Mud

For the past weeks, the public had been made witness again to the spectacle of mudslinging between and among national and local candidates to the May 2010 elections.

In the national scene, contending presidential aspirants and their supporters have issued accusations against one another, especially in the cases of Nacionalista Party standard-bearer Sen. Manuel Villar and Liberal Party presidentiable Sen. Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III. Sen. Villar had been dogged by accusations of using his position to enrich himself further, with critics, notably Aquino's camp, persistently taking him to task.

Aquino, in the meantime, is facing criticisms from Villar's party regarding his family's Hacienda Luisita land holdings and for being supposedly psychologically incompetent for the presidency.

Locally, incumbent Camarines Sur Governor Lray Villafuerte is being faulted, among others, for greedy land-grabbing of Caramoan's beachfront properties, by former Fourth District Congressman Felix "Nancing" Alfelor who is running against him. Villafuerte, in the meantime, has countered that Alfelor's district remained poor and undeveloped despite the latter's three terms as congressman, hereby hinting at corruption on Alfelor's part.

Much of these occurrences remain true as well in other areas. But why do mudslinging and character-assassination continue to be a perennial fare during elections?

A plausible explanation lies in the fact that unlike in so-called "modern constitutional democracies" in which a candidate's personal character has not been considered VERYsignificant (due to the divide brought about by Machiavelli's theory of "realpolitik"), Philippine political culture remains entrenched-for good or for ill-in a "pre-modern" notion rooted in Classical times that personal virtue (mastery of the self and its lower desires) is tantamount to political virtue (leadership or mastery of others). Philippine political culture still subscribes to the notion that one can only lead if one is able to rule or govern oneself correctly or ethically.

Hence, to attack a candidate's character, to expose supposedly his/her personal flaws, is to discredit his capacity to lead others. The logic of mudslinging, therefore, can stated thus: a flawed character makes for a flawed political leader.

This understanding has been undermined, however, by the notion in modern political thought that political leadership is a type of skill not directly related to one's personal virtue. This is exhibited in the case of former US President Bill Clinton for instance, wherein it did not matter to a majority of the American public that investigating counsel Kenneth Starr portrayed the US President  s a philandering husband in the so-called "Whitewater Scandal" in 1994. What was important for the American people (based on the results of the elections in which Clinton's Democrats won handily) was their President was supposedly doing a good job at the economy.

In the Philippines, something similar arguably occurred during the 1998 Philippine Elections in which President Joseph Estrada won. While the masses knew of Erap's supposed profligacy and numerous women, they supported him because his performance as a public servant appeared unhampered if not unaffected by his private or personal life.

Still notwithstanding this notable case, the issue of a candidate's character remains to be significant in Philippine elections as evinced precisely by the occurrence of mudslinging. Should we adopt the modern thought that political leadership ought to be viewed unconnected to ethical norms? Such an endeavor poses more risks than the spectacle of character-assassination undertaken by rival candidates during election time.

To divorce politics from ethics is to court totalitarianism and the absolute rule of "reason of state" over the lives of our communities.