For a Unifying Democracy
/This is part 3 of a series on the Philippine electoral system.
An informed and engaged citizenry is the foundation of a successful election. But what happens when confusion arises among the voters as to what information is truth or falsity, verity or propaganda? Nobel laureate Maria Ressa succinctly states the national dilemma: “No integrity of facts, no integrity of elections.”
Nobel Peace Prize Awardee Maria Ressa (Source: Getty Images)
Indeed, the vicious and vulgar disinformation campaign started in 2016 has cut the nation asunder, divided along lines of clan influence and celebrity power, with little to do with truth or merit. The toxic vitriol generated will linger, and the bitter dissension will endure, for years to come.
If the survey front runners do not turn out as the winners, there will almost certainly be familiar allegations of fraud even if survey results are only a snapshot of the voters’ preference at a particular point in time. This brings back to mind the unfortunate observation that there are only two types of candidates in a Philippine election: those who won and those who were cheated [or so those who fail to win, will say].
Majority Mandate
Part of the reason we remain disunited is the way we conduct our elections. It is easier for society to rally around a President that was elected by a majority (50% +1). The 1987 Constitution employs a first-past-the-post method where the candidate with the most votes (a plurality) wins. And since we moved from a two-party to a multiparty system, no candidate has obtained a majority mandate.
There are currently six “serious” candidates for the presidency. I use the term “serious” for candidates who have the basic qualifications, experience and/or general popularity. But just because you qualify as a “serious” candidate does not mean you should pursue your candidacy to the very end. A candidate who does not have a mathematical chance of winning needs to be realistic. If national interest is the primordial objective, withdrawing in favor of a candidate whose advocacies and ideals they share is the best course of action to take. Withdrawals will increase the chances of providing a majority mandate. I hope that the number of candidates is whittled down to four, even three, by the time the official campaign period starts on February 8, 2022.
By way of comparison, the number of “serious” candidates in the five previous presidential elections was as follows: six in 1992; eight in 1998; five in 2004, seven in 2010; and five in 2016. Benigno Aquino III obtained the highest plurality of 42.08% in 2010, followed by Gloria Arroyo’s 39.99% in 2004, Joseph Estrada’s 39.86% in 1998 and Rodrigo Duterte’s 39.01% in 2016; Fidel Ramos secured 23.58% of the vote in 1992.
The plurality presidents: Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Benigno Aquino III, Rodrigo Duterte
Runoff
A potential solution in a multiparty setting is the two-round voting system (also known as runoff voting) which ensures that the winning candidate will enjoy the support of an absolute majority of voters. The top two contenders proceed to a second round only if no candidate has received a majority of votes cast in the first round. A voter is free to vote for any candidate in each round.
Runoff voting encourages candidates to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters. To secure a majority vote in the second round, a candidate has to court the voters of a candidate that has been eliminated. The latter’s influence over their supporters leads to political bargaining and coalition-building with the two remaining candidates making concessions to the less successful ones.
There are practical implications to consider in a two-round voting system. The strongest argument against it is the cost required to conduct two elections. There is also the issue of voter fatigue since it entails voters going to the polls twice on separate days which could lead to a reduced turn-out in the second round. Yet, to borrow an adjective from the MasterCard commercials, the cost of a unifying election in a democracy is priceless.
Two-round voting is used to elect the presidents in more than 40 countries including France, Austria, Brazil, Argentina and Indonesia.
“Indeed, the vicious and vulgar disinformation campaign started in 2016 has cut the nation asunder, divided along lines of clan influence and celebrity power, with little to do with truth or merit. ”
Bob Dole
Last week, America lost a soldier-statesman, former Senator Robert Dole of Kansas. A warrior for the Republican Party, his life was celebrated by both sides of the political aisle. While steeped in conservative ideology, he engaged in upstanding bipartisanship leading former President Barack Obama to reminisce “back to a day when members of the Greatest Generation abided by a certain code, putting country over party.”
Senator Bob Dole and President Cory Aquino (Source: The Bob Dole Archives)
As Filipinos and Americans troop to the polls next year, let us remember certain qualities of Senator Dole that we should look for in our leaders.
In an encounter with German forces in Italy, Bob Dole was hit by enemy fire and given up for dead. It crushed two vertebrae that paralyzed his limbs. He spent three agonizing years in rehabilitation. He never regained use of his right hand. Indeed, Dole embodied the state motto of Kansas: “Ad astra per aspera” — to the stars through difficulties.
In May 1996, Senate Majority Leader Dole announced that he would resign his seat to devote himself to his presidential campaign. “I will seek the presidency with nothing to fall back on but the judgment of the people,” he said, “and nowhere to go but the White House or home.” In the Philippines, a sitting Senator can run for higher office without having to forfeit their Senate seat.
The Guardian zeroed in on Dole’s moral vision: “Only right conduct distinguishes a great nation from one that cannot rise above itself … All things flow from doing what is right.” This was sincerity, not sentiment. Rare indeed is a politician who could say with integrity, “I do not need the presidency to make or refresh my soul. For greatness lies not in what office you hold, but on how honest you are in how you face adversity and in your willingness to stand fast in hard places.”
In his final op-Ed published in the USA Today two days after his passing, Bob Dole extolled the value of compromise in a democracy and bequeathed a final advice: "Meaningful change comes to the country when everyone puts aside their party label and works for the good of the country."
Principled compromise, harmonious cooperation, and constant commitment to the collective good – these are values sine qua non for a unifying democracy.
Andy Bautista obtained a LL.B.degree (class valedictorian) in 1990 from the Ateneo School of Law and a LL.M. in 1993 from Harvard Law School where he served as a research assistant to Professor Laurence Tribe. He taught Constitutional Law for over 25 years.
More articles from Andres D. Bautista
