Winning An Election the Non-Traditional Way

Nicanor Perlas
12 May 2009

In an earlier article, we detailed the contradictions and the dangers of assessing the potential of candidates for positive politics using traditional political concepts of winnability. (See “The Trap of Traditional Notions of Winnability”.) One of the tasks of new innovative politics is to reframe old notions of winnability and not to remain trapped into letting old winnability concepts dictate the future of new politics. So, if we are NOT going to rely on money, organization, reputation, and endorsement as BEGINNING criteria for winnability, what shall we rely on? And how will we ensure that candidates running under the banner of new positive politics will ultimately win electoral contests and be able to govern effectively?

Three Key Requirements for a New Concept of Winnability

The answer is straightforward. First we have to determine whether the potential candidate for positive politics has the necessary qualifications, track record, integrity, vision, and strategic agenda to run for public office. Second, if there are other qualified new politics candidates for the same office, then let us design a process to determine which one would be the best to carry out the vision and strategy for positive change. Let qualified candidates debate one another in non-partisan assemblies to determine which one is the best. And third, create and mobilize massive support for the qualified candidate(s) where none existed before.

Qualifications including character, track record, competence, integrity and capacity to deliver on campaign promises, are the central ingredients of the new politics. We can put all the “sizzle” in campaign ads and Internet virals, but if there is no substance, or worse, the candidate is a traditional politician, all the “sizzle” will ultimately fall flat. But when the sterling qualities are present, and these qualities have been examined closely in a competitive process, then the movements for new politics will have a powerful foundation for their campaign to advance substance and performance in the political arena.

These three steps outlined above are essential in inaugurating a new approach to winnability, one where the means reflect the essence of the end goal. Forget the approach of compromise where the end justifies questionable means. Such compromises only erode the integrity of the new politics being espoused.

Questionable Practices of New Politics Using Traditional Approaches

Here is just one example of many questionable means being used to attain “good” politics. A would-be new politics candidate negotiates with existing traditional political parties to have his name included in streamers bearing the name of Congressmen known to be purveyors of dirty politics. The deal is that the new politician will get the exposure and the old politician will get the benefit of “image transfer”, where good reputation may improve a tarnished, old image. The real tragedy, however, is that the reputation of the new politician is damaged by mere association with the traditional politicians. Voters will view the would-be new politician as nothing but another old “trapo” or traditional politician.

This is what being “practical” or “realistic” means today in a world desperately lacking in creativity and vision. A new candidate for political office lacks the resources to get public exposure when viewed in a traditional manner. So she or he ruins their reputation just to get exposure, believing that victory cannot be had without exposure.

The Key Question

The concern for national exposure, money, machinery, and network is understandable and important. But these aspects of a campaign should not be achieved at the cost of ruining the very reputation and essence of the would-be bearer of the new politics. So how can one mobilize massive support for authentic and highly qualified candidates who, in the beginning, have no money, machinery, endorsements, or network of contacts?

Answering this question is urgent. Answering this question will liberate proponents of change politics from their almost blind adherence to the above traditional notions of winnability. These old and dangerous notions of winnability often force a sacrifice of principles to say nothing of the logical and operational contradictions entailed in requiring potential candidates to have traditional resources from the very beginning, even when such requirements become crucial towards the latter stage of the campaign process.

A New Concept of and Approach to Winnability

Imagine this possibility. Because of continuous prodding from friends and a deep concern about the massive corruption and plunder of his country, a non-politician agrees to step forward. He agrees to take on all the burdens and risks of running as a candidate in the 2010 presidential elections. He is unusually qualified for the position. (See an example of how such an exciting bio data may look like in the article on winnability cited above.)

Assume further that, after debates with other alternative candidates, he becomes the candidate of choice of a significant number of advocates and movements for societal including political change.

Meanwhile, this candidate has been doing the necessary preparations. He has developed an attractive and informative website. He has positioned himself in the different social networks of cyberspace including Facebook and Friendster, the latter still important in the Philippine context. He has produced a number of viral videos for uploading in YouTube. He also contacts tri-media practitioners who are open to covering news on candidates advancing positive politics. He has also individually approached his network of friends apprising them of his decision.

The presidential candidate for positive politics understands the importance of the mainstream media. Millions get their daily dose of information from the mainstream media. It has shaped past and recent elections and promises to do so in the near future.

However, the presidential candidate for positive politics is also deeply cognizant of the fundamental information revolution that has taken place and continues to advance at a rapid pace. With YouTube, one can essentially become a TV producer. With podcasts, one essentially becomes a radio broadcaster. With websites and blogs, one becomes a publisher of online newspaper. With social networking, people are able to quickly spread information to their friends, and in turn, spread the information to their networks. Outreach through the Internet is massive and also reaches many millions. In addition, outreach is global, thereby reaching the millions of overseas Filipino workers.

So the presidential candidate goes for both the mainstream media and the Internet media, especially the latter. The Internet is cheap, often transparent, is increasingly given more importance by its millions of users and is a place to contact millions of potential supporters.

The candidate for new politics is pre-occupied with the Internet and the media because ultimately the proper appreciation by millions of his qualifications and capabilities is the ultimate answer to the nagging question of others regarding his capacity to access funds, machinery, national reputation, and network support in time to be of use in national elections.

The candidate for new politics understands one thing. In the end, it is people who vote. In the end, it is people who give money. In the end, it is people who sign up to help obtain support for their candidate and who guard the ballots during day of the elections. In the end, it is people who contact their friends and networks to encourage them to support and vote for his/her candidate. In the end, it is people, and their support, who will give their candidate national exposure and reputation.

In the end, massive volunteerism is the antidote to the guns, gold, and goons of traditional politicians. In the end, numerous, inspired, and motivated volunteers will replace the need for traditional approaches to money, machinery, reputation, and networks. In the end, volunteers will create new realities from almost nothing. They will provide the funds, install self-organizing political delivery systems, spread good reputation, and mobilize their networks.

Volunteers: The Key to the Winnability of Positive Political Candidates

And how does one attract volunteers? Basically through the media and the Internet. Media strategy is the key resource of the bearers of the new positive politics.

Volunteers will come if you show them a positive, attainable vision of the future. Volunteers will come if you show them a presidential candidate who will attain that positive and doable vision of the future. Volunteers will come if they can access a website where they can sign up, register and join. And if the vision and candidate are highly attractive, then the volunteers will come by the tens of thousands.

In addition, these volunteers bring with them their own personal and professional networks. Soon the circle of influence expands, from one friend to another, from one network to the next.

Through the work of inspired volunteers, the candidacy of the proponent for new positive politics becomes visible in the public eye. His reputation increases. He gets unsolicited support from all kinds of people longing for change, people who begin to recognize that they now have before them a true bearer of change.

It is at this stage that the importance of resources, organization, endorsements, and public exposure come in, not as a precondition, but as a result of the inner dynamism of the campaign around the new candidate. Thousands begin to volunteer. And with them come resources and talents. They self-organize and spread the word. They use the Internet to communicate to tens of thousands, and later on, to millions using the Internet.

And in a few months, the unknown and resource-deficient inspiring candidate becomes a national figure, with tremendous amount of resources, volunteers, organization, reputation, endorsements around him. He is now well positioned to become the new President of the Philippines.

An Impossible Scenario?

This scenario appears too ideal, some would object. Others would criticize this scenario as being unrealistic. Some would even be more drastic. They will call it an impossible scenario.

Impossible? Just consider a recent phenomenon called “Juana Change”. A few months ago, Mae Paner was unknown as far as national reputation was concerned. Then she started appearing in highly popular YouTube videos known as “Juana Change”. In less than a month, her viral videos were seen by tens of thousands around the world. She became an Internet sensation. Mainstream media took notice. Many TV, radio and newspaper organizations interviewed her.

Now Mae Paner, aka Juana Change, has a national reputation whereas before she was an unnoticed but very creative person. This is the reason why Probe Team is doing a weekly show on her until the day of the elections. They want to document how she walks her talk, advancing societal transformation on the basis of inner change.

One can argue about the motives of Mae Paner, whether she enjoys all the attention she is getting or whether she has truly found a creative way to rouse Filipinos, especially the young from their apathy. But no one can deny the obvious: that proper and strategic use of the Internet can easily and rapidly create a national presence for even the ordinary citizen. The Internet levels the playing field as far a national stature, reputation and projection are concerned. Big expensive media is no longer the sole channel for large numbers of citizens to know about issues, individuals, and leaders.

Three Sources of National Reputation and the Internet

The example of Juana Change shows a very important lesson in the age of the Internet. National reputation can come from three sources: national position, money, and creativity.

National politicians, CEOs, TV hosts, movie actors and actresses, and leaders of highly influential institutions like the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) have positional capital to achieve national reputation. National politicians are especially favored to have national reputations (good or bad) because mainstream media, for better or for worse, focuses a lot of attention on them.

National reputations can also come from money, especially if one has lots of it. With money, one can advertise heavily to pay for national coverage by mainstream media.

The third source of national reputation is creativity especially in combination with the use of state-of-the-art information technologies. This is the source of the reputation of Juana Change. More likely than not, this will be the source of the forthcoming national reputation of highly qualified candidates for new politics who do not have positional or financial capital to achieve national prominence.

There is something very important to note in these different routes to national reputation. Reputations based on position and money are heavily dependent on mainstream media to project and even create their image nationally. National reputation based on creativity is heavily dependent on decentralized, democratized, and inexpensive Internet connections to create initial exposure. The Internet is the great equalizer and will increasingly give great power to advocates of positive politics to change their societies with very different kinds of politics.

It is extremely important to realize this difference. Proponents of new politics often mistake the absence of national reputation achieved through the national media as a handicap to success. They forget that national reputation is not a fixed reality. It can be created at very little cost through alternative media strategies including use of the Internet. A creative Internet campaign can overcome winnability constraints as outline above. Why? The Internet is fast becoming the mainstream media. In industrialized economies, it is THE mainstream media. The Internet can create not only national reputations. It can also provide a global reputation for the right person with the right message.

The Inner Tension Inside Proponents of New Politics

Proponents of the new politics are experiencing tensions both within themselves and among their colleagues. How can they really move forward in a societal context where power, money, and reputation are mostly in the hands of those that have obtained privileged control of the system? This context will, of necessity, mean that most of the bearers of the new positive politics will NOT have the power, money, and reputation, to begin with, to challenge a massive corrupt system of oppression.

The first glimmers of an answer can only come from within, Advocates of the new politics will have to honestly ask themselves what in their thinking belongs to the old world of trapo consciousness.

For example, do they sincerely believe that old and traditional notions of winnability are more important than quality, character, qualifications, and strategic agenda? If so, then such a movement for new politics cannot really move forward unless it purges this traditional thinking that still lurks in the unconscious of many seeking a very different political order. If nothing else, the discussions above showed that there is definitely another, more appropriate concept of winnability.

In rebuttal, new politics advocates with remnants of old traditional political consciousness will say: “This new concept of winnability being proposed is not doable. It is not practical. It is pie-in-the-sky thinking.”

Such rebuttals conveniently forget that many battles, not only in the political arena, but also in the economy and in culture, have been won on just the basis of this new concept of winnability. Many discuss how Obama used the Internet to achieve a stunning victory over the political establishment in the USA. Yet, in general, politicians are relative latecomers to the information revolution that has swept the world.

Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, was called a dreamer and an impractical person. His dream was to surpass Barnes and Noble and other giants in the book selling industry. He had no national reputation (his branding was unknown) and relatively limited resources compared with the titans of the book industry. Yet, leveraging his unusual insight into the Internet and convincing public investors to go along with him, Bezos ultimately won the battle against Barnes and Noble. Today, the “nobody”, Amazon, is the world’s largest bookseller and much more.

For most of the 1990s, the World Trade Organization seemed unstoppable. It controlled 90% of world trade. Almost all of the important nations of the world were members of the WTO. It was a behemoth and was threatening to subvert the economies not only of small nations but also those of the rich and powerful.

Yet, an unknown crew of civil society activists brought the WTO to its knees in the Battle of Seattle in 1999. They organized themselves in a very public way using the Internet, a mode of organizing unappreciated by government officials. Then, they “swarmed”, came together almost out of nowhere to the great embarrassment of the police and political leaders of the city of Seattle. The WTO could not even conclude their conference due to their widespread and creative protest. The WTO never fully recovered from that fateful day when civil society reached a tipping point, coming almost from nowhere to stop the WTO dead in its tracks.

No, indeed, this new concept of and approach to winnability is not pie-in-the-sky thinking. This approach is profoundly pragmatic and has the advantage that ends and means of the new politics coincide. One does not have to rely on the morally eroding advice of Machiavelli who championed the notion that the end justifies the means. Ask the many civil society leaders who took Machiavelli’s advise. Ask them what happened to their soul and spirit when Machiavelli became their spiritual adviser, encouraging them to undertake all kinds of morally questionable means, like vote buying, to attain their idealistic objectives.

On the contrary, what is unrealistic thinking is to believe that new politics can be advanced by using the devices of the old order. That is a big illusion and can only mean the loss of the soul and spirit of a change movement. If one is creative with the tremendous power of the information revolution taking place in our midst, there is no need to sacrifice principles. There is no need to demand promising candidates to jump through the hoop of very old notions of winnability right from the beginning so that new politics advocates would support them.

Many well-meaning people just do not get it. Advancing change or positive politics means also to advance it in ways that are innovative and attuned to the times. And most of all, nothing positive can be achieved by surrendering principles just to have a kind of insurance policy on winnability, but winnability from old traditional notions that have been the cause of the death of so many so-called initiatives for new politics.

Gearing for Massive Change

Filipinos are prepared to chart a new future. They are sick and tired of politics as usual. They are sick and tired of having to choose between a lesser and a greater evil. They are sick and tired of being taken for granted by politicians. Filipinos are getting agitated and they are organizing. We can see this in the mushrooming of all kinds of initiatives towards creating a better country starting with the 2010 national elections and beyond.

In this kind of situation, a single spark can create a conflagration. Hopefully that spark is a powerful positive image of the future embodied in candidates of the new positive politics. Then the birth of this transformational politics will be the catalyst that will galvanize civil society and progressive business to lend a helping hand and usher in a new era in the Philippines. And the Philippines can then make a meaningful contribution to the general advancement of the world.