The myth of powerful parties

The media are replete with reports about the ongoing nomination process for the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States. Though the US presidential election to choose the successor of President Barack Obama will be held in November, since early this year the candidates have been slugging it out with full media coverage and unlimited spending.

Party politics. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders are locked in a state-by-state battle for the Democratic nomination. More brutal is the bare-knuckle showdown for the Republican crown among business tycoon Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Prior to the Edsa I revolution, party politics also dominated our political scenery. The Liberal Party (LP) and Nacionalista Party (NP) “duopolized” the national landscape. They were challenged briefly and unsuccessfully by the Progressive Party of Manuel Manahan during the 1957 presidential race, and of Raul Manglapus during the 1965 derby, when it was renamed Party for Philippine Progress.

Unlike their US counterparts, the LP and the NP did not essentially differ from each other in their political ideology and platform. They existed mostly to perpetuate the political agenda of the party bosses who chose the party’s candidates, and by extension, the country’s top officials.

In contrast, the two US parties have stood for opposing principles and projects. Their numerous members, reaching millions, have actively participated in the selection of the candidates, as shown by the ongoing primaries and caucuses to which not even incumbent US presidents can dictate.

For this reason, our two political parties became so nefarious and notorious that the 1987 Constitution discouraged the two-party system and encouraged multiple parties. Along this line, it unfortunately instituted a confused and confusing party-list scheme, borrowed from European parliamentary models and injected into our American-oriented presidential form of government, an “experiment” which resulted in a political mongrel that, in all humility, I cannot comprehend fully.

History and logic. Under the 1987 Constitution, political parties play a minimal role during PRESIDENTIAL elections. In the 1992 race—the first held under the new Charter—Ramon Mitra, the candidate of the party in power (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino or LDP), miserably lost to a virtual independent, Fidel V. Ramos who, ironically, was backed by the LDP’s titular head, President Cory Aquino.

To secure and later consolidate his victory, Ramos formed a new political party, the Lakas-NUCD, which in turn backed Jose de Venecia who—despite the full support of Ramos and the party in power—also pitifully lost the 1998 presidential race to yet another virtual independent, Joseph Estrada. Like his predecessor, Estrada had earlier founded a new political party, the Partido ng Masang Pilipino, to support his own program.

Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became president after Estrada was ousted by Edsa II. Helped by the political group she put together, the Koalisyon ng Katapatan at Karanasan sa Kinabukasan (K4), Arroyo won a controversial contest in 2004. However, Gilberto Teodoro,

Arroyo’s and her party’s anointed during the 2010 election, badly lost to Benigno Aquino III.

Conventional logic tells us that powerful parties should be able to propel their presidential candidates to victory. But history has proven this to be a myth under the present Constitution. It seems that the presidential candidates won on their personal charisma, not on the support of powerful political machines. About the only exception was in 2004, but this was really because the incumbent president, Arroyo, was the candidate herself.

Will history repeat itself in the May 2016 polls given that the leading candidates, Rodrigo Duterte and Grace Poe—per the latest SWS and Pulse Asia surveys—are not backed by the party in power? In three weeks, we should definitely know.

Some advantages. This is not to say that powerful parties are totally irrelevant now. The present election laws still accord the dominant majority and minority parties some advantages, like in the appointment of election watchers and the entitlement to a copy of the election returns, electronically-transmitted precinct results and certificates of canvass.

Election laws also favor party-supported candidates in terms of expenditures. Aside from the allowable expenses granted to the candidates themselves, the political party supporting them is authorized to spend additionally for them.

Also, independent candidates who die prior to the election cannot be substituted. On the other hand, the political party to which the decedents belonged can nominate substitutes for them.

Powerful political parties appear to be crucial for other national offices like the Senate. Despite the loss of their presidential contenders, parties in power are able to steer many of their senatorial bets to victory.

Though lacking the prerogatives of political machines, independents do not carry the baggage of discredited parties and need not defend the shortcomings of incumbent presidents. Moreover, they select the projects and programs they want to applaud and emulate.

On the provincial level, locally-organized parties seem to be effective in propelling their candidates. In the same vein, local dynasties thrive better under the present multiparty system. Due to the limited reach of national parties, dynasties are able to distribute local posts to favored members.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com