May 21, 2007

Philippines: Heads I’m Elected, Tails You Lose

Controversial elections are not foreign to Americans. Yet with no disrespect to the troublesome pregnant chads, you realize when you look at what has happened in some other countries that it could be a lot worse. Over the course of the past three months, elections in the Philippines spurred violence that left dozens dead.

Over 87,000 Filipino candidates competed for 18,000 positions, but one race caught the eye of the international community. Two men competing for council seats in Bontoc tied and resolved the conflict by . . . flipping a coin.

While supplying districts with rolls of quarters would be considerably cheaper than upholding an intricate judicial system, this method is questionable and disturbing. Aside from the absurdity of lethal violence leading to peaceful and lighthearted election resolution, the willingness of both contenders to settle on the outcome brings forth the question: “Should it really be that easy?”

The complicated systems put in place to count and recount and recount votes often end in an impasse, costing millions and leaving constituents in an insecure position. Perhaps that is what drove the Philippine election officials who deemed the settlement “refreshing” and encouraged others to see “the beauty of this kind of peaceful resolution.”

In reality, it is probably more of a sigh of relief than actual support. It is a useful example to promote as a model for a non-violent electoral process. Yet in the end, it is harmful to the country’s fairly new democratic system. It is a Band-Aid for the deep wounds from which the violence originates. The country’s refusal to address those wounds directly will likely exacerbate the problem.

Additionally, the hailed approach condones disenfranchisement of the voters. The two candidates chose the method in which the winner emerged without consulting their constituents. When the most crucial part of the race came, the voters were removed from the process.

As much of a pain as it may be to be subject to intricate election laws, this type of system guarantees a systematic means of resolution instead of relying on arbitrary, spur of the moment ideas of candidates in the heat of the moment. The inconvenience is outweighed by the sense of security that comes with a clear-cut and organized method of resolving conflicts.

Countries like the Philippines risk much by cutting corners. While it is undeniable that ensuring safe and fear-free elections is a key responsibility of the government, even one instance of leniency may lead to a slippery slope.

In a country the size of the Philippines, holding elections for 18,000 positions at the same time is playing with fire, literally and proverbially. While the people may momentarily welcome such a simple resolution to what could have been a serious conflict, eventually they will start questioning the government’s willingness to appease.

The lack of trust in key democratic institutions and practices eventually leads to the loss of legitimacy by the system of governing. Some point to the fact that the coin toss was legally permissible and thus the two candidates did nothing wrong choosing this method. Still, that does not explain why after months of campaigning the race goes to the one who called heads.