The pitfalls of political patronage

OFFICERS in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) come from various sources of commission. They may be products of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), Officers’ School or Advance Reserve Officer Training Corps. On the other hand, men and women in ranks were enlisted in the AFP after hurdling candidate-soldier training. After getting commissioned or enlisted, they were prodded by their trainers and mentors to go where the “action” was to get their “baptism of fire.”

The advice was so compelling that it resonated and was followed by many generations of soldiers: “Go to the frontlines, learn the lessons, garner firsthand experiences, and win medals. Establish a good name early in your career, protect your service reputation, and keep it unsullied. And you will see that all your sacrifices in leaving your family behind and missing important dates while answering the call of duty will work in your favor when ‘the time comes.’”

“Just do not die while piling up trophy points.”

Most of them heeded the call and were successful, but some failed to comply with the penultimate advice and fell somewhere in the long and difficult journey.

Time for reckoning

Those who survived the frontlines in the AFP’s various fields of specialization later realized that not all those who were battle-scarred, learned, and experienced and whose chests were adorned with medals were accorded with positions of consequence commensurate to their sacrifices and labor in their decades of military service.

There were the “lucky” ones, not because opportunity met their competence, but because they had established political connections that came in handy at the crucial time of selection to the AFP’s top posts. There were those “gifted with crystal balls” to foretell the future, know whom to cast their lots and draw upon such established relationships when the jockeying for high positions comes. Then there are “idealists” who believe that their hard work, sacrifices and selfless devotion to duty will, in the end, be rewarded. And the ones who belong to the third kind would end up either as “pragmatists” and look for their own benefactors to win the positions they think they deserve or remain “idealists” and let nature take its course, comforted by the thought that they have done their part in serving the nation.

For budding commissioned and noncommissioned officers leading soldiers from the front, this is a wrong precedent to follow and a bad example to emulate! While the magnitude of this anomaly of naming the least or lesser-qualified senior officers to key AFP positions on account of political accommodation and power play will not, for the time being, cause an upheaval, this irregularity will ripen into a practice. The malpractice will become the norm, and the norm will soon define the character of Philippine military leaders. When meritocracy dies and political patronage or influence prevails, the AFP will no longer be the protector of the people but the device of politicians. The military’s mandate shall no longer be to secure the state but to perpetuate the interests of its leaders’ political masters.

Sparing the AFP

Politicians should look at the military with awe and respect owing to the institution and its forebears’ enduring legacy of honor, selfless service and unparalleled patriotism. They should be ashamed to corrupt the men and women in uniform who are steeped in their values and rigid with their principles. But as long as there are generals and flag officers who, consumed by their ambitions, succumb to seeking political endorsement from the appointing authority or pursue the backing of those who have influence, nay, power over the commander-in-chief, these politicians will look at the AFP with both disdain and contempt.

In recruiting politicians to join the 1.2-million reservist force with the noble intention of preparing citizen soldiers to be coordinated, integrated and interoperable with the regular force, cognizant commanders and staff must be discriminating rather than accommodating. Ranks, promotions in rank and position, and privileges should be bestowed only in strict compliance with the law and adherence to regulations and not dispensed or offered in anticipation of tangible benefits and political favors.

PMA classes should give a long, hard, and serious introspection into their motives for inviting affluent and influential individuals — especially politicians — as honorary members. The PMA’s Honor Code requires alumni to ask themselves two basic questions to determine the morality of their actions. Cavaliers should be able to answer “no” to the second question. Already, persons in the pinnacles of political power, past and present, are honorary members of most PMA classes whose members are currently or are emerging “ruling classes” in the military hierarchy. And we can only imagine how their political overreach can transcend the recommendations of the Board of Generals.

In the Filipino culture that places such a premium on “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude) and “kompromiso” (compromise), senior officers who were placed in sensitive and critical AFP positions by political accommodation rather than through merit and established competence, will be beholden to their masters. They cannot be expected to stand for the men and women under their command without losing their grip on their lofty positions for displeasing their patrons. They have then lost the moral ascendancy to wield such power because, as Plato once said: “Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.”

It is high time to stop the politics of patronage in the AFP. While it is recognized that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military, that authority rests on and only on the president as commander-in-chief and the secretary of national defense as his alter ego, and no one else. The president is accountable under his oath as to the manner in which he exercises that authority.

The military should not allow politicians to further erode the morale and discipline of the organization. Senior AFP officers have the burden of protecting the integrity of the norms, traditions and processes of the institution. Or they lose the moral authority to lead and to command.