The government’s perceived aversion to digital systems is now a concern as Filipinos use an automated system that will debut in the midterm elections.

The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) said it is rolling out a program called “Digital Bayanihan” to strengthen the digital infrastructure and ensure the safety, integrity, and smooth conduct of the 12 May midterm elections.

The initiative employs a collaboration among the DICT, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and major technology companies.

The Palace said voters will be provided with “configuration hubs” that incorporate a precinct result finder, an online registration status verifier, and real-time updates on election results.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. supports the rush towards digital transformation, pointing out the essential role of the digital shift in making governance and services more efficient.

The irony is that resistance to the digital shift has derailed efforts in agencies where it is most needed, such as the Land Transportation Office (LTO), Philippine Ports Authority and others, where earnest efforts have been made to end corrupt practices.

The aversion to digital systems reflects a mix of concern over structural inertia, corruption risks, high costs, workforce limitations, and cybersecurity fears.

Cybersecurity is a top concern due to the government’s weak and fragmented systems.

While agencies’ failures to automate disrupt services that can be remedied, a disaster in the polls through a sloppy digital system could destabilize democracy.

Yet, the lack of commitment from the ground to digitalize indicates that campaigns to ensure efficiency through technology are mostly empty promises.

Measures must accompany automation to neutralize vested interests. Whistleblower protections and transparent procurement processes deter sabotage, while independent oversight can rebuild public trust.

The political will is present since the President has provided the roadmap towards digitalization, which has been stalled by resistance from groups that protect the status quo due to personal gains.

The bureaucracy is steeped in a legacy of manual processes that ensure discretionary power for officials down to the office clerks, which automation threatens to dismantle.

Manual systems allow officials to exert control and, in some cases, extract rent through corruption.

Automation, by contrast, introduces transparency and accountability, reducing opportunities for informal revenue streams.

This threat to entrenched interests fosters resistance where vested interests inflate costs or sabotage reforms.

The same is true with the automated polls since it seeks an end to officials and politicians benefiting from manual electoral processes.

The consequences of the resistance to automation are encompassing, affecting service delivery, economic competitiveness, and democratic integrity.

The aversion perpetuates systemic corruption, as manual processes remain fertile ground for rent-seeking.

The LTO’s licensing system, for instance, which is notorious for “fixers,” illustrates how bureaucrats exploit inefficiencies for personal gain.

By resisting digitalization, officials preserve these opportunities, prioritizing self-interest over public welfare.

The idea is that manual systems are inherently more reliable or controllable than digital counterparts, ignoring the inefficiencies, errors, and corruption enabled by manual processes.

Automation, while not flawless, offers scalability and transparency that manual systems cannot match.

The risk-averse position overlooks the costs of inaction, such as economic losses from inefficiencies.

An opportunistic assumption is that the bureaucracy can indefinitely delay automation without systemic consequences.

Thus, the government remains mainly manual while its citizens are considered among the most digitally savvy worldwide, wasting an opportunity merely waiting to be tapped.

Public alienation is a dangerous prospect for those who wield power.