Instant gratification

For their own financial health, politicians should join efforts to regulate campaign finance and activities that would clearly constitute campaigning.

Legislation must also be passed to improve the official definition of what constitutes a candidate, and specify the period during which a candidate can start campaigning.

At present, certain individuals who have filed their certificates of candidacy are unabashedly conducting activities that you wouldn’t consider as campaigning only if you’ve holed out in a cave all your life.

Even incumbent public officials, who argue that they are merely doing their job and self-promotion is merely coincidental, can still conduct activities that can be defined as campaigning.

Of course those in position will still enjoy the equity of the incumbent. Wealthy candidates also enjoy everything that money can buy – which in this country can be a lot. So the failure to regulate election campaigning and financing works for such candidates.

The cost of seeking elective office in this country, however, can be daunting even for those who can be categorized as rich but don’t belong to that rarefied firmament of the obscenely wealthy – people whose assets guarantee a life of luxury not just for themselves but for their heirs up to the next four or five generations.

So the average candidate should support curbs on campaign activities and expenditures.

Even politicians who are among the unarguably rich in our country are complaining. Some have told me that the cost of running an election campaign has been rising exponentially. Elections have become the worst example of the what’s-in-it for-me attitude of Pinoys combined with the desire for instant gratification.

What does a candidate do when his grassroots political leaders tell him that voters must be wooed with dole-outs of cash and bags of rice?

The short-term self-interest is understandable among voters living a hand-to-mouth existence and among those whose incomes graze the threshold of poverty. But it is disappointing among those who can afford to think beyond where to get their next meal and can ponder whether a candidate may serve the country with competence and integrity.

The self-interest of the voters is topped only by the selfishness of the typical candidate, who seeks power chiefly for personal ends.

There is such a thing as enlightened self-interest, and what’s good for the majority can redound to the benefit of the individual. But we’re not seeing this mindset in the case of the typical Filipino politician.

Political power, when properly used, should be an enabler, a tool for making the community a better place.

We see this in countries such as Singapore, where citizens – public officials and civilians alike – behave as if they are working for a corporation. In Singapore, Inc., systems and procedures are constantly improved together with the corporate facilities. The officials and employees rise on merit. Incompetence and venality are swiftly punished, and everyone knows he or she is accountable for his actions.

The world has seen the impressive results. Recently I transited through Singapore to and from Iceland, and again couldn’t help feeling a pang of envy.

Singaporeans themselves caution foreigners against comparing the tiny city-state with countries that have much larger land areas and populations, which are more difficult to govern. Born of conflict with the Malaysian federation, the creation of Singapore also encourages patriotism and unity for nation-building.

Still, you have to admire what the Singaporeans have done to their country in the decades since the end of World War II.

I didn’t think the city-state could still improve on its concrete jungle skyline, for example, but it has. Its enchanting new grove of manmade tree towers, which evokes images of the movie “Avatar,” is becoming an iconic landmark. Changi International Airport, in constant competition for being rated as the world’s best (and often winning), is still expanding and improving its facilities and themed attractions. Flag carrier Singapore Airlines, backed by state capitalism, is also one of the world’s best.

Critics say Singapore prospered at the expense of civil liberties. Singapore’s founding leaders argue that economic rights take priority over certain civil rights. The city-state focused on poverty eradication, public education and national competitiveness, making institutions work, strengthening the rule of law and creating a meritocracy wherein the cream is allowed to rise to the top.

High education and financial stability create a more demanding citizenry. The people pick leaders whom they believe will be good for their country in the long run, and not just anyone who can give them cash and rice dole-outs.

Instead of voting for politicians who can hand out cash for the so-called KBL or kasal, binyag, libing (wedding, baptism, funeral), they pick politicians who can create the empowering environment that will eliminate the need for citizens to run to others for their financial needs.

In our case, we’re still stuck in the dole-out stage, with politicians concerned chiefly with winning power to enrich themselves and their families rather than empowering the people. Elections merely reaffirm the sorry state of affairs, and the reign of dynasts and thieves.

Moneyed candidates – including criminals with dirty money to launder and burn, such as drug dealers, jueteng lords, kidnappers and murderers – have the edge in our election campaigns.

It may be too much to expect people in dire straits to say no to P500 in cash and a few kilos of rice proffered by a candidate. But voters with less urgent needs can pick candidates based on other criteria and can contribute to change.

Combined with legislation and efficient enforcement, change is possible.