The Myth of the “Omnicompetent Citizen”

For quite some time now, I have been quietly observing the ongoing “debate” between adherents of One Voice and Sigaw ng Bayan. It seems to me that the two groups have reduced the Charter Change debate into only one issue: whether or not the Filipino people should continue having the right to vote for President. One Voice tends to hew closely to the “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” (The voice of the people is the voice of God) view and they oppose a shift to a parliamentary form of government because it will take away the people’s right to vote for president. Sigaw ng Bayan, on the other hand, wants a shift to the parliamentary system that would result in only members of Parliament choosing who gets to head our government. Given the people’s history of electing actors to national office, Sigaw ng Bayan feels that members of Congress are the ones most capable of knowing who is most qualified to rule our country.

The more important question now then is: “Can the people be trusted to vote for the best leader?” Or, put another way, “Are the people competent enough to know who is the best candidate in the ballot?”

Legendary journalist Walter Lippman, in his seminal book “Public Opinion,” has already debunked the theory of the “omnicompetent” or the all-knowing citizen. Written sometime in the 1920s, “Public Opinion” has since become required reading for all political scientists, opinion makers and journalists worldwide. In his classic book, Lippman posited that the general public’s view of reality is incomplete, that is, they do not see what is really going on in their government aside from what they see on TV, read in the papers or hear from the rumor mills. He also said that public opinion can be easily manipulated by propaganda and that people’s attitudes are heavily influenced by stereotypes. And since the public is not “omnicompetent” and is in fact easily susceptible to propaganda and stereotypes, Lippman concluded that governments should not wholly trust their citizens to know the “objective truth.” Citizens, he claimed, are not competent to know what is best for them because they are not well-informed enough to make correct decisions on multifaceted issues and intricate policy matters.

Applying Lippman’s theory in the Philippine setting, one tends to agree. Take the case of the Filipinos past choices for President. In the 1992 presidential elections, then-Senate President Jovy Salonga arguably was the most qualified of the candidates. But people did not vote for him because they thought he was old, sickly and was about to die soon (Salonga is still alive today and in fact, still writes articles). If the public was “omnicompetent,” they would have known Salonga would not die. Also, most Ilonggos then voted for Miriam Santiago simply because she is their fellow Ilonggo, one example of how “stereotypes” influence public opinion.

Taking my argument further, if people were all-knowing, they would have clamored for Washington Sycip to be their President (I believe Wash Sycip is the best person alive to manage our economy). Congressman Miniong Teves (who is still one of our hardest-working and competent legislators despite his advanced age) would already be a senator. And Butch Africa (the guy who modernized the National Statistics Office) would be a COMELEC commissioner by now. But it seems to me that our current system does not allow these outstanding individuals to rise to important positions of leadership. And I am referring not only to their inability to get elected. I am also referring to the media's failure to herald their achievements and make them "celebrities" to the public. I also mean the failure of powerful interest groups and political parties to recruit these outstanding individuals to vie and win public office. It is clear then that our "selection process" for our leaders is flawed and limiting.

Of course, there are people who will argue that the solution is not to change the form of government but to educate our people. But I am sure that there are masteral or even law graduates out there who do not know who Wash Sycip is or what Butch Africa has done to turn around NSO from being one of the most inefficient government agencies to one of the best-performing today. This seems to prove Walter Lippman’s point that people are not in the best position to know the “objective truth” because they are limited by incomplete information, stereotypes and propaganda. Based on their track records, these three individuals I mentioned are eminently qualified to run our government, but why is it that only a few Filipinos know that they even exist? And even if these three run for office, I am sure they will lose because aside from being “unpopular,” they lack resources, name-recall, party machinery and mass appeal.

So where does that leave us? I believe that by shifting to a parliamentary form of government, our people will have a bigger chance of choosing the best and the brightest leaders to run our country. Under the parliamentary system, talented individuals with no political pedigree or financial resources would have a better chance in getting elected because it will be the party which will choose their candidates and shoulder their campaign expenses. Once in Parliament, an extraordinarily-gifted but relatively "unknown" individual can shine and earn the respect of his peers, and hopefully merit their votes when they choose the Prime Minister. It will also prevent incompetent individuals who are merely riding on their star quality from capturing high government posts. It will also force our people, who are easily “awed” by a familiar political name, to take a second look at “fresher” political faces and this will hopefully lead to the infusion of “new blood” to our already incestuous political system. I also believe that the provinces will have a better chance to develop if we change our system into a parliamentary-federal form of government. For these reasons, I am in favor to a shift from the presidential to the parliamentary system.