Our fragile electoral system
WE LIVE in interesting times. While I doubt that we have a presidential candidate who has read Plato’s “Republic” or John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice,” the ultimate premise that underlies the presidential election has always been who among the candidates can truly bring about a bright future for the Filipino people. Although a large majority of the population has remained poor, the Filipino has always been interested in politics. It is for this reason that as a people, we have to be reminded of our past more than what the future may hold for us.
In politics as in real life, people need to consider the consequences of their choices. While the person is alone in casting his or her vote, the perspective of one’s own good or benefit cannot be the sole motive in choosing a candidate. We have to fully consider the wellbeing of others as equally deserving of our moral concern when we exercise our right of suffrage. While it is true that no president can alter the destiny of a nation, we need not be reminded as to how absolute power may corrupt one man. The position of president is always emblematic. It can either be a symbol of the freedom of a people or their eternal oppression.
It is in view of this that I find it useful to distinguish between the “felt preferences” and the “considered preferences” in making that important judgment: who we see as the right fit for the presidency of the Philippines.
A felt preference simply requires that we ask a person what it is that he or she wants. In this sense, the value of one’s choice is based upon the satisfaction of a need. This choice refers to something that appears to be beneficial to the purposes that one sets upon oneself. Voting in this regard is a matter of transacting some business. You expect to derive a benefit from a particular candidate. The candidate expects to profit from you. This is something that has been mastered by local dynasts and feudal lords. In making their judgment, people simply surrender the power of their will to the lure of money and influence.
A considered preference is grounded in something that is rational. It is the idealization of one’s choice based on a particular world view. Moral issues arise when what we do has an ill effect on the lives of other people. For this reason, we need to carefully consider things on the basis of moral principles and determine our judgment on such basis. The consequences of our failure do have a long-term effect, not only on our economy but also on the total wellbeing of our people.
The trouble with our voters, of course, is that the majority make their choice in terms of their felt preferences. While the autonomy of the individual is the most important element in any electoral exercise, the choices that people make depend on their value system. When an individual claim runs in conflict against those of others, we have to judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such on a set of basic rules. Only then can a decision—and for this reason, the choice of a particular candidate—become ethical.
For instance, the classification of voters according to economic status (A to E) is very limiting and cannot be the sole determinant in understanding voter preference. Firstly, it underestimates the moral capacity of those who belong to the lower economic sector and overestimates the intelligence of those who belong to the higher economic sector. It operates under the bias that the poor can always be bought and that those on top of the hierarchy cannot. While one needs to factor in the economic situation of people, the influence of money also affects the decision of the educated class. People often think of money as solely represented by material goods, but money also impacts the electoral system through various mechanisms. There is always a price tag for everything political, and while one may not be lured by cash, subtle ways of influencing voter behavior can be employed in order to raise awareness on a particular candidate, whether good or bad.
The biggest threat to our democracy today is the cult of personality that has reduced our young voters to docile human subjects. Passion is a very powerful thing. But it is also at the same time dangerous. Thus, in politics, our maturity as individuals who seek the realization of a truly just society can only be tested by our reasoned judgments, not by anger. We all want to resist. But we have to resist on moral grounds.
Charles Bukowski once said: “The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy, you vote first and take orders later, whereas in a dictatorship, you don’t have to waste your time voting.” In the end, we can only pray that this is not the case in our fragile electoral system. Perhaps only God can save us.
Christopher Ryan Maboloc is assistant professor of philosophy at Ateneo de Davao University. He has a master’s in philosophy from Ateneo de Manila University and a master’s in applied ethics degree from Linkoping University in Sweden. He is the founding president of Social Ethics Society.
