Why Robin Padilla could be the next vice president

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

—Winston Churchill

 

By Alex P. Vidal

 

FOUR years ago, we saw the possibility of now senator and former showbiz “bad boy” Robinhood “Robin” Padilla joining the ranks of other misfits in the Philippine Senate.

Alas, it did not only come true, the former inmate in the New Bilibid Prison also was ranked No. 1 in the 2022 elections with 26, 454,562 votes.

Filipino voters have been notorious in electing below par candidates to higher public offices like Erap Estrada, Lito Lapid, Manny Paquiao, Bong Go, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla Jr., among other inept characters, thus it didn’t come as a surprise that they made the swaggering 56-year-old Padilla senator.

And because of this, given his immense popularity among the hoi polloi and unschooled, there is a possibility they will elect Padilla as the next vice president when he tandems with Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio in 2028.

Choosing mediocre leaders in a free election like the system in the Philippine has been part of sad but accepted realities in democratic countries in many parts of the world, not just in the Philippines.

This is something Filipinos anywhere in the world have learned to face and accept.

 

-o0o-

 

Incompetent leadership often results from a complex interplay of biases, flawed promotion practices, and insufficient development opportunities.

With the right framework, however, organizations can make leadership competence a core value and avoid the costly mistakes that come with unfit leaders.

Plato had warned about the “aberrations” of democracy thousands of years ago, or about 500 years before Jesus was born (this has always been the timeline I suggested to refer to the period of the Greek philosopher’s existence) in “The Republic.”

Widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of Western philosophy and the first great examination of political life, Plato’s “Republic” was written around 375 B.C.

It still holds insights into ethics and political life that can teach the modern world, especially Filipinos who will elect their leaders on May 9, 2022, many a lesson.

A student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle, Plato witnessed democracy begrudgingly in his city of Athens.

Ancient Athenian democracy differs from the democracy that we are familiar with in the present day.

 

-o0o-

 

Athens was a city-state, while today we are familiar with the primary unit of governance operating nationwide.

Consequently, governance of a smaller population enabled more “direct” forms of democracy rather than the “representative” forms accorded by contemporary constitutions, according to Arc Ninian in Why Plato Hated Democracy.

 It “isn’t their fault” actually if the likes of Pacquiao, Padilla, Lito Lapid, Bong Revilla, etcetera, are elected to public office, especially those running for president as long the constitution allows it.

Under Article VII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, a Filipino can be elected president if he or she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least 40 years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election.

Unless the constitution is changed, every “qualified” Filipino will have the opportunity to win the presidency and occupy elected seats in the lower and upper chambers of congress.

Philippine democracy is also susceptible to suffer from voter ignorance, which is seen as one of the major reasons for the decline in quality of elected leaders.

 

-o0o-

 

The cause of voter ignorance may not be due to a lack of intelligence.

Rather voters are simply rationally ignorant and rationally irrational. Rational ignorance means that voters are logical and/or reasonable for staying uninformed about politics, according to Criticism Against Democracy.

This is because to become an informed voter, according to Austrian philosopher Geoffrey Brennan's standards, it would be extremely cost-prohibitive to the individual.

“It would take an enormous amount of time to become informed to such a level and stay informed about current political events. When doing a cost-benefit analysis, most people would find that becoming informed is not worth their time. Therefore, people are considered rational for choosing not to be informed,” it added.

Rational irrationality refers to the fact that it is logical for people to have cognitive biases resulting in irrational beliefs.

Similar to why it is rational for voters to be ignorant, the cost-benefit analysis to correct cognitive biases is not in favor of the informed voter. Brennan claims that “just as it is instrumentally rational for most people to remain ignorant about politics, it is instrumentally rational for most of them to indulge their biases”.

 

-o0o-

 

According to this theory, as pointed out in Criticism Against Democracy, “the costs outweigh the benefits because it would take an excessive amount of work to find neutral/fair information and correct one’s own biases.”

It added: “In both cases, voters remain ignorant and irrational because the costs to become an impartial, informed voter do not outweigh the benefits. The impact of a competent vote is futile. In the grand scheme of things, a single vote amounts for very little. The chances that one’s vote would be the deciding factor in the election is minuscule; therefore, why would one take the time to inform themselves with very little reward? One could spend an abundance of time becoming informed and rational only to result in the same outcome.”

Politicians and special interests like poll surveys have also attempted to manipulate public opinion for as long as recorded history—this has put into question the feasibility of democratic government.

Critics claim that mass media actually shapes public opinion and can therefore be used to "control" democracy. Opinion polls before the election are under special criticism.

It has been said that misinformation—such as fake news—has become central to elections around the world.

(The author, who is now based in New York City, used to be the editor-in-chief of two leading daily newspapers in Iloilo, Philippines.—Ed)