Swift change

The political landscape has shifted dramatically in recent weeks. There is nothing new here for ordinary Filipinos who have diligently followed the political dynamics in previous election years. There have been and will continue to be changes as politicians observe the events leading up to the elections. Relationships and obligations evolve, and the fact that they change so quickly adds to the fascination.

But what do these changes mean for ordinary people like us? Do developments imply that particular politicians or political parties are unstable? Or do they simply want to be assured that they can win? Or it may simply be a matter of training voters' minds and making them accustomed to the techniques employed by some politicians, and it would simply be a matter of being accustomed to what our leaders would like to deploy depending on what they believe would be advantageous to their part?

Any change could be motivated by something. In the political arena, it may be interpreted as an attempt to increase notoriety in a country known for its dynastic politics—as well as an attempt to avoid future accountability and hence maintain strong political clout.

Any change is welcome as long as it benefits everyone, or at the very least the majority of us. We desire change if it leads to the development or enhancement of systems and processes. When we improve as humans, we welcome any change. But when change is being used to deceive and mislead people, it becomes treacherous and, as a result, disadvantageous to the people.

Such transformation is both undesirable and unacceptable for persons who take any activity seriously. As a result, any change must be evaluated because such a motive would only benefit a few at the expense of the greater majority.

Any abrupt change in our regular activities would result in rash decisions. A lack of thoughtful steps to weigh things out is implied by rapid change. When faced with a significant decision, time is of the essence. We just require more time in the face of a confluence of competing and compounding circumstances.

After a six-year firebrand leader was elected on the promise of massive and systemic change, it must be clear by now that, while some changes have been made, most things have remained the same. It's logical to suppose that Philippine politics is still going about its "business-as-usual" mode, characterized by patronage, clientelism, and old-school politics.

Despite being Asia's first constitutional democracy, the quality and integrity of the elections in the Philippines left much to be desired. Politicians continue to rely on traditional political machines due to the lack of a legitimate and strong party system. An election campaign is still a popularity fight in which name recall, celebrity status, and political pedigree indicate potential success rather than a war of policy-based ideas.

And we're all aware that the Filipino personalistic culture generates an electorate and a government that see political ties as personal. What is expected of a politician or public figure is the same as what is expected of a personal friend or acquaintance.

A highly personal approach to campaigning and governance is what makes a candidate or politician popular with the public. Performance is judged not only in terms of meeting prescribed responsibilities, but also in terms of living up to the cultural norm of being personable. "A politician is family," Filipinos say, valuing the notion that they know you and that you know them. And this is something that is difficult, if not impossible, to change.