The proliferation of political advertisements is a good sign that our democracy is alive and kicking, but there is a downside to it, and that is the fact that only the rich candidates could afford to spend millions of pesos just to become popular.
I call that a downside, because the practice practically excludes the candidates who may also have good qualifications, but could not afford to spend all those millions.
Of course not all of those who spend heavily on advertisements are spending their own money, even if they are rich. Regardless of whether those candidates are spending their own money or not, it is a known fact that most of their advertising budgets are provided by their sponsors, or shall we say, their patrons.
I think that there are two sides to this issue. One side is the exclusion of candidates who could not afford to pay for political advertising.
The other aide is possibility that the so-called patrons may just be funding their candidates in exchange for possible favors later on in case they would win, favors that may either run counter to the law, or at the very least, may be against the rules of fairness and equal opportunity.
There are those who warn us about narco-politics, and it seems that that is not a far-fetched notion, because the drug lords are among those who could throw away the kind of money that is being spent in political advertising.
Taking both sides into consideration, it seems to me that the bottom line issue really is the health of the political party system, a system that should become the strong foundation of our democratic system.
I think that it would be naive for me to say that the political parties that should be the ones who should be spending for their own candidates, because that certainly does not happen here.
For sure, the political parties will not even admit in public that they are the ones spending for their own candidates, because that would make them vulnerable to some investigations about violations of campaign spending limits.
As a way to get around the rules, many candidates say that their political advertisements are paid for by others, not realizing perhaps that the expenses of others are still covered by campaign spending limits.
It is interesting to note that some groups are already taking steps to file charges against certain candidates who appear to have already exceeded the allowable campaign spending limits, based on their known expenditures in mass media so far.
I say that that is interesting, because as far as I know, there is not test case yet or a precedent wherein a candidate was disqualified for exceeding the campaign spending limits. I could think of some cases or precedents in local politics, but it seems that there is none so far for national politics.
It also seems that none of the political parties are keen about raising that as an issue, because it appears that many of them are vulnerable in that regard.
As it is now, there are some candidates who appear to be spending heavily on political advertisements, presumably using their own money, but actually also the money of their sponsors or patrons.
Regardless of whether candidates are affiliated with political parties or not, they should all be subjected to the same rules pertaining to campaign spending limits.
In order to level the playing field however, the government should also subsidize the expenditures of the independent candidates, in the same way that the political parties should be subsidized.
The idea of subsidizing independent candidates might sound strange to many people, but that is something that has to be done, in order to make our democracy stronger and more vibrant.
I am sure that many will agree with me that our democracy is not for sale, and that our democracy would not be healthy if only the rich could run for public office.
We could keep on saying that our democracy is not for sale, but if anyone could win an election by way of heavy spending in political advertisements, that would amount to the same thing, because that would be as if we are actually selling our democracy.
Perhaps it could be said that only the rich could run and win as independent candidates, but on the other hand, it is really possible for qualified candidates to run and win even if they do not have the money, for as long as they have a strong party to back them up.
As it is supposed to be, government support for political parties should not happen only during election time, but all the time, year round. What that means is that the government subsidies should not only be for buying political advertisements, but also for anything and everything that is needed for building strong political parties, again based on the legal fiction that strong political parties would result in a strong democracy.
For all intents and purposes, a political party could be considered as a corporation, and therefore a political party could be subjected to all the rules of good corporate governance.
As a matter of fact, it could also be said that a political party that does not practice good corporate governance could not be expected to deliver good governance to the broader society if and when it is allowed to govern.
I do not know who should do it and how it should be done, but there ought to be sanctions against political parties that do not follow the rules in choosing their candidates.
As it is supposed to be, the political parties should hold national conventions in order to allow the delegates of their provincial chapters to vote for the nominees of their choice, following the democratic practices that they should practice first as one organization.
Democracy starts at home so to speak, and their home is their own political party. In other words, there should be an election within the convention first, instead of the present practice of anointing candidates, a practice that could perpetuate the rule of dictatorship of a few influential groups within a political party./PN
