• Where will ‘democracy’ bring us?

    7

    THE elections are over; the counting is not. The fate of the top pick in this year’s polls—and the next President of the Republic—no longer rests in the hands of the voting public but rather on vote-counting machines, unseen technologies, and complex procedures that we can only hope has not been rigged, and on a few unelected officials appointed in a partisan process but whom we expect (or hope) to be non-partisan.

    Whatever the results may be, we can be almost sure that, based on recent survey results, the winner of this year’s presidential elections will not be elected by a majority of Filipinos.
    So from the very start, the country’s next President enters into office with a serious handicap—that he or she does not enjoy the trust and support of the majority of Filipinos.

    Chosen by some but rejected by more, the next occupant of Malacañang will be a minority President, just as it has always been since the first post-EDSA election some 24 years ago.

    Not a few analysts blame our toxic political tradition on the country’s plurality voting system—enshrined in the 1987 Constitution—where a candidate can be elected with less than a majority of the vote. Based on a concept called “first past the post,” a candidate wins in a plurality voting system even with a small percentage of the vote as long as it is the highest percentage as compared to the other candidates.

    In 1992, Fidel Ramos won the presidential elections with a plurality of only 23.6 percent from among seven candidates. Interpreted differently, Ramos was rejected by three of every four voters.

    The winners in the succeeding three elections didn’t fare much better, although they won by bigger pluralities: Joseph Estrada with nearly 40 percent from among eight aspirants (1998); Gloria Macapagal Arroyo with 40 percent from among five candidates (2004); and PNoy with 42 percent from among six hopefuls (2010).

    Although our elections are generally free in that voters can vote for a candidate of their choice and each vote has the same worth as the other, not everyone agrees that our elections are fair, mathematically at least. Why? Because under our current voting system, the vote for anyone other than the winning candidate is completely disregarded.

    If there are more than two candidates, each with sizeable support, such as in the May 9 polls, the winning candidate need not get 50 percent plus 1 of the votes in order to win. So, in effect, the majority of votes cast are “lost.”

    A renowned mathematician, Prof. Ian Stewart, explains the problem of a voting system like ours this way: “Suppose 15 people are asked to rank their liking for milk (M), beer (B), or wine (W). Six rank them M-W-B, five B-W-M, and four W-B-M. In a plurality system where only first preferences count, the outcome is simple: milk wins with 40 per cent of the vote, followed by beer, with wine trailing in last.”

    “So do voters actually prefer milk? Not a bit of it. Nine voters prefer beer to milk, and nine prefer wine to milk—clear majorities in both cases. Meanwhile, 10 people prefer wine to beer. By pairing off all these preferences, we see the truly preferred order to be W-B-M—the exact reverse of what the voting system produced…

    “In the example above, simple plurality voting produced an anomalous outcome because the alcohol drinkers stuck together: wine and beer drinkers both nominated the other as their second preference and gave milk a big thumbs-down. Similar things happen in politics when two parties appeal to the same kind of voters, splitting their votes between them and allowing a third party unpopular with the majority to win the election,” Stewart said.

    We can adopt a fairer voting system but that will require a constitutional amendment, an unlikely event given the ordinary Filipinos’ allergy to charter change.

    Of course, having a majority President is not a guarantee of a better outcome.

    Philippine-style democracy has seen the country’s slide from the second most progressive in Asia to the perennial bottom-dweller. All the while, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

    Our seemingly dysfunctional democracy brings to mind what the late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew once said: “The ultimate test of the value of a political system is whether it helps that society establish conditions that improve the standard of living for the majority of its people.”

    As a Singaporean journalist put it, “Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours of the morning, to be able to leave one’s door open and not fear that one would be burgled… Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs… Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone.”

    Does this sound familiar?

    * * *
    My warmest congratulations to the newest members of #TeamDPTLaw, Atty. Mary Ann P. Olalia, of the Ateneo Law School, and Atty. Mark Anthony A. Asuncion, of the San Beda College of Law, and to all the 2015 Bar exam passers. Welcome to the legal fraternity, compañeros and compañeras!

    Share.
    loading...
    Loading...

    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    7 Comments

    1. Dapat satin semi-democracy lang a little authoritarian is needed duterte style. Full democracy is not for us as we have seen in past 50 years. Full democracy is only for highly disciplined people and is a western ideology. Full democracy give rights even to criminals. Ju

      • Just look at successful semi Democratic govt like Singapore, malaysia, just to name a few, they are successful as a nation and people. Full democracy is an illusion to us, that’s robledo maybe difficult to work with.

    2. freedom is to be able to about my daily business without fear of being falsely accused, to be abducted and then to be found at the bottom of Manila Bay making fish fat.

      i’d say the late LKY would have said that, too, given the current situation.

    3. Daniel B. Laurente on

      Wait ka lang dyan. Darating ang pinakamagandang resulta ng demokrasya. Huwag ny munang isipin na hi9ndi maganda kasi napansin ko lahat ng analysis ng mga analyst kon puro palpak. Yong magandang pangarap nila noon kay Penoy ay hindi tugma sa isiisip nila na mangyari. Anim na taon ay nasayang. Dito sa ngayon sa aking palagay kahit hindi ako analyst ay gaganda ang takbo ng bansa natin. Hope for the best like peaceful Davao City.

    4. Amnata Pundit on

      The hand-picked framers of the Cory constitution junked the proposal to hold a run-off election between the first two placers in the presidential contest which is a standard feature in many other countries to ensure that the winner gets a clear majority vote. They rejected this proposal because, being the elitists that they were, they knew they could never win against a candidate of the masses. Their experience with Erap and FPJ showed the danger a candidate of the masses posed on their hold on power, so they came up with automated elections where cheating becomes as easy as child’s play, and this is where we are now. Revolution is the only answer. Lets hope Duterte can launch a “revolution from the center” just like what Marcos attempted only to be beaten back by the Western-backed oligarchy. If not, let the Jacobins come and deal with these bastards.

    5. P.Akialamiro on

      While we cherish ‘democracy’, ‘responsibility’ should be emphasized more. I’d say that the people are quite forgetful about the ”responsibilities’ they have in order to enjoy democracy more fully.