In certain
political systems, it is of utmost importance to consider who would serve as
the State’s top political leader as the position entails incredible power and
responsibility. Chief executives can greatly influence legislation considered
by Congress, becoming the principal source of policy initiative. In the
Philippines, not only is the President vested with executive power by virtue of
Article VI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, but he also has, according to
the Court in Marcos v. Manglapus,
“unstated residual powers”.
It is
prudent, therefore, for a voter to consider the qualities of the candidates
aspiring for the coveted position. Prof. Fred Greenstein of Princeton
University in his article The Qualities
of Effective Presidents: An Overview from FDR to Bill Clinton, identifies six
attributes that affects presidential job performance— (1) effectiveness as a
public communicator, (2) organizational capacity, (3) political skill, (4)
policy vision, (5) cognitive style, and (6) emotional intelligence. For the
purposes of this article, this writer shall borrow Prof. Greenstein’s
indicators as standards to which to hold the presidential candidates up
against.
Being able
to effectively address one’s constituents gives one the ability to command
public attention and shape national agenda. Of the four candidates (Binay,
Duterte, Roxas, and Santiago; Poe is excluded in this article due to her
disqualification), Santiago is the most charismatic. Her quick wit, logic, and
aggressive manner, coupled with hugot
pick-up lines makes for a perfect mix that appeals to both the masses and the
intellectual elite. Meanwhile, Binay has elicited repulsion and several
face-palms with his apparent unfamiliarity with the adage “Think before you
speak.” Binay has gone viral during one forum at the University of the
Philippines, earning himself memes with his quotes like, “Hindi ko alam yan, pero ok yan.” On the other hand, Roxas’s
disconnect with the masses will make it difficult for him to garner support.
His trying to be “Mr. Palengke” appears to be forced and not genuine. In contrast
to Roxas’ desire to be liked, Duterte takes the opposite route with no holds
barred— he discloses his unpopular support for the death penalty, his
adulterous social life, his incessant cursing. This has garnered mixed
reactions of disgust at his lack of tact, and admiration at his unrestricted
honesty. To one who finds the traditional politician’s spiel of painting
themselves as saints, this move by Duterte is very refreshing.
On
organizational capacity or the “ability to forge a team and get the most out of
it” (Greenstein 2000), Santiago and Roxas have experience dealing with the
different branches of government. Santiago was an RTC judge, an immigration and
deportation commissioner, and senator. Roxas, also a senator, had been
Secretary for the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the
Department of Trade and Industry. On the other hand, Duterte and Binay boast
their success with their respective local governments, both having served as
mayor.
In a CNN
interview with former president Fidel Ramos, Ramos said the president must have
strong international and domestic networks. This would allow him to negotiate
policies, and bring warring factions together. Duterte seems to have the
upperhand in this area. With his connections to rebel groups, such as the NPA,
Duterte may be able to bring the government and the rebels to an agreement. Political
skill is being able to “use the powers of his office assertively, build and
maintain public support, and establish a reputation among fellow policy makers
as a skilled, determined political operator.” (Greenstein quoting Neustadt’s Presidential Power).
To this
writer, policy vision is what separates the boys from the men. Greenstein defines vision as not only the capacity to inspire, but also the “extent to
which the president holds policy views that inform his actions”. This is
crucial as it ensures that policies are consistent with one another and that
they do not cancel each other out. It also provides a sense of direction to the
country. Among the candidates, Duterte has the clearest policy vision— move the
country towards federalism, enhance the capacities of local government units,
and stomp out corruption, drug trafficking, and criminality through strict
implementation of government programs. By strengthening the basic units of the
State, it creates a ripple effect to the entire country’s development. Roxas’s
platform of the continuation of the Daang
Matuwid is insufficient as the
current system seems to prove inefficient. Binay’s promise of replicating his
work in Makati to the entire archipelago is tainted with distrust considering
the dire corruption allegations against him. Although Santiago’s crusade
against eradicating corruption and creating transparency is laudable, this
writer has yet to hear concrete proposals.
As to
cognitive style and emotional intelligence, the candidates have their strengths
and weaknesses. Santiago may be brilliant, but she could be vindictive and
temperamental, which could easily cloud her judgment. Examining Duterte’s
response to the traffic problem in Manila reveals that he looks for tangible
and long-term answers. Admittedly, he may be crass and vulgar, but one’s less-than-pleasant
personality should not become the ultimate yardstick for one’s capability. Although
the band-aid solutions done by the present administration may not be
attributable to Roxas, such conduct is an indicator of the course of action
that he might take should he be elected as president. As to Binay, well, the writer
believes the said candidate does not warrant any further discussion.
To end with, after a careful weighing of the
standards put forward at the beginning of this article, disregarding other
factors (e.g. potential human rights violations), this writer considers Duterte as the most suitable
candidate should the Philippines want an iron hand, and a catalyst for effective
change. Afterall, in order to make waves, one must not be afraid to rock the
boat.
No comments:
Post a Comment