Screening young blood

published 19 Jan 2007, MST

I remember the time when I was an incoming college junior and a first-time voter. I was heady with idealism. I felt then that it was my generation’s turn to be heard, and there was no way I—or any of my contemporaries for that matter—should squander that opportunity. Apathy was a crime.

That was in 1995—a midterm elections. I was fortunate to be studying in a university that encouraged its students to be involved in the nation’s affairs. The Ateneo made available campaign materials of candidates from all sides. There was even a forum where senatorial candidates were invited to talk about their legislative agenda and to answer students’ questions. I could not wait to exercise my right. I did so with much reflection and utter deliberation. I hoped everyone in my age group felt the same way, enough to make a difference.

The number has since grown. Bulk of the present voting population of more than 40 million is said to belong to the 18- to 35-year-old range. To a large extent, young people’s decision determines who among the multitude of candidates get which seats in government.

Now there is talk that both the administration and opposition would be fielding younger candidates for the Senate. While either camp has yet to finalize its ticket, there have been personalities who have indicated their intention to run for the Senate. And indeed, a good number of these are not your ordinary dirty old politician type.

The apparent trend is encouraging. Finally, the public may be given a break from traditional trapos who only know how to wheel and deal, grandstand and perpetuate the centuries-old system of patronage politics. Or the movie actors whose only claim to being one with the masses are pretty faces or swashbuckling antics in the local theaters.

Can we then safely say that a new era is dawning upon Philippine politics, now that young—and serious—candidates are in the running? Think again. This could be a simplistic and hence dangerous line of thinking. Youth could also be a trap.

Conscientious voters adopt a selection criteria for the people they wish to put in office. Standards should be higher for up-and-coming officials, for both national and local posts. If elected, they would have more of their lives left to be devoted to government service. They would be around for much longer. Their decisions and mistakes would influence not only our lives but our children’s, too. They will redefine the word “politician”—improve it or make it worse.

Upon their shoulders is the nation’s hope for a transformation. They better be worthy. Now I’d like to share some items on my personal checklist.

Love for countrymen. It is easy to say “I love my country.” We all love our country; it’s the only one we’ve got. We were born here, raised here, and even if some of us go to foreign lands at some point, we still have the intention of coming back home, eventually, to retire.

But “country” is a geological and political construct. It is nothing without people. Filipinos are diverse and disparate: in language, culture, religion, lifestyle and income. Do candidates embrace this diversity and wish to empower not just certain segments but as many segments as they can? Are they open the “other,” to new or contrary points of view? Or are they incurable faultfinders who feed their egos with the inadequacy of others?

Humility. Long before these candidates began walking or attending pre-school, there have been those who have been doing government work. These old-timers are entitled to some amount of deference, if only for their age and experience, even with their Jurassic approaches or their inflexibility. Good candidates never pretend they have seen the world or been around. They are young and have much to learn. They may be good, but they could be better. They are allowed to commit a blooper or two, provided that they acknowledge and learn from it. It does not pay to be arrogant and self-aggrandizing. The people don’t need a messiah. We already had one.

Aversion to mediocrity. We like achievers. We prefer intelligent candidates who know what they want and how to get it. A prominent surname is, in fact, a liability. Those with family members already in government have to prove so much more. Is there fire in their eyes? Do they really want to serve, or are they just being dutiful sons?

Substance. There are countless debates in which to participate. One can only say his piece in some of them. Personalities who always have something to say about every topic imaginable— especially when call attention to themselves in doing so—are often perceived to have mere cursory knowledge and sheer hunger for publicity. Remember that saying on noisy cans being empty?

Sincerity. This is difficult to determine. Politicians are trained to be experts in looking sincere; actually being so does not follow. A good gauge of sincerity, though, would be candidates’ personal lives. Are their houses in order? Do they mock or break the law? How do they interact with people from all levels—VIPs, assistants, clerks and drivers? Do they live what they preach or engage in lip service for mileage purposes?

Diligence. Nothing beats hard work. Despite the common notion, government service is neither a breeze nor a glamor job. Delegating tasks to staff members ensures efficiency only if the would-be official remains abreast with all developments. Technology, which the young have embraced to make life easier, has made communication and research possible even for a very busy person. Ideal candidates never find themselves in the embarrassing situation where their deputies actually know more than they do.

Youth could either be a hurdle to overcome or an excuse for folly. We could precede it with “in spite of” when referring to achievements, or “because of” when dealing with blunders.

Let us not fall into the trap of hasty deductions. It is the pastime of an indolent nation.