Dirty Politics

Search Google with the key string “smear campaign Philippine elections” and you’ll get a list, about four pages long, of the same Agence France Presse (AFP) report by Maynardo Macaraig entitled “Internet fuels Philippine election smear campaigns.” It reads in part:

Philippine politics has plunged to ugly lows ahead of next month’s presidential election as candidates take advantage of the Internet and mobile phones to smear their rivals, analysts say.

Among the worst examples, front runner Benigno Aquino has had to deal with a hoax psychiatric report claiming he is mentally ill and took drugs, while his main opponent, Manny Villar, has been accused of lying about his dead brother.

“They have reached a new kind of low,” said Jorge Tigno, associate professor of political science at the University of the Philippines, referring to the mudslinging campaign tactics being employed by the presidential candidates.

In the past, those vying for the presidency in the Philippines were generally seen to be above the heated rivalries of lower-level politicians, according to Tigno.

Huh? I have this uncanny feeling that during elections held when radio first become a popular and widespread medium, people said the same thing – radio fueled smear campaigns. Then, there was television. Today, it’s the Internet and mobile phones.

Get real, people. Politics is dirty and it is getting dirtier. Not because new technologies like the Internet and mobile phones make it easier and faster to circulate campaign information but because tactics of the past are already overused and people can already see through them. Ergo, the image consultants and the political handlers dream up of other ways to capture the attention of the public. Heck, who needs the internet and mobile phones to spread rumors? Rumor mongering is as old as man and it will be part of human experience long after the Internet and mobile phones are superseded by newer and more sophisticated technologies.

Ah, the need to point a finger to deflect the blame from the real culprits. Politics get dirty because the players are dirty. What’s so hard to understand about that? Politics has always been dirty business. It has always been full of intrigues and smear campaigns. It has often been marked by violence. And it isn’t just Philippine politics that illustrate these characteristics. The filth of politics transcends era and culture.

Transcends era and culture? Sure. When Julius Caesar was just starting to rise to power, his tactics to capture the consulship was described by Greek historian and biographer Plutarch in “Parallel Lives.” He wrote: “Of the two other candidates for this office, Lucius Lucceius and Marcus Bibulus, Caesar joined forces with the former, making a bargain with him that since Lucceius had less influence but more funds, he should in their common name promise largess to the electors from his own pocket. When this became known, the aristocracy authorized Bibulus to promise the same amount, being seized with fear that Caesar would stick at nothing when he became chief magistrate, if he had a colleague who was heart and soul with him. Many of them contributed to the fund, and even Cato did not deny that bribery under such circumstances was for the good of the commonwealth. So Caesar was chosen consul with Bibulus…”

Dirty political wheeling and dealing, pure and simple. After that, Julius Caesar tried to dominate Roman politics with his First Triumvirate, an “informal” alliance with Crassus and Pompey, two of the most powerful Roman politicians of the time. And after gaining control of government, he centralized the bureaucracy and became a dictator. The Roman senators thought he was going to get rid of them by dissolving the Senate so they assassinated him in 44 BC.

In English history, the House of Tudors (1485 to 1603) was beset by political intrigues from beginning to end with issues like usurpation (which led to the execution of Lady Jane Grey) and illegitimacy (Elizabeth I was considered by the Catholics in England to be an illegitimate child of Henry VIII). Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII and mother of Elizabeth I, was accused of adultery and incest, none of which could be proven, but for which she was eventually beheaded (officially, the crime was treason as adultery to the king was considered high treason) just so the Seymour family, by marrying off their Jane to Henry, could rise to power and prominence which, naturally, translated into wealth.

Let’s have an example that many of us are familiar with. When Ferdinand Marcos was consolidating his power, after declaring Martial Law in 1972, what were among his first acts? Brand his critics as communists and anarchists, have them arrested, and close down newspapers, radio and television stations so that only his version of the true state of the nation would be disseminated.

The truth is, in any political exercise, when the highest power is at stake, people go to all lengths and stoop to the lowest levels, to win. And because every claimant to power is surrounded by people who expect to profit from his victory, they are just as willing as he is to propagate lies, both in his favor and against his opponents, if the lies can be translated into votes (in an election) or popular support (in a non-election such as an insurrection or a rebellion).

It’s less than a month before the presidential elections. We read and hear about dirty political tactics made by, or on the behest of, the contenders and the political analysts, the so-called experts, are blaming the Internet and mobile phone technology? Oh, come on. The rumor mongers are getting more creative but analysts are still sticking to old school analysis?

**Filed under Sassy Lawyer**