I am severely tempted, 12 years after this editorial was written and published, to remonstrate myself and say, "Look who's talking." Entertained no end by the ongoing longest US presidential campaign ever, I find myself leaning toward specific candidates.
I admit: Not because of the issues. After all, I'm not an American voter. And while I may be familiar with the issues facing the American electorate, I am hardly an expert on them. I also feel no passion for any of those issues, except for the Iraq war, the stupidity and arrogance of which are pure and vintage Americana. As a former journalist who was already in media during the Vietnam war, I refuse to let some Americans think I can be conned.
Any explanations--not excuses--for how I feel personally about one or two of today's US presidential candidates? Of course! Don't a few of them bring you right back to the '60s and '70s, complete with the stirring buzz words and ringing phrases of those decades, when candidates would shout them out on the campaign trail in hopes of whipping up voter mania that would carry them to the comfort and luxury of high office?
Perhaps because I'd seen and heard them before--even included some of them in my reportage--it is easy to recognize the sound of ephemera. Only the young still get so moved by ringing oratory that they forget to scrutinize specific programs, platforms, and accomplishments.
____________________
Editorial, The Evening PaperIssue of 2 May 1995
The election fever heats up as we near the homestretch of the campaign period. With only a week to go to E-Day, the desperate phase is on for all candidates seeking elective positions.
No wonder one sees nothing but candidates' posters wherever one looks. No wonder all everybody can talk about are the coming elections.
The local contests are obviously more exciting to the localities concerned, as the Nueva Ecija killing has proven beyond doubt. But it is still true that the senatorial contest will command the electorate's attention nationwide, especially now that certain realignments seem to have been forged as part of some party strategists' last-minute protective moves.
Even the survey-takers are engaged among themselves in a silent struggle for credibility and prominence. The Social Weather Station of the Ateneo de Manila University and the Social Development Research Center of De La Salle University have provided contrasting projections of senatorial results: 10-2 from the SWS; 7-5 from De La Salle. Add to that President Fidel V. Ramos's favorite equation: 12-0.
Which leaves us with a most confusing task ahead of us. How, indeed, will our own personal number combinations shape the future Philippine Senate?
In a political environment where party ideologies do not count for much and one politician can switch from one party to another without too much agonizing, how one combines the names that will add up to a 12-man/woman Senate slate perhaps does not matter.
It will be just as easy, and as valid, for us to vote on the basis of surveys, of presidential persuasion, of personal favorites, as on the basis of party politics.
Many have already decided in favor of personalities--that is, those whose policies and politics come closest to their own, regardless of party affiliation.
It does not reflect adversely on the President, or on the opposition, or even on the electorate themselves. It simply underscores the fact that, yes, in the Philippine setting, parties are interchangeable.
For Filipino voters, only one landmark is clear. And until we reach a level of political sophistication that will allow us to judge candidates on the basis of what their political parties stand for, the landmark is still the candidates' very personal political styles.
No wonder one sees nothing but candidates' posters wherever one looks. No wonder all everybody can talk about are the coming elections.
The local contests are obviously more exciting to the localities concerned, as the Nueva Ecija killing has proven beyond doubt. But it is still true that the senatorial contest will command the electorate's attention nationwide, especially now that certain realignments seem to have been forged as part of some party strategists' last-minute protective moves.
Even the survey-takers are engaged among themselves in a silent struggle for credibility and prominence. The Social Weather Station of the Ateneo de Manila University and the Social Development Research Center of De La Salle University have provided contrasting projections of senatorial results: 10-2 from the SWS; 7-5 from De La Salle. Add to that President Fidel V. Ramos's favorite equation: 12-0.
Which leaves us with a most confusing task ahead of us. How, indeed, will our own personal number combinations shape the future Philippine Senate?
In a political environment where party ideologies do not count for much and one politician can switch from one party to another without too much agonizing, how one combines the names that will add up to a 12-man/woman Senate slate perhaps does not matter.
It will be just as easy, and as valid, for us to vote on the basis of surveys, of presidential persuasion, of personal favorites, as on the basis of party politics.
Many have already decided in favor of personalities--that is, those whose policies and politics come closest to their own, regardless of party affiliation.
It does not reflect adversely on the President, or on the opposition, or even on the electorate themselves. It simply underscores the fact that, yes, in the Philippine setting, parties are interchangeable.
For Filipino voters, only one landmark is clear. And until we reach a level of political sophistication that will allow us to judge candidates on the basis of what their political parties stand for, the landmark is still the candidates' very personal political styles.
-- NBT
No comments:
Post a Comment