Is vote-buying reallying being ‘wais’?

WHEN all is said and done, one realizes that elections are about good and bad mindsets. This reminds me of Lumen, the protagonist in the Surf commercials who is pictured as one smart consumer – “Wais”, a term derived from its creator’s exposure among consumers of Cebu. Lumen gets her money’s worth and wins her mother-in-law’s approval.

One who is “wais” is not wasteful and is practical. He or she is not walking in the clouds but has both feet on the ground. She looks before she leaps. She is realistic and discerning.

“Maro” is a related term although it seems to have a negative connotation. It implies a person who tries to get one over others when given the opportunity. He is street-smart to the detriment of others. Somebody who is “maro” cannot be trusted. We keep him at arm’s length.

There are both “wais” and “maro” mindsets during elections.

About three weeks before elections, Jenny, our coordinator for Circles of Discernment for Empowerment (CiDE) and I attended a forum organized by the Cebu Citizens’ Press Council, a local self-regulating media forum. We were given a chance to explain about our I Vote Good campaign. We talked about our house-to-house campaign that calls for two behavioral changes: first, the rejection of vote buying and its variations and second, discerning whom to vote for using the LASER test.

The pairing is essential since it actually corresponds to the journey of conversion and transformation. One begins by turning ones back on a bad behavioral pattern, namely vote-buying. But this is not enough. What is rejected must be replaced by something positive. This is to vote with discernment using a tested tool in the context of a circle of discernment.

I heard some media men snicker and make snide comments, albeit in low tones. I could not blame them since vote-buying has become part of our “damaged culture.” But at least we had their attention. A day later someone wrote about the event and even admitted to the snickering. A day later another columnist wrote to support the campaign even if it was “unrealistic.”

But what is it to be realistic? What is it to be “wais” during elections? The prevalent thinking among many voters is that exchanging their votes for money or any material favor is “wais.” There are several variations to this theme. The most basic is that vote-buying and receiving favors are two different things. The former is wrong but the latter is only a friendly gesture which should not be turned down if one is to be “pakisama.” But both disregard the voters’ dignity as free and responsible human beings. This is really the same dog with different collars.

“This is the only chance I have to get something from the candidates for once they get elected they do not give us any attention” is another version. But receiving something from candidates binds the voters to the candidate in a relationship of dependency. Not only that, once a favor is received the voter would forfeit his right to make demands on the elected official since he has already received a favor. Thus, “usa ka adlaw nga kalipay, tulo ka tuig nga pagmahay” (“a day of joy, three years of regret”) or “pahalipay panahon sa piniliay mopadangat og pagmahay” (“favors during election lead to regret”).

Another goes: “Receive the money but vote according to your conscience.” At first glance, this sounds really “wais.” This should teach candidates a lesson (“naisahan” or “makapatagam”)! But wait. Have we not heard this approach for many elections now?  Has vote-buying abated? On-ground discussions with different groups all over the country convince me that the contrary is true. Vote-buying and giving of favors have risen to new heights of insanity. What advocates of this approach forget is the numbing power of “utang na loob” and “hiya” – so that for the vast majority of those who sell their votes, “conscience” is the candidate who is the highest bidder.

A third says: “The money is here, so what do we do with it?” Behind this predicament is “hiya” and the felt need to save the face of the giver especially if he is a person of authority. One does not wish to be deemed “ingrato.” We should appeal to the voter’s religious sense – “Whom should we please, God or man?” – and also point out a practical insight: if no one receives, no one gives.

But the demand for purchase is only one side of the problem. The supply side thinks it is “wais” by trying to win at all cost, including buying votes, giving favors, and even intimidating. But where has all these led to? The first, if the candidate has any self-respect, should be a gnawing feeling of a low self worth. Why would anyone worth his salt buy votes? Why should people choose someone who does not even have a sense of self worth? In addition, since buying votes entail debt, who in his right mind would want to go into debt? This is not “wais” unless one has plans of self aggrandizement once in office. Now who in their right minds would want to vote for such persons?

Apart from moral or religious considerations, the commerce of votes does not make sense for both voters and candidates. It is not practical or “wais.” It is merely “maro” to everyone’s detriment. We have tried this path of least resistance for a long time now and it has only led to societal and cultural decline. The aforementioned oversights rationalizing vote-buying aggravate the decline.

Yet any effort to curb vote-buying and selling will fail if various sectors do not come together for this and if no concrete solutions are offered. Merely telling people not to sell their votes does not work. Moralizing and mere sloganeering are shallow. While long-term solutions include inclusive economic growth that broadens the ranks of beneficiaries as well as making arrests on those engage in vote-buying and selling, we should do parallel work on conscience formation. But our approach should be beyond the usual.

Our focused and measurable work on four sitios in Metro Cebu is slowly yielding valuable insights. A fuller assessment and measurement of impact will follow soon after elections for consolidation and, God-willing, expanded work. Some elements for effective conscience formation include using features of a political campaign while maintaining a non-partisan stance to promote values; grounded and messaging sensitive to the local culture and mindsets; sustained accompaniment of voters even beyond elections; visible use of religious symbols; the presence and coming together of various election stakeholders; tapping into the reservoir of the youth; etc. Raising questions coupled with a few strong judgments on the real score work rather than just telling people what to do.

Above all we need unflinching faith in the promised Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth (John 14:26) and who “proves the world wrong about sin, about justice, and condemnation” (John 16:8). Filled with the Spirit, we can say with the Lord: “Take courage! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Now that is “wais”.