Since the early 90s there has already been a lot of talk on political reforms that is changing the political system. As a young student of politics then, I thought, just like many of those I got into discussions then, ours was a political system, a presidential system that is comparable to, that is similar to the United States and other countries with a president as the chief executive. In time, as studies after studies were done and countless conferences and public discussions attended and especially after having been immersed in the actual operation of politics in the country, I realized there’s not system in our politics. If ever, it is the most decrepit system, then again that’ll be an oxymoron.

A system after all is a comprehensive mechanism; it has many components, each one with a purpose that contributes to the bigger whole. Every component is interdependent with the other, from the enjoining of every citizen, to recruitment, training and preparation of would-be candidates, to their election to key positions and government, to governance, that is the performance of the leaders and to their accountability to the people who is the sovereign. Then it goes back full circle again.

Try to give it much thought and you’ll come to a realization that there is no mechanism to speak of with the political setup we have. That is why I have always described ours as an archaic political setup. Archaic because what we continue to have and deal with is the same exact thing the Americans saw and left us with when they occupied us and supposedly guided us to democracy.    

Despite so many calls for change, even by no less than the one who led the drafting of the 1935 Constitution in the 60s, it remains the same, politics that is plain and simple a tug of war between political personalities, at best political families. Some would argue however that our politics before was a lot better than now; our leaders then were more eloquent and performed with at the very least a semblance of objectiveness, that decisions are made and declared with an explanation that is not blatantly “personal”.

Today, however, leaders have become dauntless, acting with wanton disregard how the public would react on their “official decisions”, intrepid enough to declare that their decisions are made frivolously out of personal considerations.

This is not saying that we never had really good leaders before and even now.  When we were fighting for independence, other than Rizal and Bonifacio, we had Felipe Calderon and of course Mabini who debated on what kind of government the country needed at that time. There were no elections then of course that are comparable to what we have now but imagine how our legislature would be if we had members like them now.

We had great Presidents. They weren’t perfect but great nonetheless, again even now. It goes without saying obviously that it depends on one’s perspective to consider one a great or even just a good President, considering the kind of partisanship that we have ended up with now.  It should likewise be noted that it is a challenge to be a good President, considering the kind of politics and governmental structure that we have.  So much depends on the President but he can only do so much.

Bottom line, it is as we have mentioned at the outset there’s hardly a mechanism other than personal capacity, both on the part of the political leaders and the public. One can aspire to be a political leader if s/he has the capacity, if s/he comes from a political family or has been significantly successful in his/her career that gave him/her enough wherewithal to do an effective campaign, that is mainly having so much money to fund the campaign.

One might disagree and say what’s more important is “popularity." Of course it is important, except that having the money also means having the capability to make oneself popular.  Needless to say, even if one is already popular, one still needs so much money to sustain that popularity.

Once elected, you’ll again see the effects of the country’s lack of a system.  It is understood even in established democracies that appointments to important positions require trust and confidence, hence the appointing power would likely choose someone s/he knows or is recommended by someone close to him/her. What makes our case different is that this is the main requirement to be even considered for appointment. In advanced democracies, yes, you will be appointed if the appointing power knows you but not without the important consideration of merit first and foremost. Personal relations only come secondary.

Obviously, this is what is called spoils, again part of the rules of politics, albeit unwritten. This doesn’t have to mean that just about anyone can be considered for appointment. Accountability is a key operative measure in governance, which of course starts with making appointments, that is choosing the right, qualified as they have to be competent public servants.

All these tell us why there is this compelling, rather nagging need to work on this “conundrum” of politics, our kind of politics, barenaked politics, something that cannot even be compared to realpolitik as that is still very much a product of logic. Ours is simply unpredictable, emotional, precipitous as it is fleeting. This fundamental limitation to our politics is the reason why we often have very limited choices for our leaders every election.

We may have so many running for office but almost always there’s hardly someone who is different, that is better than the rest. Almost everyone is saying and offering the same, as their background and orientation are also the same. I would likely be corrected that many of our leaders studied not only in leading local universities but even in preeminent foreign universities.  Manifestly, we already had many of them before and still, and this I’m sure many will agree, we still find governance, their leadership wanting.

Almost always, each time we have a new President, we’ll find him/her different from the previous, not only in leadership style but more so, with his/her priorities and policy choices.  In the end, however, it will always turn out that what we had is more of the same.

This is the reason why voters have been experimenting; at one time voting mostly those who were simply popular in movies and television, especially those who played the role of good guys and disregarding almost entirely the candidate’s educational background and or professional career. Still there was disappointment so voters elected those who made a name as bemedalled former officers of the Armed Forces. And when the people still found it not enough, started electing those who became popular from business and other professional careers.

This is the very reason why even before the advent of social media, misinformation, now popularly known as fake news, has been prevalent.  In the practice of politics we call this negative campaigning. If we take note of the limitations of traditional media, all the more it will reveal the challenges borne out of the country’s overall lack of system, of our social, economic and political structure. Media ownership has been limited ever since, the required capital to start and operate one in the first place is already substantial, making it restricted only to those who have the money, and those who have that money is limited to the same families with the exception of course of those with the uncanny ability to make much money.

Many who have been keenly aware of the inherent limitations of our kind of politics have been advocating for reforms. Almost every President has pursued charter change since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. This remains extremely difficult though as we need to have the cooperation of our leaders who have become what they are because of the prevailing setup, the very setup that we need to change. This is the point that we have to take note of, that every time there is an opportunity to pursue change in the Constitution, we have to grab it and get involved. If we don’t get involved, that is take a firm stand, for or against, interested parties will take the stand for us and before we know it, change the setup all the more in their favor.

There is now again an initiative to amend the constitution, but looking back at how it turned out before, it is unlikely it will be different now and push through. So, what we can do is think of what we do given the circumstances. What can we do so that at the least, step by step we can achieve some change and in time have a realistic projection of the ultimate change and put in place the right system for us.

We have to think of the options left for us. Again, not all of our leaders are plain and simple self-interested and or incompetent, many ever since have been well-meaning people sincerely wanting to serve.  Again, because of the system or lack of it, despite one’s capacity, s/he’s made to perform below his/her own standard, that s/he has to play by the archaic rules in order to remain ahead. The question then goes to them as well: what are their options so that they can be chosen by the people, they who are actually qualified and well-meaning? These are questions we have to constantly be concerned and together try to resolve and act in our favor.

To my mind, it can be encapsulated in three words, starting with information, realization and action. These three progressive and complementary steps and factors cannot be done by one single person or group. These are escalating factors that require everyone’s involvement. Of course, a group can serve as a kind of catalyst, the conductor if you may call it, but it has to be very effective as it is a stirring catalyst that in the process can get more and more people to be involved.

There is a scientific way to politics, not just in studying it but more importantly in making it work for one’s advantage. It all starts with information, information of what the people wants, what to them is attractive, and attractive could mean many things, not only from a candidate’s appearance and ability to speak, be understood by the everyman, but ultimately be drawn to him, that is transforming one’s natural endowments to charisma.  

Indubitably, yes, it is important to know whether one is known or popular to the people but more than that, it is fundamental to determine what the people want and expect. How this can be done depends on the people working for you to have a successful campaign.

Then you reflect on this information.  It is not right to formulate a campaign based only on what the people want to hear and or tend to admire.  It has to be imbibed by the candidate that it becomes ingrained and comes out as natural to him/her and not “factitious” or forced and thus unnatural. We have seen countless of these in the past that definitely resulted to failure. One can always assume that the ordinary folks are dumb, but in the end realize how ludicrous it is a supposition.

Then it is ripe to translate it to action. This requires organization. Consider the difficulty involved in organizing the equivalent of a well-oiled and experienced political party. This is naturally the only option that is available given the archaic politics that we have. This is the reason why a political organization is always limited only to running a campaign and therefore active only during elections. There are many who can be tapped to work on operations, the campaign on the ground, but to have it as an integrated way, that ground operations is responsive to the scientific approach formulated at the top is something else.

After the elections, it is always an option to any group doing this work to not be contented only with being active during elections. Ultimately there is a need to continue working especially for the people even in between, in fact all the more in between elections, so that the accountability that is needed, which is possible only in a democracy where there really is a system, can still be possible under the circumstances already explained in the foregoing.

This brings us back to the most fundamental factor, information, this time for the people, for the public, so that continually they will develop not only the capacity but ultimately the natural propensity to get involved. There are those who have the propensity to be involved ever since of course, but these are mostly ideological, or buoyed by the bygone idea of an ideological left-right divide in politics. Still useful of course, but it would be best if we are able to transition the people to know more and use this knowing more, that is more of reliable unadulterated information to be the driver of their politics.

In fact, we are so much left behind with this kind of politics. Many established democracies, even those where strong left-right political divide was the reason for the establishment of their political system, have long been driven by facts and figures, carefully understanding issues and addressing them objectively and not mainly by their ideological bias.

Which party in the first place reconfigured the welfare system in Germany for example? The one responsible for establishing and espousing it in the first place. Which political party spearheaded a transition to alternative and sustainable energy?  The one that is supposedly conservative. This comes as a surprise as it is irregular to the orientation of said political parties, but that’s the way it happened.

Soonest we are able to fully operate a political organization, albeit starting as a private initiative but providing the function of a real political party, in time we’ll see a profound difference. In time we will really be ready for a more sophisticated brand of politics, even finally able to address the lack of a system and forge one that is not just a copy of another country’s and therefore another history and context as a model political system.  The time has come for an organized initiative of a group to lead us to where we have long deserved.