SENATORS Edgardo Angara and Jinggoy Estrada have filed a bill that would provide a subsidy to political parties involved in an election, with funds from government coffers, and would penalize “turncoatism” among politicians.
This is SBN 3214, “The Political Party Development Act of 2011,” which pundits have nicknamed “the Anti-Balimbing Bill.”
For those still struggling with the meaning of the term, the classic case of turncoatism was when Senate President Ferdinand Marcos of the Liberal Party jumped ship to become the official presidential candidate of the Nacionalista Party in the 1965 elections, because his party-mate, incumbent President Diosdado Macapagal, insisted on running for a second term.
Not surprisingly, what was turncoatism, from the perspective of the aggrieved, was hailed as “manifest destiny” (iginunit ng tadhana) by those who benefited from the switch.
According to Angara, SBN 3214 is intended to correct the country’s “flawed political party system.” Said Angara, “It’s hard to find a group that has genuinely coalesced and maintained their cohesion because of a shared ideology or platform.”
The bill would mandate national political parties “to craft a clear policy agenda and program of governance consistent with their party philosophy and ideals.” It further stipulates that “(t)he members of the National Political Party shall endeavor to act in accordance with the defined party platform and pursue programs to fulfill party commitments.”
But, pray tell, what distinguishes the Liberal Party from the Nacionalista Party, the Nacionalist People’s Coalition, the Lakas Kampi CMD, the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino, the PDP-Lakas ng Bayan, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino and the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan? Even if the members of these parties were to regularly play Trip to Jerusalem or Musical Chairs, you wouldn’t know the difference, the color of their ideological and political coats being nearly identical and interchangeable. No unique, distinctive, identifiable ideology or platform, beyond shared objectives of self-preservation and self-promotion.
The platform of every political party in our country reads like a God, Motherhood and Country creed. But there is hardly a clear-cut definition of party ideology, say, for or against population control (or the euphemism, responsible parenthood), or a more liberal opening up of the economy to foreign investments, or issues pertaining to charter change, or foreign policy and military alliances, or taxes or social safety nets, or the sensitive issue of divorce, much less gay rights and gay marriage.
Lacking any philosophical or ideological moorings, each member of Congress votes on issues based on personal perceptions, personal (rather than party) ideology, and personal interests.
Some have socialistic leanings. Some are genuine, bona fide nationalists. Others are leftists. Still others are influenced by religious beliefs. Others are populist, pro-poor, anti-rich. Others are in power to protect special interests. And still others are plain opportunists, guided mainly by the golden rule, i.e, he who has the gold makes the rules. If these interests happen to be in line with what is good for the country, great.
If not, tough luck.
Nowhere is this merry mix of the good, the bad and the ugly more apparent than in the “coalition” of political persuasions that ostensibly would constitute the United Nationalist Alliance of Jojo Binay and Erap Estrada. Small wonder, Koko Pimentel is up in arms over the idea that he would be a party-mate of Migz Zubiri, the one who deprived him of his Senate seat for several years.
The penalties proposed by SBN 3214 are severe. Political turncoats who are incumbent elected officials shall be “deemed to have forfeited (their) office,” if they change political party affiliation during their term of office. They would also be disqualified from running for any elective position in the next succeeding election.
In other words, if the law had been in effect during Marcos’ incumbency as senator, he would have been unseated and would have been disqualified as a presidential candidate.
Furthermore, political turncoats will be “prohibited from being appointed or from holding any position in any public or government office” for three years after the expiration of their current term.” They also cannot assume any executive or administrative position in their new political party, and will be made to “refund any and all amounts (they) received from (their) political party, plus a 25% surcharge.”
The anti-turncoat objectives of the bill are laudable. But, as Joker Arroyo put it to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the anti-money laundering bill, SBN 3214 if passed, will haunt every politician in a country where turncoatism, which is synonymous with opportunism, is the rule.
Not surprisingly, the sponsors of this “laudable” bill have included a provision that will allow clever politicians to skirt the prohibitions. legislation. One escape clause provides that “political turncoatism shall not apply” when a political party is abolished or when there is a “merger or coalition of political parties.”
Translation: If the candidates of Erap Estrada’s Pwersa ng Masa “coalesce” or merge with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Lakas-Kampi-CMD and Imelda Marcos’ KBL and Jojo Binay’s PDP-Laban to form the United Nationalist Alliance, no one can be accused of turncoatism. They will simply be mixing and blending their colorful coats in the manner of the chameleon.
The proposed bill provides another escape hatch by way of “expulsion.” A politician who is “expelled” from one party can ostensibly join another party as long as there is no proof of “political opportunism.” Of course, you don’t expect anyone to march around with a sign that says, “I’m a political opportunist.”
But the truly eyebrow-raising component of the bill is the campaign subsidy proposed for accredited political parties.
Angara rationalizes this by pointing out that “Wealth and popularity play the biggest role in every political campaign” and that “politicians flock to the ruling party in anticipation of largesse and endorsements during elections.”
The premise is flawed on two counts. Money, as one political sage put it, is the milk of politics. No piece of legislation will ever change the tendency of politicians to “flock to the ruling party in anticipation of largesse and endorsements during elections.”
The second flaw is based on a lack of understanding of the movie fan attitude of our people. Popularity is the reason for the election of Joseph Estrada, Lito Lapid and Manny Pacquiao, to mention a few. Fat chance SBN 3214 will succeed in correcting that.
The only thing SBN 3214 will do is give the politicians one more opportunity to dip into the national coffers.
As Chiz Escudero aptly put it, “Of the many things the government could provide subsidies to, perhaps political parties should be last. I can think of one million ways to spend that government subsidy other than for candidates.”
Yes, indeed. Like more schools. Books. Public works. Health care. Food. And jobs for the poor.
***
Email [email protected]
