Qualities of the next president

In our advocacy for voter education, one of the default tasks is to identify the leadership qualities we want. Oftentimes, those are dictated by the qualities of the incumbent, rather than what we might consider the ideal. And whether we are conscious of it or not, in our highly charged political arena, the tendency is to seek the opposite or its antithesis. Motherhood statements and the ideal enter the picture, but only when we deliberately avoid partisanship and attempt at being objective. Objectivity, however, helps little and has an uncanny manner of turning irrelevant and bookish.

For instance, who can argue that the next president should not be corrupt? Or that the next president should be caring? Or competent? Who in his right mind would want a president who is corrupt, uncaring and incompetent? From an objective perspective, each of these qualities is undeniably desired and necessary. Those are the ideal. But when we take on a partisan perspective, to advocate for each in relation to latent political realities as happens among idle banter in every beerhouse and bench fronting sari-sari stores across the archipelago, these suddenly attain a deeper, more profound meaning that verges on partisan commentary.

The culprit is our political culture—one our politicians foment, endorse and nourish through their antics. It is our misfortune that Philippine politics is designed for the ignorant. We do not need political science professors or professionals. Ours is not about political theory. It isn’t even about ideology or platforms, the latter tangentially important to the typical Filipino voter. Philippine politics is personality-based, and passionately partisan. We reject candidates on the basis of their being egocentric, abrasive and cacique. We choose those who look kind, caring and approachable. Against such superficial standards, rather than educated political-science professionals, in analyzing Philippine politics, loquacious show-business talk-show hosts would suit us just fine.

Oftentimes, imagining that we’ve added depth into the political debate, we feature and televise chit-chatty talking heads, or self-styled columnists and news readers as analysts. Never mind that a good number, articulate and telegenic as they seem, are uneducated and unpedigreed by any institution of higher learning worth its salt.

Partisanship, or the politicizing of our choices necessitates espousing one candidate and rejecting another. And the criteria we typically apply can range from the most profound to the most profane. An electoral exercise allows us to choose, and because change is imminent, choice presumes a rejection.

While the degree of rejection might be on several levels, from complete to moderate, there will always be some reference to the incumbent. It is rare that we would look for someone who will continue with the kind of leadership prevalent in an incumbent. We level up or switch lanes. Either we seek better leaders each time or we seek the opposite. In both cases the kind of leadership and the qualities are dictated by the incumbent.

Allow us then to analyze Benigno Aquino III’s mandate in 2010, if only to appreciate this postulate and what confronts us in 2016.

Let us analyze the options. As before, let us start from the bottom-feeding losers. The most prominent is the Liberal Party’s presumptive candidate. Referencing the incumbent, he simply paints broad strokes that Aquino’s agenda will continue. Such double-bladed message surrenders to political intrigue as it alludes to Aquino’s 2010 soundbite, but is likewise a potshot at a rival.

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte and Sen. Grace Poe-Llamanzares found their credibility on the weaknesses of Aquino. Duterte, as a leader with determination and balls; Llamanzares as unpoliticized, caring and fairly intelligent.

For the longest period, Vice President Jejomar Binay led the pack on a record of administrative competence, intelligence, a very visible trait of humility and approachability and as one who genuinely cares for his constituents. His is a combination of ideals and practicality.

Analyze each. Save for one loser, clearly, invoking both ideals and benchmarks against the incumbent, there is, indeed, a profound desire for change.