Selecting a leader is a hard task. In a field of equally capable peers, selecting the candidate best fit for the job is hard. In a field of equally incompetent peers, selecting the most competent will also be hard.
But supposedly in a field of unequal capabilities, the best person for the job should be easy to spot, right? Well, in a perfect world, that’s supposed to be a no-brainer. But, hey, it’s the Philippines we are talking about here, you gotta hold on to your horses. And speaking of horses, a word comes to mind – to “vet”. A quick look up of the origin of the word reveals that:
To vet was originally a horse-racing term, referring to the requirement that a horse be checked for health and soundness by a veterinarian before being allowed to race. Thus, it has taken the general meaning “to check.”
It is a figurative contraction of veterinarian which originated in the mid-17th century. The colloquial abbreviation dates to the 1860s; the verb form of the word, meaning “to treat an animal,” came a few decades later—according to the Oxford English Dictionary the earliest known usage is 1891—and was applied primarily in a horse-racing context. (“He vetted the stallion before the race,” “You should vet that horse before he races,” etc.) By the early 1900s, vet had begun to be used as a synonym for evaluate, especially in the context of searching for flaws.
Merriam-Webster also defines vetting as
1-a: to provide veterinary care for (an animal) or medical care for (a person)
1-b: to subject (a person or animal) to a physical examination or checkup
2-a: to subject to usually expert appraisal or correction <vet a manuscript>
2-b. to evaluate for possible approval or acceptance <vet the candidates for a position>
Vetting, therefore, is a process of examination and evaluation, generally referring to performing a background check on someone before offering him or her employment. In addition, in intelligence gathering, assets are vetted to determine their usefulness.
Supposedly, leaders are thoroughly vetted. For example, in the United States, when the party’s presidential nominee chooses a vice-presidential candidate to accompany him or her on the ticket. Prospective vice-presidential candidates undergo detailed evaluation by a team of advisers acting on behalf of the nominee. In later stages of the vetting process, the team will examine a wider range of items such as finances, personal conduct, and previous coverage in the media.
In the Philippines, we can say that there is a vetting process (and that’s really stretching it). However, whether such process is thorough, begs to be asked.
Are we being thorough in selecting the people who will lead the Philippines.
Are we being thorough when we ask a parasitic landlord class to lead the very people whose blood it has been sucking?
Are we being thorough when we vote for a liar who hails from the Ivy League?
Are we being thorough when we vote for a womanizing boozing dropout of a thug ?
Are we being thorough when we vote for the same old names, same old faces, same modus operandi – and expect different results?
After all, as pointed out by Paul White, while Richardson was being vetted to be the commerce secretary “It is up to the vetters to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth out of appointees.”
We, the Voters, have an obligation to thoroughly vet every candidate that comes before our way. Many, if not all, of these candidates will make decisions that will impact our lives and of our people, every day.
The purpose of the vetting process is neither to embarrass or put a candidate down, nor to further politicize the process. Rather, the purpose of the vetting process is to ensure that candidates may be trusted with the responsibilities that come with serving an elective position.
By ensuring that these candidates are doing what they say they did, something which they should be doing anyway, we are ensuring the candidates are, at a minimum, complying with the rules that more often than not they will help create and implement.
Thus, when we ask for a platform, we ask not for the sake of asking.
We ask because we want to know, we want to verify, we want to validate, we want to confirm – that the candidate is the person who he/she claims herself to be. 
We want to see what are the principles that will guide a candidate’s decisions in the pressing issues of the day.
Political capital – name recall, winnability, popularity, machinery – is not enough.
In this high stakes elections, heart is not enough, beauty is not enough, and brains is not enough.
A balanced and thorough evaluation is needed, lest we gamble our present and future as we have done in the past.
And speaking of gambling, do you want to bet your future on an unvetted candidate?
Popularity: 1% [?]
This is a gem.
The internet provides the opportunity for “fluid vetting”, that is the dialogue to probe and gain understanding. Now, how to get the candidates to listen in . . .
Joe
Candidates listen if it will get them more votes or make them lose more votes.
mmm… my personal understanding is that the vetting process is a voter initiative or action not the candidates’. No need for the candidates to listen. correct me if im wrong…
No, I’d say you’re right, they don’t have to listen. And nobody has to vote for them, either.
The candidates ought to thank the voters for making their job relatively easy — all the voters are asking for is their platforms, the contracts in a matter of speaking that the candidates are offering for their employment. It’s the voters that have to do the hard part of deciding.
Hohum, this persistent demand for platform here in FV is so boring, getting so monotonous I’m feeling drowsy now. Please lang, those who are itching for platform, here’s a friendly advice: wait for the campaign period, attend all ‘meeting de avance’ of all candidates.
Pag hindi kayo napurga sa kanilang mga plataporma, heheh.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
You snooze you lose, as you have been losing all these years.
Are you contented with being a loser? :)
Anyway, just to oblige you guys, here’s a typical platform, just for you, dudes:
Mga kababayan ko, pag ako ibinoto ninyo, ang mga walang trabaho ay magkakaroon ng trabaho. Magpapatayo ako ng mga hospitals, ipagagawa ko ang mga sirang kalsada ninyo at mga sirang tulay. Gagawa ako ng paraan para ang pagaaral ng mga anak ninyo ay libre na…blah, blah, blah.
‘O, ano, meron pa bang gagandang plataporma kaysa diyan?
When the candidate says that:
Do a fact check
* How many jobs? Time frame? Have you generated jobs before? Does he have a program for generating jobs? What is his stance on foreign investments?
* How many hospitals has he supported? What are the actual improvements in the hospital? What are the health programs he has supported? Where’s the money coming from?
I can imagine your candidate getting silent :)
E paano yan kung yung candidate mo eh may pagka Le Cirque tendnecies yun nga lang – imbes dinner, Film Festival naman ang hilig. Sample pa lang yan. Pag napresidente na ano pa ang dedekwatin? Another Erap and Arroyo in the making.
as far as i’m concerned, those planning to run in the coming elections especially those with running infomercials should already start giving us their platforms. their excuses for not presenting their plans are flimsy at best.
anyway here’s a definition of political platform from http://www.wisegeek.com.
“A political platform is a series of positions on political issues which is used to promote a particular political party or candidate. It often comes in the form of a manifesto, a carefully worded political document which appeals to voters by touching on a number of issues which are important to them. Analysis of political platforms is a topic of interest for many people, especially in presidential election years, when political parties struggle for control of a nation, and their platforms are vital tools.
The individual topics within a political platform are sometimes referred to as “planks,” carrying the platform metaphor to its logical conclusion. Common planks in a political platform include stances on issues like education, the environment, national security, welfare, and so forth, with the positions being adjusted to meet changing cultural values and emerging global issues. In the United States, for example, after the terrorist attacks of 2001, many political parties adopted a tough stance on terrorism as part of their platform.
Typically each political party has a platform, and individual members of that party have their own platforms which are often closely aligned with the party platform. The broad scope of the national party platform is designed to attract voters to that party, in the hopes of creating party loyalty and potentially generating voters who will automatically pick candidates associated with that party, on the strength of the national platform. Individual platforms focus more on regional issues and personal political beliefs of the candidates, with many candidates picking a pet issue such as poverty to focus on in their platforms.
Many people associate specific parties with particular platform issues since the issues make up the cornerstone of the party’s philosophy. For example, some political parties are known for a hands-off approach to national government, with a focus on the rights of individual regions to set their own policies, while others prefer a more centrally organized government. The authors of a political platform strive to appeal to common concerns among the populace while making their party seem like the only patriotic choice for voters.
A political platform is typically widely distributed, with journalists and commentators being encouraged to quote from it when they analyze candidates and upcoming elections. Candidates also become familiar with the platforms of their opponents so that they can identify weak points of potential attack, and you will often hear rhetoric about a candidate or party’s platform at political rallies.”
this particular example is a sorry example of a platform. it’s just a bunch of empty promises.
“Mga kababayan ko, pag ako ibinoto ninyo, ang mga walang trabaho ay magkakaroon ng trabaho. Magpapatayo ako ng mga hospitals, ipagagawa ko ang mga sirang kalsada ninyo at mga sirang tulay. Gagawa ako ng paraan para ang pagaaral ng mga anak ninyo ay libre na…blah, blah, blah.”
benK provides us with a simple way to test a “platform.” he says:
“Here’s a good test of any platform: see if you can conceive an opposite to any given plan. If so, the platform offers a clear and debatable choice. For example, Mar Roxas says, “use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in Grades 1 to 3,” the opposing viewpoint could be “use English as the medium of instruction in Grades 1 to 3″. Do that to Noynoy’s ‘platform’, and see what you get:
1. Weaken the Senate as an independent branch of government.
2. Cease holding government to account for excesses and misgovernance.
3. Support (or not resist) Charter Change under any circumstances.
4. Support (or not oppose) government repression.
5. Not serve the interests of the disadvantaged.
See the problem with that?”
the moment platforms are issued, this would amount to electioneering already, which is prohibited by comelec until after the deadline for filing of candidacy. infomercials pa nga, umaapaw na ang promising platforms, which are easy plagiarized materials.
besides, if the candidate comes from a party, doesn’t the party have some general plaftforms to go by already?
The commenter needs to be reminded that
the candidate provides his platform
the voter evaluates the candidate’s platform – not the other way around.
If the candidate or supporters does not understand this – they shouldn’t be in the running at all.
What that shows is that the candidate does not have the balls (ergo, does not have the qualities of good leaders) to put themslelves on the line and define who they are and the issues they stand for. If he can’t articulate his vision, then I would prefer that a more competent person lead, and just hire the other candidate as administrator or head janitor.
It also indicates that the candidate is looking at what’s the voter’s view – and cast his platform along those lines – pander to the audience – even if his platform is not consistent with the actions and decisions he has taken in the course of his career. What that shows is a candidate without integrity. He shouldn’t even be running.
You guys are dealing in semantics, heheh.
“If so, the platform offers a clear and debatable choice. For example, Mar Roxas says, “use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in Grades 1 to 3,… blah, blah”.
You called that a platform? That’s not even a promise. Building hospitals and infrastructures are more substantial promises, and if done after winning the election will not be empty promises any more.
Even Mar’s empty platform, if not done, will amount to nothing.
So, anong silbi ng mga sinasabi ninyo?
Bert:
In case you missed the prior post on the definition of a political platform (as defined in wisegeek.com) , am reposting it again (do you need a translation)?:
***
Mar Roxas says, “use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in Grades 1 to 3 – This is a position on an issue – A “plank”, not a platform.
empty platform na nga.. not doing an empty thing.. amount to nothing pa talaga.. triple redundancy egads… great laugh right there.
Voters like you and me, try to bring out as much Truth from the
candidates. His records, his education, his political agendas,
how he acted under pressure, etc… the candidates divert us away
from these issues, by: Sloganeering; Show Biz personalities; distributing rice, canned goods, noodles, etc…; not talking about
the country’s issues and problems. And all kinds of diversions. In
order to confuse us all.
These are the tactics of: scammers, con people and fraudsters. It is
sad our politicians has been using these tactics to get votes.
None of the candidates even come close to addressing the issue of military reform and patronage. The two are interlinked. Since Aquino, it has been the Standard Operating Procedure of the President to award juicy/corruption-prone positions and GOCC spots to generals who have retired. This degrades the quality of our institutions and also sets up an ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY in our military leaders–which may lead to instability in the future.
Who has the courage to reform the military and truly open up the economy?
Villar?
Platforms, being self-serving, are useless gauge or barometer for fitness to the presidency.
What then, primer, is a gauge of fitness to the presidency?
Enumerate your gauges or tests of fitness.
so just to be clear. what all you anti-platform guys prefer is a situation where we do not get any idea at all of how these candidates plan to address important issues. is that accurate?
it’s not the point. the point is saying that there is no platform when in fact everybody has one. all we need to do to find out is read the papers, watch tv, and go to meeting de avance, that’s all.
hingi ng hingi dito ng platform sa FV, pa-ulit-ulit, nakaka antok nga.
to begin can we really consider the things that they’ve been saying so far (kung meron man nga) as platforms or to be more accurate concrete, specific plans of actions. has anyone of these aspirants provided such information on, let’s say, the issue of population control or corruption?
whatever it is that you consider to be their platform statements on tv, newspapers etc are not the sort of thing we’re looking for. like the example you gave that’s just a bunch of motherhood statements which all candidates will use like a pro forma declaration. there’s no differentiation at all so how do you expect the people to choose intelligently with that?
obviously, one of the reasons why a candidate (at least in this part of the world)would hold off giving a real platform is to avoid being pegged as anti this or anti that. they just don’t want to take a stand at the risk of alienating some voters.
this should be really obvious. politicians would rather be on the good side of everyone. now isn’t that rather strange. among themselves, the voters do not agree on so many issues and here’s this politician taking a (non)position that agrees with everyone. heh?
again, please refer to the simple test suggested by benK. it’s in my original comment up there.
to begin with, betterphilippines, are you asking me to provide you with platforms of those candidates? Have you tried asking them? what are you trying to tell us?
move, man, be resourceful, go to miting de avance, and when you know what you want to know, refer to the simple test suggested by Ben K. fair enough? good.
bert,
how conveniently you avoided this:
“whatever it is that you consider to be their platform statements on tv, newspapers etc are not the sort of thing we’re looking for. like the example you gave that’s just a bunch of motherhood statements which all candidates will use like a pro forma declaration. there’s no differentiation at all so how do you expect the people to choose intelligently with that?
obviously, one of the reasons why a candidate (at least in this part of the world)would hold off giving a real platform is to avoid being pegged as anti this or anti that. they just don’t want to take a stand at the risk of alienating some voters.
this should be really obvious. politicians would rather be on the good side of everyone. now isn’t that rather strange. among themselves, the voters do not agree on so many issues and here’s this politician taking a (non)position that agrees with everyone. heh?”
and, of course not, i’m not asking you for their platforms seeing that your idea of a platform is rather shaky. but if you feel you must on behalf of your candidate (if you already have one) then be my guest. whatever input you give can be added to the matrix set up by benignO.
the simple fact of the matter is that it is very obvious there is no platform. all there is are motherhood statements. here’s a really simple definition from this site http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?MotherhoodStatement.
A motherhood statement is one that everyone agrees with.
good enough?
betterphilippines,
how conveniently you avoided my question. do you want me to supply you with platforms of all the candidates? or, maybe you are also capable of finding those platforms yourself.
to bert,
if you read my comment carefully you would have seen this:
“and, of course not, i’m not asking you for their platforms seeing that your idea of a platform is rather shaky. but if you feel you must on behalf of your candidate (if you already have one) then be my guest. whatever input you give can be added to the matrix set up by benignO.”
and again you simply avoided this:
“whatever it is that you consider to be their platform statements on tv, newspapers etc are not the sort of thing we’re looking for. like the example you gave that’s just a bunch of motherhood statements which all candidates will use like a pro forma declaration. there’s no differentiation at all so how do you expect the people to choose intelligently with that?
obviously, one of the reasons why a candidate (at least in this part of the world)would hold off giving a real platform is to avoid being pegged as anti this or anti that. they just don’t want to take a stand at the risk of alienating some voters.
this should be really obvious. politicians would rather be on the good side of everyone. now isn’t that rather strange. among themselves, the voters do not agree on so many issues and here’s this politician taking a (non)position that agrees with everyone. heh?”
i hope that’s clear enough.
For the sake of a straighjacketed clarity, why can’t we here now ask either benk or betterphilippines to – once and for all – lay down the “terms and conditions of the contract” (as if it were, by benk’s own analogy) as a way of determining how to calibrate our choices or voting behavior in relation to any presidential aspirant?
Absent that, crying for platform as would ideally contain positional views on how the candidate will address large societal issues would be a case of begging the question, which we should avoid.
Of course, platforms are not really done by the candidates themselves – they are being ‘constructed’ by platform ‘engineers’ and as such, their formulatory integrity are for the candidate’s ‘engineers’ to expound. What would that leave us?
Please explain how asking for a platform becomes “begging the question”. “Begging the question” is also defined as circular reasoning.
Are you saying that this is “begging the question” because, all the candidates have no platform in the first place? If yes, I rest my case :D
Moving forward, we then have the following simple choices to make:
Option 1 – Accept that there are no platforms. Vote based on winnability. Status quo.Same politics of patronage and ocho ocho criteria. Same intramurals within oligarchs. No representation from non-oligarchs/non-landlords.
Option 2 – Demand platforms/Vet the candidates -. Demand that the price for getting considered by your vote is that the candidate present a platform that can be evaluated against his past (track record, credentials, stand on issues of the day, integrity and honesty), future (vision), soundness and consistency of the program of action for arriving at his vision.
And given the propensity of Pinoys to take the path of least resistance, wanna bet Option 1 will prevail :)
The platform still needs approval of the candidate. In the end, what’s being constructed is something that supposedly reflects the thoughts of the candidate. Moreover, the depth or superficiality of the platform constructed by the “engineers” will also give a glimpse of the candidate’s team.
Assuming that these same “engineers” will be the core of the candidate’s advisory or even leadership team – the platform will give a glimpse into the thinking processes of the candidate and the candidate’s team – whether they have the mental and intellectual stamina needed to overcome the rigors of governance and steer the entitre government machinery to the desired goals stated by the candidate.
A shallow platform will reveal an inept and incompetent team – and candidate.
An inconsistent platform can reveal a pandering (even lying) candidate.
Refusal to come up with a relevant platform might even be considered as lack of intellectual and mental prowess to answer the burning issues of the day. Which makes one wonder – why is he even running in the first place.
The last thing one needs – a “feel good” platitude, usually by a politician, about a worthy concept that few people would disagree with, without any specified plans for realisation. For example, ” It is our duty to present to our people a government and political leadership that they deserve.” – Oh you bet, you have been receiving a government you deserve :)
Bert:
The candidates’ websites were visited, their senate websites were visited, their public speeches were reviewed, and they have been requested to provide their platform – thus far, the results are dismal .
The substance of the platform is inversely proportional to the stream of motherhood statements mouthed by each candidate. The less substance in the platform, the more rhetoric, platitudes, and motherhood statements.
bert,
o cige na para mas malinaw. hindi ko hinihingi na ibigay mo ang platform ng mga kandidato. ang paghingi ng plataporma na nakasaad sa platform plez ay nakadirekta sa mga politiko. nakadirekta naman sa mga botante ang mensahe o panawagan ng platform plez para sa mas matalinong pagsusuri.
kung kandidato ka eh di sa yo nakadirekta ang paghingi ng plataporma. kung hindi naman eh di yung pangalawang mensaheng binanggit ko ang nakadirekta sa yo.
ngayon kung gusto mo naman mas higit na makatulong sa pagpapabuti sa diskurso tungkol sa mga kandidato maaari mo ring ibigay sa amin ang anumang impormasyong maaaring alam mo tungkol sa plataporma ng sino man sa mga kandidato.
sana malinaw na ito.
to primer,
it’s all been said before. benign0 already provided a cheatsheet on how to come up with a substantial platform statement. benK provided a simple test to determine if a statement is a substantial platform statement or just a motherhood statement. it’s all been supplied.
honestly, we get it that you don’t want to get it. we want a more issue-based assessment of the aspirants while those of you who are against platform plez want something else. perhaps that’s the bigger question: what exactly is it that you want? a non-issue based assessment?
btw, you may call a motherhood statement a platform statement but at the end of the day if it appeals to everyone it is clearly something else, most probably just a panderer’s musings.