Philippine elections: Why losers don't concede

Ronald Meinardus, Manila

For the international media, the Philippine elections are a done deal, since the head of the Commission on Elections in an all but orthodox manner unofficially let know that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) beat her main contender ex-movie- star Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ) with more than 900,000 votes.

For the international wire services, this margin and the quality of the source were sufficient to declare the incumbent the winner. For the local media, on the other hand, the election saga is far from over. While Reuters and The Associated Press let the world know that GMA has prevailed, the papers in Manila focused on the deliberations in the legislature aimed at finding a solution on how best to canvass the votes for the two highest elected officials of the land.

The opposition seems bent on prolonging this procedure in parliament as much as possible. With the probable losers still far away from conceding defeat, it is not easy to identify their ultimate strategy. Lack of cohesiveness was one of the major weaknesses of the FPJ-campaign before the elections, and things have not become better since. Why should the opposition wish to draw out the process and further prevent the government from getting back to work, one may ask. More than one reason comes to mind.

Amid allegations of cheating and manipulation, it is not unreasonable to call for a close scrutiny of the results. While some members of the opposition are concentrating on doing just that, others give the impression they have yet to realize that the campaign is over.

A further explanation for the prolongation of the political process is of a more psychological nature -- and has to do with what one local commentator recently termed "The Trauma of Defeat". He says: "Today, a candidate either wins or has been cheated, the word 'lost' has ceased to be part of the Philippine political vocabulary."

I find this observation intriguing: In the seemingly endless post-elections statements, I have yet to find a confession from a losing candidate that the loss may also have been the result of own shortcomings. It almost seems that self-criticism by politicians is anathema in this country. This mentality, in the end, may explain many of the problems in the political process after the elections.

In theory it is very clear and simple: every election produces winners and losers. Selecting one or more individuals from a group of candidates is the very essence of the electoral exercise. Defeat is an integral part of the democratic equation.

The manner in which politicians and the political class as a whole deal with defeat says a lot about the political culture of a country. I have not come across a place where politicians have such a hard time conceding defeat as is the case in the Philippines.

Most Filipino friends I have talked to about this phenomenon argue that this has to do with the desire of the losers to avoid "losing face". Having lived more than six years in Confucian South Korea, I am well aware of the importance of avoiding personal embarrassment in a social context.

On the other hand, I have never quite understood (let alone accepted) why East Asians are exclusive in this regard.

In most other countries defeated candidates seem to have no major problem in publicly conceding defeat. In my country, Germany, for instance the losing side routinely concedes defeat long before the official results are out.

In most Western democracies the burden to do just that seems far smaller that in the Philippines. Apart from the aforementioned psychological imperative of avoiding loss of face, institutional factors may also play a role. Unlike the Philippines where all electoral campaigns are extremely personalized (and therefore personal), elections in most other democracies are fought out primarily between rivaling political parties.

While in these countries too, politicians abhor losing, their defeat becomes more bearable as it is generally perceived as a collective failure. The point I want to make is that, in contrast to the Philippines, candidates are mostly part of a larger collective (usually a political party), and, in case of defeat, the burden of "losing face" is shared by many.

The personalization of politics is also responsible for the weakness of political parties, which in the recent Philippine elections hardly played any role at all.

All sides agree that the country is confronted with daunting challenges. The management of the ballooning budget deficit is generally considered the primary test for the new administration.

Still, for the consolidation of Philippine democracy political reforms may be more important than straitening out the budgetary mess. Topping the list of priorities should be the reform of the electoral system, the basic weaknesses of which have once more become apparent these past weeks, and also the political parties.

These two major issues have been dealt with extensively in the past by governments, parliaments and also civil society. In spite of numerous reformist calls and initiatives, electoral politics in the Philippines continue to be conducted as they are. This shows that powerful forces are not interested in genuine change. As long as this remains the case, Filipinos will continue to call their democracy a "demo-crazy".

The writer is the Resident Representative of the Friedrich- Naumann-Foundation in the Philippines and a commentator on Asian affairs. He can be reached at liberal@fnf.org.ph.