Thread by @mlq3

I find the increasingly fierce debates about the “short list” of *potential* prexy candidates being mulled over in .@1Sambayan interesting so thought I’d weigh in on things like coalition-building and political math.

This jolly old fellow was the second longest-serving senator in our history: Amang Rodriguez. He famously said, “politics is addition.” In elections where winner-takes-all, that’s a basic political fact of life. You can get more by being better, or doing worse things.

So first of all a reading to ground us courtesy of good old Confucius and the editors of the premartial law Philippines Free Press. We need to share definitions if our discussions are to go anywhere because we all base our arguments on assumptions as to what things mean.

So we will be talking about politics, elections, and those competing in them, candidates supported by coalitions. Here are some basic definitions.

An additional definition, which is specific to radical groups and their terms for engaging others:

And one more definition at the heart of this thread: pluralism.

OK so now we have the borders of our discussion marked out. The topic is the coming election, where candidates will contend to get a mandate. Coalitions are forming to put forward candidates. Coalitions operate on the pluralistic belief there can be more that unites than divides.

That last line is the clincher. Let us assume anyone wanting to link up with other people want the others to be as like-minded as possible, that is, sharing values and principles. The thing is, if they are others then chances are their values and principles aren’t identical.

So answer a basic question: what is your bottom line, in terms of differences. In a coalition this plays out multiple ways as each group will have its own bottom line. The more there are different bottom lines the smaller the coalition might end up. The more basic the bigger.

Put another way that’s why if peole discussing .@1Sambayan are quarrelling, then look at those who are in other coalitions and have no such problems. It could be because they only have a few basic ideas/priorities so its easy to keep together and get along for now.

What can heighten divisions is suffering for one’s group, ideas, ideals, etc. What can smoothen divisions is the least common denominator, the most superficial standards such as that of the biggest coalition every election, those who believe in switching sides to the winner.

Personally I believe principled coalition building is this: The recognition of suffering and sacrifice; and also that no one, and no group, is perfect; you can make mistakes and make flawed choices in the past; but you can change and improve and that is basis for unity.

The opposite of this is the basis for non-inclusion as well. If you can all point to your wounds then the ones who not only were safe but did well and were fat, happy, and reminded everyone of it, will obviously have a hard time trying to apply to belong. And that brings us...

to something we might overlook. If you want to be inclusive you have to give people a chance to try to belong. The only question is who will decide? This is particularly the case in terms of candidates who will be supported by a coalition.

I’ve already explained why we have groups like .@1Sambayan (please see the thread) so let’s tackle the specific question of coalitions like it and the selection of candidates.

https://twitter.com/mlq3/status/1372398742180040709

The current ways coalitions come together are one of two ways. People can take surveys see who is popular and bet on popularity. Or people with money can buy machinery which may also include finding a candidate who has popularity. So they’re cynically similar in attitude.

There is another way of course: to identify a candidate as someone with a mission and vision worth supporting and working to convince others that this is so. Like the other two, statistical science etc. can help; and while it won’t always win it can have an impact on politics.

The incumbent for example wasn’t someone normally considered viable for the presidency except the coalition that came to support him found that unless the overall conversation changed (how best to continue or improve reforms or expand the economy) they might go extinct!

The result was they turned everything on its head and ao changed the conversation to one they were uniquely situated to win, with their candidate. Bahala na about settling who would get what, later; and from time to time they fight each other within their own coalition.

Now time is nearing for the Big Breakup: the daring will look for and bet on a candidate; the segurista will break away and wait to see who wins. Some will gather by region, clan, or the big business that funds them as a party. They will tell their supporters what to do/ think.

Up against such pros there is always the question of do you fight fire with fire or to what extent will you do whatever it takes to win. And this dilemma is often immediately confronted during the process of picking candidates. After all principle is often a killjoy.

But the truly era-defining movements find a way to spark joy and create that kind of electric current that powers an unstoppable momentum. The conditions for this often arise when leaders and followers find a process that focuses on shared goals; then everyone is motivated.

So lets assume you and your group find you recognize a shared set of suffering and principles allowing you to work with other groups; you have a coalition in embryo. What then if people come along wanting to be your candidate or others suggest someone should be the candidate?

The fact you and your coalition partners are not only sitting but talking together and have leaders as equals who not only propose but listen and come up with ways to decide on candidates, sets you apart from other coalitions and gives a chance something will work.

But you have to give it a chance to work. A candidate might be same dog different collar to you but if so argue your case give the candidate a chance to make a case and you will all then decide. Process might surprise you.

Because the fact the process exists and you and others are part of it, is a threat to business as usual and here is concrete proof of it at work —even before the process even got started!

https://twitter.com/onenewsph/status/1372750268748599304

Easy for him to say no and walk away because he never had skin in the game so to speak: for what brought the coalition he was responding to together including suffering and empathy were never his cup of tea in the first place. Selection problem solved.

This alternative process won’t be easy for the same reasons compromise shouldn’t be a bad word but often is or that empathy is very easy to set aside. But the alternative has already proven where it gets us (and it can be defined in so many ways but all of them old). /end