Anarchy

With just eight weeks left in the campaign, candidates are intensifying their sorties, posting of campaign paraphernalia, and media presence on multiple platforms.

Those pop-up political ads online are as annoying as the campaign streamers that continue to litter lampposts, trees and the walls of government buildings. By the time the Supreme Court, moving as usual like molasses, resolves with finality the petitions challenging the Commission on Elections’ “Oplan Baklas” against campaign materials, the elections would be over.

Anarchy reigns in our elections. The Comelec has been defanged and unable to regulate a wide range of election-related activities. It can’t enforce its rules on COVID-safe campaigning, or regulate campaign finance and the display of election paraphernalia, or curb the shameless abuse of the party-list system. Some of its officials face credibility problems.

The Comelec can’t even compel candidates to attend debates organized by the poll body itself. Candidates who make opaqueness a policy in their campaign are certain to carry it over into the posts they are aspiring for in case of victory. But people don’t seem to care, as long as they see the candidates promising them the moon on TikTok and Twitter.

The anything-goes campaign favors the wealthy; you can see this clearly in the candidates with the most pervasive presence on social media.

Banks and other financial technology providers have been alerted by monetary and anti-money laundering authorities to watch out for transactions that could indicate vote buying, and to report suspicious activities. The authorities have issued specific guidelines on activities that should trigger alarm bells.

This anything-goes campaign is a virus that must be eliminated by the time the next general elections are upon us.

Barring Charter change that might lift term limits and allow national leaders to stay in power forever, that’s six years to eliminate this sickness in our election system.

*      *      *

Some candidates have tried to buck the system and conduct an unconventional campaign. A common thread among them is their refusal to accept contributions to their campaign kitties, or at least to minimize the sources of their campaign funds, so they don’t become beholden to vested interests. But the limited funding also means fewer campaign materials and weak social media presence.

Going by the surveys, the unconventional campaign has not done much for several of the candidates that are known to be doing it. Money politics still rules.

Aksyon Demokratiko’s candidate for vice president, Dr. Willie Ong, is one such unconventional campaigner, refusing contributions and relying on his millions of followers on Facebook.

But he acknowledges that it’s not translating into voter preference for him. During the Omicron-driven surge last January, for example, he says he enjoyed 73 percent social media engagement, with his rivals for the VP race splitting the remaining 27 percent.

Doc Willie understands that the social media engagement with him is largely as a health professional.

“Everybody watches me pagdating sa health so how come they don’t vote for me?” he told us on One News’ “The Chiefs” last week. “Tingin ko kasi they don’t see me as a politician.”

It’s ironic that even after two years of a pandemic that has devastated lives and livelihoods, Filipinos largely ignore a doctor aspiring for high office, who actually has solid ideas about what must be done to improve public health.

*      *      *

Interviewing some of the candidates who are outside the potential winning circle (based on the credible surveys), we hear novel, doable ideas that could make life better in our weak republic.

One candidate, for example, laments the steep cost of campaigning even for the Senate. He notes that most of those entering the so-called Magic 12 in the surveys for the Senate race are moneyed candidates.

The candidate suggests that the government should simply stop the traditional campaign – no more sorties and posting of campaign paraphernalia – and instead provide candidates common multimedia platforms with national reach for pitching their campaign spiels and allowing voters to get to know them. PTV 4 and other government media facilities can be used for this; they are tax-funded so they should provide equal campaigning opportunities for all.

We have to make running for elective office drastically cheaper. It will not only level the playing field but also minimize corruption and influence peddling. Elective officials must owe their positions not to campaign donors but to the public they are sworn to serve.

*      *      *

You wonder why there has been little political support for proposals in the past to strictly regulate campaign activities and expenditures. Don’t politicians want to save money?

The only plausible reason for this resistance to campaign finance and electoral reforms is that politicians benefit immensely from the anything-goes, opaque status quo. Winners can pocket leftover donations, and the amounts can be huge. It’s not entirely a joke that some people seek elective office “for the fund of it.”

Jueteng lords, smugglers, drug dealers and other lowlifes can launder their dirty money to political campaigns, or use the money to finance their own bids. Some have succeeded, ensuring the continuation of their illegal activities, this time enjoying political protection.

Our elections have become mere exercises in the validation of corruption, dishonesty and mediocrity in public service.

It’s ironic that the Information Age has not created a more informed electorate, but instead has provided unlimited opportunities for spreading outright lies, disinformation and historical distortions.

Even if the suggestion on curbing traditional campaigning is pursued, moneyed candidates will simply pour resources into social media to have an edge over rivals. Our browsers will be flooded with even more pop-up ads of candidates.

If such ads are banned by the Comelec, the candidates can give their trolls additional work: to set up blogs and vlogs filled with praise releases for their employers. Any effort to regulate such vlogs might run into legal challenges invoking freedom of expression.

Digital technology has made it even tougher to regulate campaign finance, curb vote buying and detect the money trail to paid hacks and trolls.

The current campaign shows democracy gone haywire. It will inevitably affect the quality of governance, with the people suffering the consequences.