Voting for the future

Lawyers are required to have a law degree, but not law makers.

That meme circulated over the weekend as the nation braced for the final frenzy of vote buying, gimmickry and squid tactics related to the elections.

The lament about lawmakers not being required to know the law is just one of many expressions of frustration over the caliber of people we have been electing to high office.

We have stringent academic and other qualification requirements for so many types of professions and skilled work. Yet we have the least qualification requirements for positions that seriously impact people’s lives and national development.

For acceptance into the Philippine Military Academy, for example, these are the requirements: high school diploma with 85 percent minimum grade point average, entry age of 17-22, natural-born citizen, single (never been married), at least five feet tall, and “physically fit and of good moral character.”

Yet for the military’s commander-in-chief (plus the vice president who is the automatic successor), the only requirements cover age, citizenship, 10-year Philippine residency as well as being a registered voter and “able to read and write.”

For senators and congressmen, the requirements cover only citizenship, age, residency, being a registered voter and “able to read and write.”

Perhaps we should be ecstatic that the framers of the Constitution deemed it wise to exclude at least the “no read, no write” – the working definition of the illiterate – from the complex tax of lawmaking.

How do we expect the national leadership to be composed of the nation’s best and brightest? And then we wonder why the government is so rotten.

*      *      *

In regional overachiever Singapore, doctorates from top schools are common among the highest officials and politicians. Solid academic credentials are required for the civil service.

We see this as well in the most prosperous economies of Asia: Japan, South Korea, China. Taiwan was built by the political leaders, intelligentsia, artists and artisans who left China as the communist wave rolled across the mainland.

Surely there’s a direct link between the quality of the national leadership and the quality of governance.

In a democracy, people have the power to choose leaders with capability and integrity. This presumes, however, that the people are sufficiently informed to make the right choices.

We know this isn’t the case in our democracy. Our country is a poster boy for dysfunction in a free society.

Our voters don’t even know what lawmakers, particularly senators, are tasked to do. I’m still waiting for any of the reputable pollsters to conduct a survey on what Filipinos think are the roles assigned to senators.

A government of, by and for the people works best in a society with a high level of literacy. A high rate of basic and functional illiteracy in a country is reflected in the quality of public administration.

*      *      *

Some sectors are questioning the new definition of functional illiteracy by the Philippine Statistics Authority.

Regardless of the outcome of this debate, what could be worse than a high rate of functional illiteracy is the possibility that the Philippines’ literacy rate is actually high, but there are simply too many scammers and thieves in our midst. And that concepts of honor and integrity are alien in our society.

The venality of many of our highly educated public officials, who are unable to moderate their greed, has made not only the underprivileged masses but also many in Classes A to C cynical about solid academic achievements being a gauge of capability and integrity in public office.

We don’t have a deeply ingrained code of honor like the Japanese, or a strong sense of civic responsibility and nationhood like the Singaporeans, South Koreans and Vietnamese.

This should be a source of shame for a nation that prides itself in being Asia’s bastion of the Roman Catholic faith. It should be a cause for concern in the halls of the Vatican.

The Church used to wield strong influence through education and charity work covering a wide range of needs, from physical and mental health care, emotional support and outright dole-outs.

But for a long time now, the government and individual politicians (plus a smattering of influence-peddling religious groups) have taken on these roles. The realities of modern life have also eroded the influence of religion in many parts of the world.

Today, as in previous elections, people are being urged to vote for their future.

But for the underprivileged, thinking of the future can be a luxury. Tomorrow may never come, so they just take whatever comes their way today. It can be hard for them to care about the pernicious consequences of corruption, abuse of power and the thievery of public funds. Any wealth shared with them – never mind if it’s stolen – is welcome.

When needy people are told to vote for their future, they equate the future with the here and now. They will vote for those who they think can meet their needs ASAP.

I find hope in the report that the millennial and Gen Z generations – meaning those in their early 30s or younger this election day – account for about 60 percent of the country’s voting population. This is based on Commission on Elections data.

Perhaps the younger generations will care more about seeing a brighter future for themselves and their country, and will vote accordingly.