I’m actually thankful that the idea was floated when it was. Better by far to have ideas like this out in the open where they can be addressed squarely, than to have them festering unnoticed in secret, gathering strength and momentum away from the glare of public scrutiny. So, I am genuinely grateful that an elected official, albeit in a roundabout way, suggested that we do away with the coming national and local elections because, you know, pandemic.
And now that the suggestion has been made, let us give it the benefit of a serious consideration because, ultimately, there is a kernel of reasonability in the idea. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time in the sphere of democratic experience that a national elections would be postponed.
Leaving the strictly legal arguments aside—those arguments have been all but conceded by the main proponent anyway—I would argue that the postponement of the 2022 National and Local Elections, on the premise that the nation might still be under pandemic conditions by then, is both unnecessary and inadvisable for the following reasons: first, there is enough time to adequately prepare for the Covid-safe conduct of elections; and second, elections are precisely more necessary when the safety and security of society is threatened, as it is with the ascendancy of the coronavirus.
Unnecessary
Earlier this year, at the height of the pandemic, South Korea held its own elections using procedures designed to keep Covid-19 transmissions down to a minimum while ensuring the continuity of their contact tracing efforts. Those elections had one of the highest turnouts of any South Korean elections and it appears that no one got sick participating in it. Since then about 40 other electoral exercises have been held all over the world, proving definitively that popular elections and this pandemic are not mutually exclusive.
Here at home, with the elections scheduled for May 9, 2022, the Philippines has even more time to prepare than did South Korea and all the other 40 or so countries that held elections. It follows, therefore, that we can do at least as good a job at making our electoral exercise Covid-safe. Quite relevantly, the fact that no case of Covid transmission has been reported as having probably occurred at any of the country’s registration centers, speaks well of the efficacy of our Covid-safe protocols and the consistency of their application. The challenge, therefore, is to scale up these protocols and procedures within the time remaining until election day.
On another front, thanks to the prompt response of the legislature, there are already a number of laws being crafted that would expand the coverage of alternative forms of voting. These measures, as I
argued in several previous articles, have the potential to significantly reduce the number of people voting in person on election day—a necessary adjunct to whatever precautionary measures are implemented on election day.
Inadvisable
While acknowledging that one of the main arguments against postponement is the danger that the current administration would be able to use the delay to its political advantage, speculating any further along those lines is unnecessary. Better by far to focus on the other most commonly made argument that it isn’t good to change leaders during a time of war.
To that I would respond that despite popular characterizations, we are not fighting a war with Covid-19. A war involves two or more thinking sides, employing strategies which, necessarily, must evolve as each side reacts to the other. In such a situation, having a continuity of leadership is essential because the leader at the start of the war learns more about their opponent, incrementally with every move and counter-move. This makes changing leaders—and therefore, strategies—in midstream a questionable decision since it needlessly discards any knowledge and insight gained from previous engagements with the enemy.
The virus, on the other hand, is not a thinking enemy. It is simply an existential threat that we had no idea how to deal with. Unlike with a thinking enemy, we don’t have to “outsmart” the virus; we merely need to find a solution that works. And unlike in a war where the main protagonists—the leaders of each army—learns more about the opponent with every move they make, in the struggle against the virus, the learning curve is effectively farmed out to the world’s scientific community, where knowledge and insight about the virus grows independently of political leadership. A change of leaders, therefore, will not reset knowledge or know-how about the virus, and all the elected really have to do is ensure that their respective populations survive and thrive, despite the pandemic.
And that is the reason for rejecting ideas of postponement. Holding elections essentially dangles the question before the electorate: are you satisfied with how you are surviving and thriving despite the pandemic? Those who believe they are then have the opportunity to refresh the mandates of those they thank for their handling of the health crisis; voters who believe otherwise will conversely have the chance to choose someone else to take up the challenge. That is a choice that should not be given up lightly.
Focus
So leave the elections alone. Focus instead on helping ensure that when the people vote in 2022, they can do so safely and without fear. Everyone has a role to play. Comelec’s burden is to ensure that its protocols are sustainable in the long term, specifically for the continued safety of the registering public; and that those same protocols are scaled up properly so that they can withstand the pressure of millions of Filipinos voting in more than a hundred thousand locations, in potentially a single day.
We look to Congress to provide us the legal infrastructure needed to allow more people to vote remotely or early so that they don’t have to crowd in with other voters on election day. And we look to ourselves to educate others about how to safely engage with the electoral process. It is a true whole-of-nation approach that we need right now—not competing voices struggling to convince everyone to give up their right to vote out of fear.