Philippine Elections Determined by The Contrast Principle!

``A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."- Alexander Fraser Tytler in "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" 1776."

In similar application, let me digress and turn to politics. The recently concluded elections prompted some political “experts” to generalize that since “popularity” had NOT been much of a factor in the recent outcome, the present electoral exercise reflected a graduation into a “matured” or “educated” vote (I almost fell out of my seat laughing at such incredulous statement; obviously the universality of such statement reflects on the political bias of the analyst/commentator).

Also in another TV interview, a program host asked a beauty contestant “what the world should NOT know about the Philippines?”, and her answer was “corruption”. And the host responded something like ``that’s special”. Duh? What’s so special about it when the electorate itself had bought into the “corruption” and “cheating” theme?

As Franklin Pierce Adams (1881-1960) American Journalist wrote, ``Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody.” And Mr. Adams’ aphorism echoes loudly in today’s vote; it was a vote AGAINST somebody rather than for somebody (-ies).

Does a vote on political butterflies, acerbic “glitzy” rhetoric and major contending platform-“less” parties signify or even QUALIFY as “matured” or “educated” vote? Moreover, while today’s vote was a resounding political statement aimed at NO less than the administration or particularly at PGMA herself, the winning party was nonetheless ostensibly supported by an erstwhile leader deposed by the very same “corruption” charges leveled against him from which today’s battle front was drawn, our question is…has not the public shown a poor sense of history if not memory?

Has this also not shown again of the vicious cycles of “personality based” politics, where officials are voted upon into office NOT by platforms or ideologies represented but on faddish labels as “corruption”? Yet, has any of the candidates from the complete roster (from ALL camps) specified on how they will curb corruption without merely resorting to “motherhood” statements? Nonetheless too, does the public truly comprehend on what corruption stands for?

Again all these signify manifestations of the public’s widespread practice of cognitive bias particularly on the CONTRAST PRINCIPLE or the distinction between things and not absolute measures. According to changingminds.org (emphasis mine), ``When we make judgments, evaluating how good a dress or person is, we don't make absolute judgments. The way we judge pretty much anything is in comparison with something else. When we say someone is smart or talkative, we actually mean they are smarter or more talkative than other people. (Note the '-er' at the end of the adjective and the 'more' -- these are sure signs of contrastive words).”

A vote against someone rather than for someone obviously depicts that we chose NOT because of the quality but out of the perceived “outrage” from the impassioned belief of an allegedly “atrocity” committed or out of deep sympathy with the “victims” of such alleged infraction. Aside of course, from the shortage of choices offered, hence the very essence of the “contrast principle” vividly at work in the Philippine elections. It’s like having to choose the best movie from an entry of all grade B movies.

Yet even if there had been limited available alternative choices (three “genuine” independents), they had been discarded as unwinnables. Again such dynamics of unprincipled voting hardly qualifies as “educated” or “matured” voting.

Well to remind our readers, the socio-political history of the Philippines has been plagued by endemic corruption, simply because politicians have perennially been the source of our economic livelihood (where tinges of our semi-feudal structural political state of affairs, or even mindsets, has yet to be outgrown as evidenced by continued existence of dynasties, which is seen accelerating even in the national level- just look at the Senate), and not from attendant efficiencies offered by competition from the free markets. Our mantra has always been “everybody-wants-to-get-rich-but-nobody-wants-to-risk” syndrome or the DEPENDENCY culture.

To quote the Austrian school of economics and leading free market advocate Ludwig Von Mises, ``Corruption is a regular effect of interventionism”. Nonetheless the outgrowth of our systemic malaise has repeatedly been from too much of our politicians and their cadres playing “God” in determining the fate of the economy and the country.

In free market economies, politicians take a backseat as the culture of enterprise rules. In other words, lesser government equals lesser degree of corruption. Yet, we never learn and always insist on “personality based politics” based on the welfare state mentality.

When emotions dictate on the choices made, such hardly qualifies as rational choice but more of our impulsive nature, which reminds of us the invaluable words of American writer Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), ``When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion."

As they say, ``The more things change, the more they remain the same.”