Patronage politics: Anathema to good governance

+
A A
-
DR. IRINEO “BONG” G. ALVARO JR.
July 7, 2019
THE recent May 13 elections saw the country submerged, not by rain as it
was one of the hottest summers ever, in political muck. It was a season of
mudslinging, vilification, manufacture and spread of fake news, vicious
trolling and other usual shenanigans that characterize our elections.

Candidates old and new from both sides of the political spectrum were at it,
pulling each other deeper into the quagmire. But by July 1, all this should
come to an end (or will it?), as the victorious shall have started office. It
should be the beginning of actually putting to reality the promises they
made to the people. For some of them, July 1 shall be the first day of their
political careers. But for most, the day will just be the opening page of
another chapter of the sad history of our politics, the narrative of patronage
politics. It does not need a census to reveal that the majority of those who
won are old familiar names. The old familiar names of families who ruled
over us as far as we can recall. In fact, most of the greenhorns are having
the same names, being scions or direct kin of politicians who have been
lords of their fiefdoms for generations, whose forebears were likewise as
such. We need not look beyond Angeles City. Those who will rule starting
July 1 have surnames which are all too familiar, as their fathers and
grandfathers have ruled our fathers and grandfathers before.

In fact, it was as early as a generation ago too that I, while teaching in the
academe, wrote a paper on this. I retrieved and read again the paper a few
days ago, and it was as if I only wrote it a few moments ago, as it seems
nothing changed, including the names of the characters of the story I tried
to tell two decades ago. Adding a few insights and present-day details, may
I retell my take of the realities of our politics and electoral practice, even if
there is no substantial difference of what was then to what is now. Election
Perspectives My three term engagement in local politics gave me first-hand
information and deeper understanding of the dynamics of Philippine politics
far greater than the lessons I had during my years of studies in Public
Administration at the University of the Philippines. As direct participant in
the local political arena, I was able to observe and note of the varied
attitudes and appreciation of people towards politics, elections and
governance. My being out of politics since the late 1980s also gave me a
broader perspective and bigger vantage point, further validating many of
my observations when I was into local politics. One glaring example is the
observation that elections are viewed by a great number of voters as a
seasonal event that usually ends after one has written on his or her ballot,
and rarely as a commencement of something more important - governance.

Continuity or what happens after the elections seems farthest from the
concerns of the majority of voters. The fleeting interest of the people in the
process of selecting their leaders has allowed the triumph of politicians and
candidates who rely on cheap gimmicky rather than their serious platform
or program that they want to pursue once elected. To them (the voters and
candidates), elections are like the coming to town of the circus, with the
clowns, cheap magicians, jugglers, fire-eaters and even the freaks. What
can be more freakish than an out-of-tune politician attempting a Whitney
Houston, or an out-of-timing sick joke awkwardly dished out by a
candidate? Indeed, a candidate who wins by just singing and dancing has
no obligation to do serious work. He or she was voted upon because of his
or her singing and dancing prowess and, oddly, non-prowess. So why
should the voters ask for more? I had also observed people with varied
views and understanding of the electoral exercise. To the politician, the
usual meaning of getting elected is to amass power and use the same
mostly for personal gain. Mainly to perpetuate and protect his or her vested
interest, or the interests with whom the politician is beholden to. On the
side of the electorate, I have observed variable meanings, and they vary
accordingly, for instance: To the common voter, election is both an
entertaining activity and an opportunity to gain favors and make money, to
put it bluntly. Recently I have been witness to the campaign of a friend who
put so much effort, and resources, in the development of his program of
government, his messaging, his organization and even in his dramatic
narrative and oratory. Some of his people even tried to inject ideological
color into his positioning, as he was pitted against two of the most powerful
and richest families in the area. He tried to mount a class war against his
moneyed and powerful opponents, fashioning himself as representative of
the ordinary people. But while the common voters seemed mesmerized by
his messages and manner of delivery, the flood of moolah coming from his
opponents during the campaign simply drowned him out that he landed last
when the votes were counted. To some whom I call “the opportunists”,
these are the "operators" and political mercenaries posing as ward and
group leaders who peddle their trade to the highest bidders. To them,
advocacies and issues are not important. Money is all that matters. These
ambitious scoundrels consider the election season as a chance to share
from the largesse of big-spending politicians. These days, mayoral
candidates in small municipalities spend as much as P100 million. Those in
big cities, like Angeles, pour out as much as P200 million, with one
politician boasting of a P350-million campaign kitty for city mayor! (When I
ran for vice mayor in Angeles City in 1998, a rich and powerful politician
casually said, in my face, that he will "spend all his money" to make me
lose. Well, I lost.)

The “political entrepreneurs,” or what the former UP President Dodong

Nemenzo calls “the petty bourgeois do-gooders” who equate democracy
with elections. For them election is a time to invest financial or physical
resources to support traditional politicians in exchange of greater profits
after the elections, usually via exceptional favors or juicy contracts through
bogus biddings. For the fanatical members of religious groups and cults,
elections are a moment of proving one's faithfulness to an idol, sect,
religion, or cult. For them - even if they are justices of the Supreme Court
and the brightest of professionals - individual discernment over the
qualifications, moral and ideologicalmoorings of candidates is set aside
once their leaders anoint the candidates they want to support. To the
hardliners of the Left - the conduct of elections is another chance to recycle
old slogans of "ibagsak" (down with.) without really proposing any
alternative options on how to "iangat" or "itayo" a better form of governing.

To the nihilists and fence-sitters, who view elections as an altogether

useless exercise. These people adhere to the belief that politicians are of
one face and nothing can be achieved after the exercise. They often leave
the choice to others and would not participate in the exercise. However,
when things get worse, they usually have the loudest complaining voices.
These fence-sitters are mostly from well-off families. Finally, to a very small
group referred to as the "critical voters" who prefer and choose according
to issues and platforms of candidates. These are people who spend time in
choosing and truthfully internalizing their verdict. However, the sad reality is
that they comprise the smallest number of voters, and do not have the
capability of influencing the results of even barangay elections. The past
election results have vividly proven this sad reality, allowing moneyed
traditional politicians and showbiz types to dominate the results. The Reign
of the Trapos These varied regard and appreciation of the electorate on the
meaning of elections, and with the dominance of traditional voters, have
made the political arena a playground of traditional politicians (trapos).

"Trapo" is the Tagalog term for rag used to wipe out dirt. It is a sarcastic
contraction of the term "traditional politician." Ronald Llamas, former
cabinet secretary of the administration of President Benigno "Noynoy"
Aquino, once said: "To call the traditional politician a 'trapo' is actually an
insult to the trapo (rag or basahan) for the simple reason that when the real
trapo or basahan is wiped over a dirty surface, it cleans up the surface. On
the other hand, the traditional politician leaves dirt and grime on everything
it passes on." In the Philippine setting, there are varied descriptions of
"trapos”. The characteristics of trapos are often manifested by the
personalities of candidates who seek elective posts. They are either
famous in their fields, mostly in show business and even sports, or dynasts
desiring to continue the control of their families overpower; and those who
simply have a lot of money, who regard elections as a contest among who
has the deepest of pockets to buy the people's patronage.

Marvin Bionat wrote (How to win - and lose - Elections in the Philippines,
1998) a scathing description of the trapo: "The trapos are likened to a frog
with its ability to jump around and snatch helpless, mostly wispy victims
with a slick tongue, best representing the quintessential, party-hopping and
silver-tongued Filipino traditional politician. "This is a clear description of
how traditional politicians act to seize and maintain power. They observe
no ethical boundaries, and will pursue their desire to assume their coveted
positions in government by all means and at all cost. Today's elections,
(being dominated by the trapos) became an unaffordable exercise to
ordinary but highly qualified people. Elections are now an exclusive
playground of the rich and famous, and those attached to powerful parties.
Evolution of Philippine Electoral Exercise Many Filipinos look up to the
American political and electoral conduct as model on how we should
exercise politics and do elections in our country. The irony is, the basic
defects of our political and governance systems emanated from the
Americans themselves. The Philippine public administration system,
including the processes involved in it, such as elections, was actually a
direct import from the United States. Under American rule on September
15, 1900, Act No. 5 entitled "An Act for the Establishment and Maintenance
of an Efficient and Honest Civil Service" was passed and enacted. This
measure was supposed to modify the whole personnel management
system in the Philippines.

Subsequent measures in relation to governance in the Philippines were

always modeled after the systems in the US, depending on changes
occurring there. For instance, the famous "50-50" agreement in 1959 of
distributing new positions in government to both the executive and
congressional departments was actually influenced by public administration
principles espoused by US President Andrew Jackson (1829-37), long
before the Philippines became a colony of the US. This led to a system
wherein jobs and positions in government were offered as rewards to
people who were faithful wards of politicians and top officials of
government. The birth and practice of patronage politics till this day have
been a result of American influence over our political and governance
systems. In the Philippines, electoral exercise evolved with time. In village
elections during the 50s, electing leaders were conducted through "viva
voce," or by the simple act of raising of hands. Today, barangay elections
have all the trappings of national elections. Mobile barkers, giant tarps,
posters and pamphlets are all over. Reports are most common of millions
spent by those wanting to become barangay captains and hundreds of
thousands by those aspiring to be kagawads. Ironically, Barangay elections
should be non- partisan, but candidates for barangay captains are usually
fielded and financed by mayors, congressmen and governors who expect
that if their candidates win, they will return the favor by becoming their ward
leaders and vote buyers when it is the turn of their patrons to run. Recently,
in one of the barangays in the city of Angeles, Pampanga, a grizzled old
politician managed to make the barangay elections a grand showcase of
patronage politics.

Running for the village seat, this octogenarian deployed what he proudly
claimed was his political invention of “carpet bombing” an election. This
essentially meant that a massive amount of money was poured onto the
barangay literally hours before the election. For someone who was
incapable of climbing the second floor of the election registration office, he
showed that he was a true master of this farcical craft. After handily winning
the seat, he hardly reported for work in his second-floor office. This did not
matter to his constituents it seemed, as he was cunning enough to always
have “selfies” with the lady employees at the ground floor of his office as
proof of his sterling attendance. Not a few months into his term, poor health
and old age had their say and he passed away. His political career is a
shining example of the ills of patronage politics. A thread so deeply weaved
into tapestry of Philippine politics that it has spun into different patterns of
its own. It takes many forms, from old to new, from left to right, to yellow or
red. And most worryingly, there is little sign of it stopping. That old politician
left behind two sons; both have been catapulted to power in the wake of his
death. We have yet to see what they are made of.

The author, Dr. Irineo "Bong" Alvaro Jr., Chairman of the Clark Investors
and Locators Association, contributed this article to Sunstar Pampanga.