No more minority presidents

WE’VE not had a president elected by a majority of us since Ferdinand Marcos was reelected in 1969 (although that election was said to have been rigged).

That means that there have been more of us who didn’t vote for our presidents, from Cory Aquino to her son Benigno, than those who voted for them. We’ve been governed by presidents whom a majority of the people didn’t want to be president.

In 1992, Fidel Ramos won over Miriam Santiago with only 23.6 percent of the votes over Santiago’s 19.7 percent.

Joseph Estrada, the luckiest politician in Philippine history, garnered 39.8 percent in 1998 over the forgettable Jose de Venecia.

Gloria Arroyo won with 39.99 percent in 2004 over Fernando Poe Jr. (36.5 percent) in another disputed tally.

And Benigno Aquino III won with 42 percent over Estrada (26.2 percent) in 2010.

In the snap election of 1986 that ushered in the Cory Aquino era, Aquino was said to have received 46.1 percent and Marcos 53.6 percent. (The controversial election would lead to Marcos’ downfall.)

So, for all these years the country has been governed by a president who wasn’t voted into office by a majority of the Filipinos. That isn’t full democracy in that the election results weren’t supported by the will of the people.

Democracy demands that the voice and votes of the majority prevail. That our leader must have the mandate of the majority of us.

There are two ways to resolve this issue.

One, go back to the two- party system.

The drafters of the 1987 Constitution decided that it would be more democratic if the presidential (and vice- presidential) election were opened up to all comers as long as the Commission on Elections deemed them qualified.

This has directly resulted in a minority president getting elected because of the multiple candidates vying for the highest office.

If we go back to the two-party system, this won’t be a problem because there will only be two candidates. In that setup the two parties can vet several candidates through a nomination process (like in the United States). It’s democratic in that several candidates vie for the nomination. It’s not unlike multiple candidates applying for a job in a company.

Or two, hold a run-off election if the first balloting doesn’t produce a majority president in a multi-candidate contest as we have now.

For example, candidate A gets 40 percent of the vote, candidate B gets 30, candidate C gets 20 percent, and the others share the remaining 10 percent. A second, or run- off, election is then held between candidate A and B to decide who gets a minimum vote of 50 percent plus one vote.

Some people will say the run- off would be an expensive exercise, especially for a poor country like the Philippines. That’s the price to pay for having a multi-candidate system.

What is more important is to have a majority president who has the mandate of the people. That is rule by majority. What we’ve been getting is rule by the minority (some people would even use that tired expression: “Tyranny of the minority”).

What the legislature can do is debate the issue and choose between the two-party system or keep the multi-party system with a provision for a run- off election. And then put their choice before the people in a plebiscite.

We’ve been existing under a government presided by a president who lacks a popular mandate. Having a minority president is undemocratic.