Photo by London Permaculture

Amidst this economic crisis we are faced with, news articles still have room for politics and 2010 elections-related articles. That’s not surprising — considering how grossly-invested we are in our politics.

I’ve read a few hundred news feeds today (most of those I merely “scanned” and skimmed-through) as I don’t exactly have all day to read all, you know. Well, I’ve read the usual — the Obama frenzy, the doomsday economic prophecies, the life sentence given to Rizal Day LRT bombers, etc. But this one article written by Mark Ubalde of GMANews.tv was interesting enough to me that I read the entire article.

The title says “Fewer Presidential Bets Seen as Economic Crisis Worsens“. And I immediately thought to myself — “well, that’s good news..”. For one, fewer choices would mean a “stronger” win for the likely winner. Statistics has the answer so I’m not gonna burden you with figures. Bottomline is, whoever wins in a contest of few contenders gets higher approval ratings from voters (in a general sense) as opposed to a contest of numerous contenders. If the winner is from among only three candidates, chances are, he is well-liked by at least a little over than 33% of the total voters, ergo, he can only have a maximum of 66% dissatisfaction rating. Not bad. If you compare it to, say a 5-contender presidential race, the likely winner will have a maximum dissatisfaction rating of 79%. The more choices we have for presidentiables, the more divisive we become. So, I’ve always been a proponet of around 2-3 candidates because in presidential elections (in the Philippine context), the so-called “the more, the merrier” adage doesn’t apply. Probably “the more, the messier” would better put it.

The article says a presidentiable is likely must be ready required to spend anywhere between P3B-P5B to be able to campaign extensively on a national scale. And raising P5B is no joke, mind you — most specially that we are currently in an economic slump. And while it is true that the number of presidential wannabes may be reduced because of this, it also sends chills up my spine whenever I am reminded that somehow, these aspirants will be able to secure that much money in all imaginable (and unimaginable) ways possible. Whether they borrow it or get it free, the question on how this large sum of money is to be returned after the campaign period is a different story altogether. Chilling.

In this article, I will attempt feebly attempt to present you the boon and the bane of holding presidential elections at a time of economic crisis. As is usual, I will write this from the perspective of a lowly citizen, detached from the intriguing world of Philippine politics.

The Boon

In that same article, Bernardo Villegas, an economist, says that elections in 2010 will actually be beneficial to the economy because presidential candidate spending around 3-P5B each, multiplied by, say, 5 candidates, will generate between 3.8 percent and 4.5 percent growth for 2009. That amount is enough to shockproof our local economy from the global recession. Well, I say hooray for the economy! but what about the poorest of the poor? Will they ACTUALLY benefit from this? If so, how? Let’s qualify and quantify. Because most times, when we talk about economic benefits, those that rake billions in businesses are the only ones who get even more, while those who live on $2 a day and lower, hardly feel this so-called economic boost or “shockproof-ness” of sorts.

The Bane

“If you spend it, they will come.” Money used and lost in the campaign is not lost forever. It will be returned one way or another. Lenders and “friends” will come back at you. And that’s where corruption comes in — most specially in a time of economic crisis. Politicians and elections itself is seen as nothing more than just investments by people who have the money to spare. It’s like a gamble to them — or maybe not actually. It’s more of a “sure win” either way. Because when you gamble, you know that you might lose some, and you might win some. But when you invest it in politics, you always lose none and win even more. So for the rich and powerful, it’s almost always a win-win scenario, which probably explains why they don’t mind dipping their toes in politics or parting with a few million pesos “in aid of politics”. The problem once again is that the hardest hit, in the event of economic and political turmoil, are not the ones who throw-in their money in the arena of politics. The hardest hit are the people who don’t have either money or power to exert influence. These people become “pawns” to this game that the big guys play. And whatever happens, however the game is played, they’re the ones who get “eaten” mercilessly. And the worse part is that they can’t do anything about it, it’s as if they were destined for that exact role — to be “eaten”. The Question: What then can we do, if at all, to stop this game? And if we can’t stop it, what can we do to avoid being “eaten”? I don’t have the answer to that, I’m afraid. What I do know is that unless we come close to a realization that this is happening, we can never do anything about it. We must, at the very least, acknowledge the fact that we have become the usual, unwitting victims. Only then can we put our heads together and come up with a solution — an end to this game. As for me, I’ve ran out of ideas long ago. What about you? Do you have anything in mind?