"A fraudulent leader is a perversion."
We have completely lost track of our understanding of that political principle called “democracy” when we began to tamper that Greek city-state concept about the right to govern after holding a ceremony called “election”. As winners, we are given the authority to govern.
However, the rule of the majority is both anomalous and misleading much that it now revolves on number than in expressing our desire to explore and expand the horizons of freedom which is the substance of true democracy.
Today, all elections are based on number and call it democracy. The candidate that obtains the highest number is accorded authority to govern. But examining the mechanism how it operates clearly shows it has nothing to do with democracy. Election is just a qualifier.
On that premise, number has become crucial to our understanding of democracy, and to our dismay modern political thinkers representing the various classes of society gave different interpretations to it, and even imposed conditions in the guise of perfecting the political formula for an ideal government.
The first rule is to vest authority to one who obtains the majority. There are two accepted formula to determine who wins. The simple majority vote and the vote by plurality, that if a candidate fails to obtain the 50 percent plus 1 vote must run again in a runoff election until the simple majority is obtained. Unfortunately, the process has only encouraged people to cheat knowing that he who obtains the majority wins. Candidates do everything to obtain the highest number of votes. Ninety-five percent of electoral shenanigans revolve on the quest to win.
Second, we attached a term limit to serve public office. This is a distortion to the concept of democracy. Others say, term limit is undemocratic because it substitutes the will of the majority in the broad name of giving others a chance to serve without regard to the will of the majority.
Strictly speaking, the only legal limitation to this is physical disability, amnesia, insanity and conviction. For as long as the winner possesses none of the disabilities, term limitation should not be applied against a candidate. Such is a distortion on the rule of the majority.
Notably, term limit is an American political concept imposed on the US President. It originated during the presidency of George Washington. In fact, he opted to serve for only one term. Since then, all presidents are allowed only to seek one re-election. The tradition was only interrupted during the time of Franklin Roosevelt. He served for four consecutive terms, and that was due to the advent of the Great Depression in 1920's and World War II in the 40s.
Our strict limitation is borne out of our misplaced understanding of democracy which is “to prevent the rise of another dictatorship.” Leaders like China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin enjoy a constitutionally extended stay in office because of their track record as achievers for their country. But it would seem, the hypocrites fear more of their being in office than on what he can do to develop their country.
Today, the economy is evolving as ledger in measuring the value of democracy. Both the Chinese and the Russians are not bothered about that American political nuance. They focus their attention on how their leader can do more which reason why in just 30 years China has dramatically overtaken the US and now Russia is threatening the same. What they accomplished is the meat and substance of their democracy. There is an adage that for a working President to stay in office is too short, but too long for an idle President.
If Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution is amended, will the opposition allow the President to seek re-election? As said, there is nothing wrong in extending his term. We cannot keep on harping about that American implanted principle that has been proven to be costly and economically ruinous to our system. We cannot deny that the best achievers in our history have been maligned as dictators, yet those who amassed enormous wealth at the expense of the great majority continue to value democracy that is bereft of economic opportunities.
Our failure to fully understand democracy as a process of electing our leaders is the reason why we loosely use the word “dictatorship” to any political leader we despise. We easily call one a dictator because we do not agree to his policy, or that he belongs to a diffident political party not affiliated with us. In short, our contempt has nothing to do with his administration or on our knowledge and intelligent assessment of his government.
Half of our people are influenced by propaganda and ideology and not of their judgment of the system. This explains why we easily call our President a dictator for that suits our stereotype thinking purposely fed to us by people having their agenda to pursue. Most importantly, our leaders are called “dictators” by simpleton interpreters of democracy without taking into consideration that a rigged election is as good as no election at all.
A President that is democratically elected has a contract with the people stated in the constitution. Sometimes, his policies may be unpopular but it does not make him a dictator. As long as he remains loyal to the Constitution and is democratically elected, we can never recklessly call him a dictator. Paradoxically, those why may seek to oust him by coup d’etat, people power, or by the novel concept of people’s initiative are, in truth, the ones violating the law. Duterte sought to run for public office not because he is popular but of his desire to serve the people.
The duty of the people is to remain faithful to the government and must stay in that orbit. To operate outside the constitution is to rebel or if he wants, can secede, or resort terrorism, but he must be prepared to accept the same degree of retaliatory retribution. However, none of these romanticists are called dictators because they do not subscribe to any constitutional contract or submit themselves to election as a means to capture political power.
The worse categorization of political leaders is one who acquired political power outside the democratic process. Robredo’s role is an ultimate distortion to our democracy for she now parades as winner in a rigged election. Strictly speaking, a fraudulent leader is a perversion of our democracy because she cheated her way to become vice president, and now wants to get away with it her criminal act. She is a fraudulent leader since she never took part of that democratic process of electing a vice president.
Because our democratic system accords due process even to a cheater, she now enjoys her right to be heard, and abusing it to the hilt to keep herself in power. All her rants are directed to discrediting the elected President to consummate her mockery to our system of true democracy.