads the Republican primaries nationwide.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton by a margin of 2-to-1. The pollsters predicted that. But it is resounding nevertheless.

Since the Reagan years, every major Democratic political player, especially those seeking the party’s presidential nomination, tried very hard to avoid being labeled a “liberal.” Sanders not only embraces the tag with pride. He advertises himself as a “democratic socialist” and is now calling for a political revolution.

If Trump is funding his own campaign, Sanders is on the other end of the spectrum. In just the second primaries vote, the Sanders campaign broke all records in the number of small donors to a campaign. Millions of ordinary Americans have contributed an average of $27 each to the Sanders campaign.

Trump is a demagogue; Sanders an ideologue. The former pulls the Republican party to the right; the latter pulls his party to the left.

Trump is only a small improvement over his Republican colleague Ben Carson, a surgeon who theorized the Egyptian pyramids were built as grain silos. Trump is running his campaign on improvisation, defining no coherent program of government and relying mainly on whatever topic trends during any particular day.

Sanders, again is on the other end of the spectrum. He has outlined a left-wing populist program proposing such things as a tax on financial speculation to fund free college education. He is unabashedly suspicious of big business and not shy about laying out subsidies.

The Republican base is relatively older and rural. The Democratic base is young and urban. Inevitably, the bases of the two parties will define the policy stances of their candidates for next November’s presidential elections.

What is odd about Sanders is that he is 76 years old and yet attracts devoted following from among young voters. He revived grassroots activism among Democratic voters in a manner even more vivid than the 2008 Obama campaign.

If the respective party establishments plan to strike down the maverick candidates such as Trump and Sanders, there is little indication of that as yet.