CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
A bleak future for Philippine democracy:
The incompetent many electing the corrupt few
George Bernard Shaw, an Irish playwright and political activist, once criticized democracy with a sharp edge: “Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.”
By “incompetent many”, Shaw implies that when the masses elect leaders, they may not always make informed or wise decisions. The reason might be a lack of knowledge, emotional influence, or susceptibility to manipulation, such as vote-buying or propaganda. In this sense, democratic elections risk favoring popularity over competence.
On the other hand, Shaw contrasts democracy with systems where leaders are appointed, like in oligarchies or aristocracies. He critiques such systems as prone to corruption, where decision-making is concentrated in the hands of a small, self-serving elite.
As we stand on the brink of Election Day on May 12, 2025, the present administration is grappling with urgent issues on the transfer of Philhealth funds, allegedly diverted to finance other projects, some of which have already been funded or have potential sources.
The transfer would have gone unnoticed had the country’s Universal Health Care program been successfully implemented after more than five (5) years since Republic Act No. 11223, the Universal Health Care Act, was signed into law. Amidst the increases in PhilHealth contributions from paying members and employers, the hospitalization benefits provided by PhilHealth remain minuscule.
The number of petitioners who have filed cases before the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the transfer is a testament to the widespread anger of many Filipinos against this callous act by the present administration.
The current administration also faces a flurry of cases questioning the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget. The 2025 budget drastically cut funding for critical programs, such as PhilHealth subsidies, education, and the 4Ps anti-poverty program. These cuts have direct implications on the quality of healthcare, education, and social welfare in the country, while inflating allocations for local infrastructure and aid programs, thereby favoring political patronage.
Amid these governance problems and the administration’s failure to improve the situation of ordinary citizens, some cynical observers argue that we are now reaping the consequences of our past actions. As we approach Election Day on May 12, 2025, we are again confronted with a golden opportunity to prove George Bernard Shaw wrong: that the Filipino people are not the incompetent many who appoint the corrupt few.
However, the trajectory of our past actions skews toward Shaw’s incompetence in many theories. Vote-buying and vote-selling remain a pervasive phenomenon in the Philippines. This form of transactional electoral politics undermines or even reverses public accountability, hampers the development of trust in political institutions, and is a major cause of public sector inefficiencies. Worse, it contributes to higher levels of corruption.
Studies have shown that vote buying remains rampant, and campaigns against vote buying prove to be ineffective. A study in Sorsogon City entitled Temptation in Vote-Selling: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Philippines by Allen Hicken et al. reveals that vote buying is implemented in a systematic and strategic manner, typically in the week leading up to election day. Candidate representatives actively approach households, offering money or goods in exchange for votes, and campaigns even track who accepted payments, suggesting a well-organized operation. The study finds that the “take the bait but not the hook” or “just accept the money but don’t vote” proposal to combat vote buying proves ineffective. Voters still vote for candidates who gave them money. However, the researchers found that eliciting a promise from voters not to take money reduced vote-selling, and the degree of its effectiveness remains a subject for further study.
The coercive nature of our laws, which punish vote buying, is also ineffective. There is a low conviction rate for vote-buying and vote-selling cases, which can be attributed to stringent evidentiary requirements, procedural hurdles, and the reluctance of witnesses to testify. While the legal framework provides mechanisms to address these offenses, effective enforcement remains a challenge.
The fight against vote-buying and vote-selling is not just about ensuring fair elections; it is about safeguarding the very foundation of democracy in the Philippines. Every vote should represent the voice of the people, not the weight of a wallet. Only then can the country move towards a genuinely representative and just society. Perhaps, when this day comes, we can proudly say that we are not the incompetent many, and we do not elect the corrupt few.