Election 7: My Candidates for Senators

My main criteria for supporting or voting candidates is who among them will be the least populist and welfarist, least interventionist and tax hungry, compared to other candidates. Almost all politicians have shades of populism and welfarism and hence, for expanding government. They just vary in the degree of populism. Thus, choosing who among them will go against the populism tide seems a difficult task.

Nonetheless, here is my short list, the Senatorial candidates that I will vote tomorrow.

1. Ramon Magsaysay, Jr. Clear and explicit in calling for reducing the size of the bureaucracy, in simplifying business procedures and regulations, in liking minimal government.

2. Koko Pimentel. Favors the privatization of PAGCOR, rather independent minded.

3. Dick Gordon. Strong presence in civil society via the Philippine National Red Cross. The Red Cross is one clear example that civil society participation in public health promotion is very potent, that it's not all government in healthcare.

4. Greco Belgica. Advocates flat income tax of 10% for both individuals and corporations. His chance of winning of course is zero, but will vote for him nonetheless.

5. Eddie Villanueva. Never sought any appointed political position after he lost in the last two Presidential elections that he joined. He stayed with his church-based and civil society organizations. 

Ouch, only five. Will think of the other seven tonight. 

A friend commented that my criteria above is like “voting for those who won’t do anything.” I replied that it is not the case. Rather, it is voting for those who will attempt to leave us to do what we think is good for ourselves, our family and our community, and not regulate and nanny us how you should conduct our own lives, while getting more money from us so the government can regulate our lives more. 

"The election this Monday will determine our future as a nation and as individuals." -- from a radio commentator. If many people will believe this statement, then we are a bunch of hopeless idiots. We cannot determine our own life and future and that of our households and communities. Everything will depend on the politicians that we will elect and the army of bureaucrats who will implement the politicians' will. If the elected politicians are angels, then our future is good. If they are devils, then our future is hellish. That is a lousy life.

Meanwhile,  I have heard Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes in two or three election-related fora in the past, usually at Traders Hotel. He looked cool and frank to me. But recently, he's got the habit of typical government  "prohibit and ban" thinking. Like the recent moves to ban alcohol for 5 days instead of 2, ban bank withrawals beyond P100k, ban "excessive" pol ads, etc. 

LENTE forum, November 2011. Chairman Brillanes 3rd from left.

It is good that the current Supreme Court majority realize that prohibitionist/banning thinking is so central planning and dictatorial leaning. 

In a free society, ALL actions are allowed except for a few, expressly prohibited acts like killing, stealing, rape, abduction, etc.

In an unfree society, ALL actions are not allowed except with permit from government.

We are not there yet, of a totally unfree society, but as more and more permits are required in our ordinary lives, we are moving towards a less free society. Magtayo ka lang ng barber shop or bread shop, kaliwa-kanang permits, taxes and fees kailangan mo. May penalties pa for "late registration" daw.

As government expands, stupidity expands. So it is really important to limit the power of coercion of government. Including its power to forcibly collectivize endless subsidies and their endless financing.

More nice quotes:

A government that's BIG and populist enough to give everything you want is also BIG and dictatorial enough to take everything you've got. 

Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

"If it moves, tax it. If it moves further, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -- R.Reagan

--------

See also:
Election Watch 3: Defining Celebrities, Politicians and the State, August 30, 2012
Election Watch 4: Senatoriables on Healthcare, March 08, 2013 
Election Watch 5: Sin Tax Law, Hospital Over-regulation and Senatoriables, May 07, 2013 
Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013

Party List 5: Why it is Wrong in Theory and Practice

The party list (PL) system in both theory and practice is wrong. In theory, it is supposed to be a proportional representation system where smaller political parties are given chance via mandatory percentage share in the total seats in the parliament or Congress. 

In the Philippines, that theory has been revised to represent the so-called "marginalized sectors" of society. And in practice in the country, almost all groups of opportunists mix up with well-meaning individuals to help centrally plan and change the country, towards their own world view of forced collectivism. Thus, we have a son of the former President representing the party of security guards, a former Cabinet Secretary (DND, DENR, DOE) who wanted to represent the party of bus drivers (he committed suicide a few years ago), of rich people representing parties of rice farmers, and so on.

In addition, even supposedly "non-marginalized" sectors like athletes, media people, cock fighting aficionados, showbiz guys, LPG retailers, physicians, engineers, other professionals also participated or attempted to join the PL free for all political opportunism.

A friend, election lawyer and legal NGO leader Luie Guia posted a news article in his facebook status and he commented,

The Party List system is definitely NOT a joke if it is designed as it should be designed. Membership in the legislature under a true PL system is proportional to the votes obtained by parties contesting the seats. It's more "representative" than the single member district system that we are used to. Unfortunately, the design of the PL system we now have here in the Philippines is utterly flawed.

I like the term used by Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes, a "joke". I told Luie that like him, I somehow disagree with the term "joke" because it is worse than a joke. The PL system is a s sham, a scam, and even a tool for more public robbery. 

A political party should represent a political ideology. Since there are not too many political ideologies around the planet, then the number of political parties should be few only, not dozens, not hundreds. The PL system -- both in theory and practice in the PH -- has further bastardized the theory and use of a political party. That is why I earlier argued that the PL system should be abolished. And all aspiring politicians from the existing PL should form a real political party that can contest posts from the local to national levels, or join existing ones.

Luie added that the Philippine version of PL has given PL a bad name at least to Filipinos. A true PL, where voters get to vote for parties and thus their ideologies rather than individuals, has been the system chosen by many emerging democracies as it allows even those in the fringes to be represented if they get enough votes. Regional and even ethnic tensions tend to be mitigated because more sectors of society are accommodated in the formal structure of government. I don't favor abolition of PL. I wish it to be re crafted and redesigned to make it work as it really should.

Below is a list of political parties in the Philippines:

A. Big national political parties:

1. Liberal Party (LP)

2. Lakas-Kampi-CMD

3. Nacionalista Party (NP)

4. Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC)

5. Partido Demokratiko PIlipino - Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban)

6. Laban ng Demokratikong PIlipino (LDP)

7. Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)

B. Marginal national political parties:

8. Bagumbayan-Volunteers for a New Philippines (Bagumbayan-VNP)

9. People's Reform Party (PRP)

10. Ang Kapatiran Party (AKP)

11. Gabay Bayan

C. Local political parties, 91

D. Party list, currently sitting in the HOR: 42, 26 of which start with 1 or A:

I-CARE, 1-UTAK, A Teacher, AA Kasosyo, AAMBIS OWA, Aangat Tayo, Abante Mindanao, ABONO, ABS, ACT Teacher, AGAP, AGBIAG, AGHAM, AGP, Akbayan, Ako Bicol, Alagad, ALE, ALIF, An Waray, ANAD, Anakpawis, Ang Kasangga, APEC, Ating Koop, AVE

Bagong Henerasyon, Bayan Muna, Buhay, Butil, CIBAC, Coop Natcco, Diwa, Gabriela, Kabataan, Kakusa, Kalinga, LPGMA, PBA, Senior Citizens, Una ang Pamilya, Yacap

Those that lost, about 100+ other party lists.

See a longer list of political parties in the Philippines and the name of their leaders in Wiki here.

There are too many political parties in the country already, both at the national and local levels. Adding the PL system makes it a dizzying situation. So with the free for all nature of PL opportunism, and these PLs are arranged alphabetically in the ballot box and voters can choose only one out of 100 plus PLs, most groups start the name of their party with 1 or A. There could be up to 400+ groups that want accreditation and participation in the PL system but the Comelec conducts preliminary hearing and remove many of them.

There are no marginalized sectors, only marginalized individuals. There are rich and poor individuals in each of those sectors -- farmers, fisherfolks, workers, women, youth, senior citizens, indivigenous people, security agencies,  teachers, and so on.

 I believe we need to go back to a few political parties, even a two- or three-party system. A political party should be able to defend its political ideology or philosophy, embodied in various advocacies or platform of government from the local up to the national government levels. For instance, a political party for more and bigger government should be able to argue why such philosophy should be applied nationwide, from the barangay or village level all the way up to the city, province and the nation. On the other hand, a political party for less government, or a midway advocating for more public-private partnership (PPP) in many sectors, should be able to articulate their philosophies and their application nationwide.

Thus, having too many political parties, PL or otherwise, often contribute to political miseducation and opportunism. It corrupts further the minds of the people, that they too can centrally plan the country and the world and it is relatively easy to do that via backdoor entrance like the PL system.

---------

See also:
Party List 1: Opportunism, 2001 Elections, November 28, 2005
Party List 2: Opportunism, 2004 Elections, December 12, 2005
Party List 3: Marginal Parties Should Aspire to Become Big, January 12, 2006
Party List 4: Why it Should be Abolished, August 04, 2011