Claim the vote
Editorial
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12/22/2008
THE launch of the new Movement for Good Governance is both welcome and necessary, not least because it helps focus public attention on the 2010 elections. At a time when the ruling coalition is exploring every avenue for staying in power beyond 2010, the coalition of NGOs behind the movement will bring additional pressure to bear on the Arroyo administration to stick to the original election schedule.
But ensuring that the May 2010 elections will push through as scheduled is only half the battle; the other half is a strenuous contest to decide who should serve as the country’s next set of leaders.
The MGG is run by men and women of achievement, with a deserved reputation for reform work in elections and governance, such as former finance undersecretary Milwida Guevara of the Synergeia Foundation and former National Movement for Free Elections IT expert Gus Lagman of Transparent Election.org. But, in our view, it is two programs in particular that help raise the movement above the usual level of do-good work, and recommend it to men and women of good will.
The coalition—it remains to be seen whether the movement will act as a loose alliance of like-minded organizations and individuals or a more tightly organized structure, like Namfrel—seeks to mobilize 10 million voters under the banner of good governance, primarily by registering new or first-time voters.
This is an ambitious goal, but with both substantial and symbolic impact. In a crowded field of equal-strength presidential candidates, such as in 1992, a total of 10 million votes would be more than enough to win the presidency. Even in the lopsided presidential race of 1998, when the eventual winner was a clear front runner from start to finish, Joseph Estrada claimed victory with less than 11 million votes.
It will be difficult enough to draw millions of new registrants to the voting booth, but the real difficulty with the 10-million target is constituting the new or first-time voters as a constituency for good governance. We can expect millions to sign up simply as a statement against the Arroyo administration, its corruption scandals and its shamelessly obvious attempts to stay in power—in the same way that millions of voters elected both Alan Peter Cayetano and especially Antonio Trillanes IV into the Senate in 2007 as a protest against Malacañang. But there is the very real possibility that, as in 1992 and 1998, the presidential race in 2010 will draw a crowd of candidates. In that case, who will be the true candidate for reform?
It is thus incumbent on MGG and other such reform-oriented groups to engage also in voter education. Guevara says that while the coalition will not endorse any presidential candidate in particular, “it’s possible that via an organic process ahead of the elections, views may converge to endorse a set of leaders.” That process is key.
The other program that recommends the MGG’s plan of action to all Filipinos invested in clean and honest elections is its transparency initiative, which hopes to make election results throughout the country immediately available via mobile phones or the Internet.
“Everybody will have power of information at their fingertips and that makes 40 million of us poll watchers, far better than the half a million that Namfrel can put up,” said Guillermo Luz, formerly Namfrel executive director and a member of MGG.
Lagman says he has designed an “Open Election System” that can protect the ballot by publishing election results in real time. Again, proof of viability is required, but there should be no question that it can be done. Filipinos who trust the lotto system have long wondered why Philippine election technology works at the slowest possible pace. (The reason, of course, is that wholesale fraud happens in slow motion.)
Lagman’s call is simplicity itself. “Let’s use technology not only to prevent cheating but to make the elections more transparent.” Only those who have something to hide want the elections to remain opaque.