RP elections: Why losers do not concede

RP elections: Why losers do not 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.