Transactional Politics: Boon or Bane?

This blog is a spin-off from comments made in Cocoy’s blog on the Charter Change Train . It further makes the assumption that:

• Presidential elections, legislative elections and local elections in the Philippines will be conducted on May 10, 2010.
• The Charter stays unchanged.
• If the charter is changed, the dynamics of “transactional politics” stays constant.

Understanding “Transactional Politics”

The Western Perspective on Transactional Politics

An example of “Transactional Politics is described by Democratic New York state senator Eric Schneiderman, he is quoted as saying

Check off the boxes, copy the paragraph from two years ago, mail it in. As an election year approaches, I again face the piles of questionnaires that progressive organizations use to evaluate public officials. Environmentalists, feminists, campaign finance reformers, housing advocates and labor unions have all come to rely on these lists of our positions–often on issues that never even come up for a vote. It should come as no surprise that, for the most part, all we get out of this cumbersome process is a long line of “checklist liberals” who answer correctly but do little to advance the progressive causes that underlie the questionnaires. I respectfully suggest that if we want to move beyond short- term efforts to slow down the bone-crushing machinery of the contemporary conservative movement and begin to build a meaningful movement of our own, we need to expand the job descriptions of our elected officials. To do this, we must consider the two distinct aspects of our work: transactional politics and transformational politics. Transactional politics is pretty straightforward. What’s the best deal I can get on a gun-control or immigration-reform bill during this year’s legislative session? What do I have to do to elect a good progressive ally in November? Transactional politics requires us to be pragmatic about current realities and the state of public opinion. It’s all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now. Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on gun control or immigration reform in a year—or five years, or 20 years—will be better than the deal we can get today. Transformational politics requires us to challenge the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities. It requires us to root out the assumptions about politics or economics or human nature that prevent us from embracing policies that will make our lives better. Transformational politics has been a critical element of American political life since Lincoln was advocating his “oft expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion.“

Joe Trippi, however, is more circumspect in Transactional Politics — Transactional Nation

Transactional politics. I’ll give you a tax cut for your vote. Health care for everyone for your vote. I’ll keep you safe for your vote. Everything is a transaction with the citizen in a transactional democracy — and both of our nation’s political parties fell to transactional politics long ago. It happened so slowly. Its like your eyes adjusting so well to the dark and living in the dark for so long — that you don’t realize that the bright light of our democracy has been diminished. Transactional politics breeds the politics of “what’s in it for me?” “What do I get?” At the expense of the common good — something almost never mentioned by our nation’s leaders — in both parties — over the past few decades. In a transactional political system there is no transaction that leads to preventing the devastation of hurricane Katrina. No politician will say we need to spend $14 billion to strengthen the levees and pumps to sustain a category 5 hurricane. Where will the $14 billion come from? Raising taxes? “I’ll raise your taxes to prevent a threat you can not see vs I’ll cut your taxes for your vote” is a losing proposition in a democracy that has fallen into transactional politics. So now we will spend $100 Billion and add the cost of human suffering and death. We know that democracy in its early stages is transformational. You kick the British out and the new democracy transforms everything. We also know now that democracy as it grows older becomes transactional. We are afterall the great democratic experiment and we have become completely transactional in our politics — almost all hint of transformational politics and leadership has disappeared. In the early stages of our democracy it was obvious to all that we could not make it without each other — somewhere along the way transactional “what’s in it for me?” politics kicked in and our democracy fell into decline without many of us knowing it. Katrina can be a moment where we realize the failure of transactional politics that perpetuates “what’s in it for me?” and instead embrace the transformational politics on which our nation was founded “We can not make it without each other”. Transformational Politics is different — it requires sacrifice from the citizenry in support of the common good. It requires leaders willing to risk loss of power when they challenge the citizenry to move in an unpopular but correct direction. Over a third of our nation’s energy is dispersed from the area around New Orleans — most of the goods coming from Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and the midwest comes down the Mississippi River and out the port of New Orleans to the rest of the nation. Our food, our products our gasoline supply for all of us depended on a bunch of Americans taking a risk. Knowingly or not they took that risk on our behalf year after year — and we all benefited from their efforts year after year. We ate our corn, and filled our tanks and went about our lives while our nation and our transactional politics failed them. Today how many Americans would have given up that tax cut and used the money instead to strengthen the levees and pumps around New Orleans? The problem with transactional politics is we the people get to blame the politicians. I would have rather that a transformational leader had told us that we needed to spend $14 billion to save New Orleans — I would rather that we voted that transformational leader out of office because he wanted to raise our taxes — so today we could all be looking into the mirror to blame ourselves for this disaster. Transformational politics requires citizens to sacrifice for the common good. The generation that fought in World War II understood that as did every previous American generation. The tragedy of Katrina calls to every American to let the politics of transaction retreat with the flood waters of the Gulf Coast — and fill the void with a renewed committment to the common good. If we fail to do this as a people then we will have no one to blame for the further decline of our democracy but ourselves. Democracy is self-government.

The Philippine Experience in Transactional Politics

I find the paper delivered by Patricia Sto. Tomas, Former Chairperson, Philippine Civil Service Commission on “Transactional Politics in the Public Sector” to the Center for Asia-Pacific Women in Politics as very vivid description of Transactional Politics as practiced in the Philippines. Her insights are presented below:

Let us, like most reasonable people, begin by trying to define transactional politics. I would just as soon call it QPQP or quid pro quo politics but this does not say very much either. To me, transactional politics is simply the use of official power or authority for undeserved gain. The word official is used here to denote those who are in elected or appointed government positions. This is not to say that transactional politics does not happen in the private section because it does. In fact, some of the best practitioners of transactional politics are outside government and usually show up their public counterparts with the sophistication and innovation with which they pursue the practice. But today, we limit ourselves to public politics. This definition of transactional politics lends itself to a number of questions. What if no official power or authority is exerted? As in, you meet an acquaintance during cocktails and he offers you shares in an initial Public Offering of his firm at a generous discount. He does not transact any kind of business with your office (let’s say you a senator); you did not solicit the information and in fact did not know about his firm’s IPO [Initial Public Offering]. If you accepted the offer, would this be transactional politics? Perhaps it is best that we answer this with another question. If you were not a senator, if you have met this acquaintance in your former capacity or after your term has ended, would he have made you that same offer? The power or authority in our definition does not have to be outwardly manifested. Quite often, holding the office itself is the power, the authority. But what if the gain is deserved? Let us say that in your capacity as chairman of a certain legislative committee, you worked very hard to get certain amendments passed that incidentally favored the industry in which the offeror operates. Since you were doing this in your sincere belief that it was in the best public interest and not for any material gain, why shouldn’t you benefit from it? The gain from government work is supposed to be recognition and public appreciation for work well done, in addition of course to the official compensation that an elected official is supposed to receive. Everything else must be considered undeserved. Incidentally, any transaction between a government person and another is never just between the two of them. The third party to such a transaction is always the general public whose interests must always be protected. After all, if any damage accrues to government, it is the public taxpayer who eventually pays in terms of overpriced or undelivered services. Is transactional politics then any different from graft or corruption? In a very real sense, transactional politics is the mother of all official offenses. It refers after all both to legal offenses as well as those which the law does not expressly prohibit. It might be useful therefore to establish a decision tree of sorts to determine when an act falls under transactional politics. The logical starting point always is: Is it legal? Over the years, various countries have acquired a rich and complicated overlay of laws and rules that lay out what is allowed and what isn’t. Some of these are impractical, tedious, even outdated and irrelevant. But they define the intentions of societies that have grown weary of trying to use informal pressure to keep their functionaries in line. These laws are called sunshine and moonbeams laws because they allow light where some others would prefer the safety of darkness and shadows. It is interesting to note what lengths bureaucrats will go to ensure safety in the implementation of these laws. After Republic Act 6713 was enacted in the Philippines, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct for Government Officials and Employees, we were charged with setting up the implementing rules. Implementing rules seek to clarify the nuances of the law. One provision of that law said that no government official may accept a gift except when it is of nominal value. We spent three days debating the definition of nominal value. One suggested that nominal value should correspond to no more than P100 or then roughly equivalent to $4 US. The question came back: Ok, but how often? I said, what do you mean how often?  I said, what do you mean how often? What if somebody gives a $4 gift every day for one whole year? It is a tricky world and even writing implementing rules and regulations can be fraught with danger. A good second test is: Does this subject the cost of a public transaction to the law of supply and demand? If getting a driver’s license normally costs say ten dollars and getting a license after failing the driving test costs $50, would an act like this fall under transactional politics? It most certainly does. It is illegal; it distorts the legitimate price of a public transaction; it involves the use of official power and the gain is definitely undeserved. It is often said that the incremental gain is a function of the risk that the official or the employee takes in behalf of the client. Misdemeanours are usually encouraged by high-opportunity/low-risk situations. At the risk of citing the obvious, government people are not paid to take unnecessary risks; they are there to ensure, in the case of the license granting official, that the risk of being hit by a wayward or untrained driver is minimized for the rest of the citizenry. A third criterion would be: does this transaction unduly favor one group over another? In many of our countries, for instance, bidding for the purchase of specific goods or services are usually undertaken to ensure that contracts do not go to favored suppliers. But this can be subverted in some other ways. For instance, bids can be so structured such that only one or two suppliers will meet the specifications and by that token, only they are allowed to go into the actual bidding round. But these are clear examples of TP [transactional politics]. Let us move into propositions that are less subject to clear and immediate interpretations. Assume for a moment that you have an elected official who has moved the country from Point A to Point B, a movement of significant improvement. There is consensus that he has done well and perhaps may do even better if given more time. The problem is his term is about to come to an end and the country’s constitution prohibits him from running for reelection. Should the Constitution then be amended to benefit a competent person? For that matter, the same Constitution was amended ten years before against the perceived opportunism of a deposed leader, the explicit reason for the non-reelection provision. Should Constitutions be changed to tailor fit specific persons, whether good or bad? Should other officials who are in the same boat (cannot stand for reelection but will profit from a term extension which cannot be sought for the President alone but for all other elected officials), but who may bring about the formation of a Constituent Assembly, be allowed to bring such an Assembly to fruition? Is this QPQP or simply the application of valid solutions to nagging ground realities? Transactional politics refers not just to decisions between government and client. It can also refer to decisions between government offices. Consider this: A country benefits from tourism and is known world-wide for one particular excellent beach location. Investors from all over the country, both big and small, have put in their stakes in this one location because of the excellent returns it promised. One government agency found out that the beaches are polluted with a dreaded bacteria that arises from unsafe disposal of waste. Another government agency fears that disclosing the contamination will endanger the tourism program, not to mention the investments of some of the smaller investors in the area. Should this then be disclosed? Why? Why not? Another good test for determining whether transactional politics is at work is to equate long-term and short-term benefits. One of the most telling arguments against long-term projects is the observation that in the long run, we are all dead. Why then should we worry about the future when we may not even be around or when technology or science may provide more efficient and less costly solutions. The IMF or the World Bank would not be flourishing today if politicians thought beyond the grave or if we had to pay for all borrowings before the start of the next elections. QPQP politicians are notoriously short-sighted. A good question to ask, if I were living in that future when this decision’s effects would finally be manifest, would I be able to live in that future safely and securely? Or, more to the point, would I be willing to swim in this beach after I know what is floating in it?

Miss Tomas provides her take on governance and delves further:

Implicit in all these questions, in this decision-tree of sorts is the assumption that governance, whether elected or appointed should never be the subject of commerce or exchange other than what is legally permissible. This is either the height of naiveté or the beginning of wisdom. In a world when even possibilities are sold (you can trade in the futures of pork bellies), why shouldn’t we privatize government transactions and subject all things to the yardstick of which will bring in the greatest return? Theoretically, this is possible and the world seems headed in that direction. But this is precisely the point: Governments decide on matters that are not always subject to quantification. They must weigh competing interests and deal with a variety of groups, many of whom have valid claims to immediate government assistance. Transactions admit mainly of the ability to pay and if this were to be the basis of access to government goods and services, more citizens will be disenfranchised than would be able to participate fully in the determination of their present and their futures. Government was invented to equalize opportunities in an increasingly unfair world; to ensure order so that not only the fit, the rich or the intelligent survive. The marketplace is quirky and imperfect and is not set up to discern what is just and fair. This is the reason why votes are not weighted in favor of the good, the rich or the able, but are instead apportioned one to each person so that even the dull and the ignorant are entitled to make judgments. Transactional politicians subvert this view of governance and by that token, contribute to discontent and disaffection. *** Knowledge does not create righteousness; a sense of justice and fairness does. These are qualities which while they are not gender-based have been observed to be correlated with the nurturing nature of women. We should be grateful that this association exists because it shows us the possibilities for reversing the transactional nature of politics. Whether we call it principled politics, participative politics, transparent politics or transformative politics does not really matter. We are at a point in time when our collective consciousness and the demands for a moral and ethical environment provide for a confluence of purpose. The laws of Physics and Economics, to name, just two of the most influential disciplines, tell us that the natural state of things is balance or equilibrium. Where there is imbalance, where uneven distribution exists, there is stress and dysfunction. Our role therefore should be fairly clear: to restore balance where disequilibrium exists, to ensure that power of authority is not in the hands of the few however enlightened, able and competent they might be. If information or knowledge is the cause of the imbalance, the logical intervention is to get an education. If resources are not available, start an enterprise or get a job. If ennui or a lack of fulfillment sets in, get a life. If you feel alone and helpless, get organized. And if you still think that transactional politics will never affect you, think again. Wake up and get moving.

Transactional Politics is Here to Stay

The nagging reality is Transactional Politics is here to stay – and might even try to present itself as “Transformational”. The candor of a former head of a government agency says it all:

The assumption that governance, whether elected or appointed should never be the subject of commerce or exchange other than what is legally permissible. This is either the height of naiveté or the beginning of wisdom.

The traditional reaction to this reality in the Philippines is to hold rallies of public indignation. While rallies are powerful swayers of opinion, having too much rallies can result, as pointed out by Jon Limjap, to rally-fatigue.

A more engaged and proactive approach, imho, is by raising funds to support representatives who do good. By providing funds to support advertising, logistics, and volunteers, the pressure on elected officials to use taxpayers’ money for political campaigns is reduced.

What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Is fundraising in the Philippines easier said than done? Are Philippine political norms and mores ready to engage in a more proactive manner?

Grassroots Fundraising

I recently stumbled into a site where I feel like a kid locked in the candy store.  The site is Local Victory – The site provides a lot of ideas. Just check out the listings below:

Fundraising Raising Money From PACs Viral Fundraising Plan the Work, Work the Plan (fundraising plan) Ten Steps to a Successful Fundraising Event Fundraising Do’s and Don’ts Raising Funds Through Personal Solicitation What PACs Are and Why They Are Important Why Your Campaign Needs a Fundraising Plan Setting Up a Minor Donor Program Political Start-Up Capital Turning Donor Pledges into Campaign Dollars The #1 Tip for a Successful Fundraising Event Building a Successful Strategy for Online Political Fundraising The Best Ways to Raise More Money for Your Campaign Campaign Organization Five Team Members Every Campaign Needs Finding Volunteers for Your Campaign Winning Elections Through Local Organization Campaign Scheduling Use Incentive Groups to Build Momentum Campaign, Inc. – A Business-like Approach to Winning Elections Run a Campaign School and Educate Your Team Five Great Tips for Recruiting Volunteers for Your Campaign How to Keep Your Political Campaign Organized Four Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Political Consultant Grassroots Tactics Voters Far and Near (absentee voter drives) Targeted Voter Registration that Works Volunteer Superstars Door – to – Door Success Building Local Coalitions (Part I) Building Local Coalitions (Part II) Why Your Campaign Needs an In-House Phone Bank Getting Out the Vote (Part I) Getting Out the Vote (Part II) Why Your Campaign Should Go Door to Door Planning Candidate Tour Events The 2 Most Frequently Asked Questions About Grassroots Politics Get Out the Vote Goals Organizing a “Students For” Committee on Your Campus How to Make Get Out the Vote Calls Holding Successful Town Hall Meetings Message / Strategy Choose Your Voters Well (targeting) The Elected Official’s Guide to Getting Re-Elected Creating a Campaign Image Crafting a Winning Message Getting Ready to Run for Office How to Beat an Incumbent Creating Momentum by Inventing Something New Use Volunteers to Conduct a Campaign Poll Ready, Aim, Target Political Q&A The GOTV Surprise Keys to a Successful Literature Drop Political Targeting : The Intermediate Course Entering the Political Home Stretch Starting Strong the Day After Election Day The Constant Campaign The Top Seven First Time Candidate Mistakes Keeping Your Campaign on Message How to Target Your Campaign Tactics Test Your Message, Early and Often Political Quick Tips Top Five Political New Years Resolutions Running for Office in a College Town Winning Elections in the New American Politics Message: The King of All Political Tactics Communications Political Success on the Internet Effective Get out the Vote Literature Designing Effective Political Signs Preparing for a Political Debate The #1 Rule For Getting Press Coverage For Your Campaign Political Direct Mail That Sizzles The Right and Wrong Reasons for Using the Internet in Your Campaign Preparing for a Political Speech Communicating With the Media – Plan to Succeed In Politics, Repetition is a Good Thing Designing a Candidate Walk Piece Political Yard Sign Strategy Planning Your Campaign’s Kick-Off Event 3 Best Ways for Under-funded Candidates to Get A Message Out How to Beat Negative Political Press Coverage

PACs – Political Action Committees

Another option is the use of Political Action Committees, commonly called “PACs”. PACs are organizations dedicated to raising and spending money to either elect or defeat political candidates -  an organization whose purpose is to raise and distribute campaign funds to candidates seeking political office. PACs are further described as being organized by corporations, labour unions, trade associations, or other organizations to raise funds from individuals and channel the resulting funds to candidates for elective offices in the federal government, primarily in the House of Representatives and the Senate. PACs rose to prominence after the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 set strict limits on the amount of money a particular corporation, union, or private individual could give to a candidate. By soliciting smaller contributions from a much larger number of individuals, PACs circumvent these limitations and manage to provide substantial funds for candidates.

History of PACS

The open source reference describes the history of PACS:

In 1944, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the CIO part of what is today the AFL-CIO, wanted to help President Franklin Roosevelt get re-elected. Standing in their way was the Smith Connally Act of 1943, which made it illegal for labor unions to contribute funds to federal candidates. The CIO went around Smith Connally by urging individual union members to voluntarily contribute money directly to the Roosevelt campaign. It worked very well and PACs, or political action committees were born. Since then, PACs have raised billions of dollars for thousands of candidates and causes.

Good Government and Good Behavior

Harnessing the liberating nature of Grassroots Politics as a tool of policy within a transactional system can yield results. The catch is people need to get engaged. There are tactics other than rallies that can generate results and can shift the balance of political power.

I like Matthew Yglesia’s take on getting people engaged when he writes in “Ethics Comes to Louisiana:

It does seem to me, though, that the condition of a jurisdiction’s formal policies on government ethics are more likely to be a symptom than a cause of the actual state of play. If you have the relevant social conditions to support good government - competent media engaged citizenry civil society groups that can form the basis of electoral coalitions a political culture that values honesty – then a politician who engages in a lot of shady behavior is likely to find himself voted out of office whether or not the shadiness in question is formally illegal. Conversely, absent adequate social conditions even the most admirable legal framework becomes a dead letter — nobody investigates violations and/or nobody cares. At the end of the day there are always going to be loopholes in whatever scheme you create. You see good government when and where the citizens want it and are able to punish those who don’t give it to them.

Reshaping the Landscape of Transactional Politics

Transactional politics has been a staple feature of the Philippine electoral system, as well as the Western electoral systems.The dynamics of transactional politics in the Philippines, however, has yet to display the active engagement displayed by voters in more mature democracies.

The 2010 elections can provide an opportunity to reward representatives/candidates who deliver good performance – not just with votes, but with funds, resources, social networks, and volunteer time. The question is whether people are up to the task or not.

Not to demean the effectiveness of  protest actions, there is more to democracy than rallies and protests. Protests, however, imho, are acts of desperation. It implies that the people are not in control of the agenda.

In contrast, a proactive approach will have more opportunities for influencing the agenda towards the crafting of more meaningful legislation and public programs – the type that matters.

Popularity: 6% [?]