Politics and neutrality

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Politics and neutrality
Sunday, 10 14, 2007

Kabul, Afghanistan---Right here in the crossroads of Asia, where Alexander the Great is reported to have pitched his tent to learn the ways of democracy before he went on to expand his conquests, I take special pride in being a member of a United Nations project helping out in the crafting of the new Electoral Code for Afghanistan (ECA) that, inshallah, will govern all local and national elections starting in 2010.

Given even half a chance, politics, for reasons that are self-explanatory and self-serving, will understandably try to get at the root of management of elections. But, strangely, in Afghanistan — a country that has gone through two generations of inactivity in electoral exercises because of war, inter-tribal conflicts, foreign occupation, and the continuing threat of terrorism, prior to 2004 — neutrality appears to be the norm among those tasked with the management of elections. This impartiality is the only decent thing to expect, if not demand, in a climate where everyone, from the president down to every Afghan citizen, is relearning the ropes of democracy.

I state below everything with a sense of national shame and a prayer of hope, after reading on-line what has become of our own Commission on Elections (Comelec), in the wake of the fraudulent elections and the ZTE scandal, among others.

The ECA is administered by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). By its nomenclature alone, the message is clear that the IEC is autonomous, and non-aligned with any governmental or non-governmental office. Its members, all nine of them, are expected to “be independent and unbiased in the discharge of their functions, perform in a neutral and impartial manner, and shall not seek or receive instructions from anyone.” A person holding a position in a political party or who had been a candidate for elective office cannot become a member of the IEC. And at the end of their tenure, members of the IEC cannot be appointed to top government positions.

Our own Omnibus Election Code (OEC) does not carry these provisions — or even if it does by implication, the prohibition has been honored more in the breach rather than in the observance. No one in the Comelec, to everyone’s recollection, has performed his functions in a neutral and impartial manner. Politicians have populated the Comelec through these past many years. Election commissioners, upon their retirement, went on to occupy higher posts. A case in point is the Comelec chairman who eventually became the fifth most powerful man in our country via the judiciary.

Under the ECA, a relative of a member of the IEC cannot run for an elective post. There is no such prohibition in our OEC. Remember the son-in-law of the immediate past Comelec chairman who ran in Laguna and was able to stall the proclamation of the eventual winner, or his brother from Mandaluyong who ran under the party-list law and garnered a miraculous harvest of votes in far-off Basilan? The prohibition under the ECA finds justification in our own failings under the OEC.

The IEC enjoys fiscal autonomy in its annual budget. This is as it should be, if one were to expect a truly independent electoral body, insulated from the pressures emanating from those who have control over the purse. Our own Comelec does not enjoy that same independence over what it must do with its budget.

The ECA mandates that decisions of the IEC “shall always give priority to the benefits to the country rather than take the partisan differences of the disputants into consideration.” Our Comelec is that partisan — it either hems and haws or is indecently hasty on decisions, depending on whom it wishes to favor — so forget about benefits to the country in the priority of its decisions.

And a provision in the ECA reminds me of the “Hello Garci” scandal: “Government officials shall not directly or indirectly interfere in the election process.” While we may have a similar provision in the OEC, the penalty for this election offense under the ECA is not a mere slap on the wrist or a televised mea culpa for those who get caught: the offender gets booted out of office for good.

The first presidential elections in Afghanistan under the ECA in October 2004 was widely considered a success. So were the elections for members of the National Assembly of Afghanistan in September 2005. Foreign observers attributed this to the independence and neutrality exhibited by the IEC.

I note with sadness that our Comelec has been transformed into an extension of the executive branch — its political arm, if you will. Electoral protests are decided at the bidding of the executive. The results of elections have become predictable, stacked up in favor of those whom Malacañang favors.

We have seen electoral commissioners using to the fullest their power and influence: for themselves while in office, and as a springboard to positions of more power and influence. Politicians held sway then at the Comelec; they still do now. Politicians managing elections can never be neutral. In that body, a neutrality that knows how to make a deal and give concessions is a given, the politics of give-and-take being the norm.

The story goes that Alexander the Great once saw a group of Afghans in animated huddle under a big edrakht (tree). He asked his aide, a local tribesman, what they were doing, and the aide answered: “Sir, they are deciding on who among them will lead the next battle against you.”

In Manila, the people are currently huddled trying to decide whom to endorse to the Comelec, in place of its disgraced chairman and three other vacancies. The battle against electoral fraud and corruption cannot be left in the hands of politicians, as we wrote last Sunday. For a change, following the Afghan model, let us have non-politicians.



For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2007