Vetting the presidential applicants
The recent interviews of the presidential aspirants conducted by a top-notch journalist and famous host have revealed, to some extent, their fitness for the top position in the country. It provided an opportunity for the candidates to inform the voters of their respective platforms and display their grasp of the pressing issues of the country that the candidates will have to deal with once elected to office.
While their sincerity to serve the Filipino may manifest in their answers, most of the applicants, if not all, tend to over promise. Since time immemorial, presidential candidates promised to eradicate poverty and corruption in the country only to see these two nagging problems worsen towards the end of the term of the elected president.
Poverty and corruption are deeply rooted in our country. The term of six (6) years of the president is barely enough to analyze its causes and lay down effective strategies to at least minimize poverty and corruption incidence. Six years is too short to sustain genuine reforms in government, only to be changed by the successor who does want to be branded as a copycat.
If strong political parties had advocated sound governance principles, the situation would not have been a problem. With the current realities in Philippine elections, those who got elected are the most popular and those backed with well-oiled machinery that can penetrate the masses. Never mind what the candidate intends to do once elected, and the real deal is just to get elected with or without concrete plans.
The president has enormous powers which he is supposed to wield for the common good. In the hands of a person who has the selfish agenda of enriching himself by using his powers, the devastating effects of the incumbent’s abuse of powers linger across generations of Filipinos.
With the seemingly insurmountable challenges waiting for the next elected president, let us not set the bar of expectations too high only to be frustrated when the next president’s actions will barely scratch the surface.
It is too ambitious for one candidate to describe his or her term as the golden age of economic prosperity. It is hard to believe also that the best practices in one’s little corner of the country can be replicated seamlessly everywhere else. It remains even doubtful if the best practices in the second-highest office of this country where micromanagement has been bragged as a critical factor can work well to manage every nook and cranny of the entire bureaucracy.
Given the far-reaching consequences of collective decisions in the coming elections, it is not enough that we vote. We must vote with discernment. Beyond the sweet promises of the applicants, we must be discerning of the thoughts and intentions of the heart of those who want to lead us.