Senator Chiz Escudero created quite a stir when he bolted from the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) at a time when he was almost certain to bag the party's nomination. But there are rumors that one of the reasons behind his decision was the alleged unwillingness of the "Boss" Eduardo 'Danding' Cojuangco to throw his full support, financially, to Escudero's campaign. Escudero, on the other hand, claims that his decision to bolt the NPC stems from his belief that a candidate for president should be free from all the fetters of party loyalty and political debts.
Escudero's announcement bolting the NPC was described by the media as a "bombshell". A lot of people were stunned. However, when the shock subsided, the prevailing thinking among the media and politicians alike is that Escudero committed 'political suicide'. Political pundits added that no candidate for president has ever won without a political party.
What is it about political parties that supposedly spell victory or doom for a presidential candidate?
Historically in democratic countries such as the US, Britain, and Western Europe, political parties were distinguished from each other based on their platforms. A party may be considered as left-of-center such as labour parties of Western Europe that are known for social reforms and welfare states, liberal such as the Democratic Party of the US, and conservative as the Tories of Britain and the Republicans of the US that are known for fundamentalist positions and neo-classical economic policies. A candidate for president or prime minister should thus belong to a political party that corresponds to his or her political beliefs and platform of government. An independent could run for the highest position in the country but he or she should clarify how his or her position and platform is different from the other candidates and parties. However, independent candidates rarely win because majority of the citizens belong and are loyal to a political party, which corresponds to their views, positions, and desired government. Thus, an independent candidate has the disadvantage of not having a mass base, a machinery for the campaign and poll watching, and of course, resources.
However, since the 1990s, the distinction between the different parties in Europe and the US has become blurred. The positions and policies of labour parties hardly differ from that of conservative parties. In Britain, Tony Blair was credited for bringing the British Labour Party toward the center with his 'New Labour' politics, which adopted free market policies. From then on, the policies and positions of the Labour Party are hardly distinguishable from the conservative Tories. In the US, the Americans overwhelmingly rejected the free market, speculative, war-mongering policies of the Republicans under Geroge W. Bush only to realize that the Democrat-led administration of President Barack Obama is hardly no different. The free market policies are still there and so are the wars of aggression.
Backward countries such as the Philippines are much worse. Historically, there were two political parties competing for power, the Nacionalista and the Liberal parties. All candidates for president who have been successful belonged to either one of these parties. However, the positions, platforms, and policies of both parties were indistinguishable. Thus, candidates shifted from one party to the other if he or she felt that his or her political ambition was not being supported by his or her party. The late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos ran under the Liberal Party in 1949 and won two consecutive terms at the House of Representatives, and in 1959 when he was elected senator. But when former president Diosdado Macapagal reneged on his promise not to run for reelection to give way to Marcos, the latter ran for president and won under the Nacionalista Party.
Because both parties did not carry any clear platform, it could not count on a steady mass base of members coming from the citizenry. The machinery and resources of both parties were almost the same, with the party in power, of course, enjoying the advantage because it was able to use the resources and machinery of the government. However, it also bore the brunt of the anger and frustration of the citizens, majority of whom suffered in poverty. Thus, even if the party in power enjoyed an edge in terms of machinery and resources, it was readily replaced in times when the economic crisis was at its worst.
Politics and elections in the Philippine are much worse after the dictatorship. Opportunist politics are at its worst. Political parties spring like mushrooms, each hardly distinguishable from the other. Every time someone wants to seek the highest position in the land but is not supported by any party, he or she establishes a new party. All political parties are thus, small when not in power, even the oldest ones the Nacionalista and Liberal parties. Only the party in power becomes the largest because politicians join it to get their share of the government's pie.
However, the vast machinery and resources of the government hardly matter during elections because the economic crisis worsens by the day. It did not spell victory for former speaker Ramon Mitra in 1992 because the country was in crisis since the late 80s and early 90s; he did not even place second to Fidel Ramos who ran under a new party Lakas-NUCD and won by a slim margin against Miriam Defensor-Santiago who heads the People's Reform Party, another small party. Neither did it catapult former speaker Jose de Venecia to Malacanang during the 1998 elections; he was defeated overwhelmingly by Joseph "Erap" Estrada - who also established his own party the Partido ng Masang Pilipino - because de Venecia was weighed down by the flawed policies of the Ramos government, which made the country vulnerable to the 1997 financial crisis that hit Southeast Asia. It mattered only to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2004 when she was defeated by the late Fernando Poe Jr.. She was able to 'ensure' that she won by one million votes courtesy of former Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano of the "Hello Garci" fame.
Did Escudero commit political suicide by bolting the NPC? It remains to be seen.
But one thing is clear, the parties of the front liners in the race for the presidency Senators Noynoy Aquino of the Liberal Party and Manny Villar of the Nacionalista party are not yet that big especially compared to the ruling party. Nor could they be differentiated by platforms. Both are merely riding on the unpopularity of the Arroyo administration without presenting clearly how they would run the government differently or what change they would bring about.
Regardless of his motivations, Escudero made a bold move by shunning traditional political parties and articulating what the Filipino people have been hoping for, a government not tied down by political debts. He also declared that he is against oil deregulation and labor contractualization - two policies being pushed for by progressive organizations that politicians would not want to touch with a ten-foot pole for fear of losing the support of foreign and local big business. If that is committing political suicide, at least it is a step toward the right direction. Frankly, it is the trapos who pretend to be different from their counterparts in government but turn out to be the same or even worse once they are in power who should commit suicide, if they do they would be doing the Filipino people a big favor.