Why the falsities? The foreign election monitors, some of whom were left behind in the country as permanent snoops, should explain their assessment of “serious shortcomings” in the recent polls to the Filipino people.
Playing for their audience at home, the observers led by the EU Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) — which deployed more than 200 members on the day of the midterm polls — assessed the exercise as marked by rampant vote-buying, red-tagging and sporadic political violence.
The interlopers painted a process that did not produce a credible outcome based on what they experienced.
While ceding positive developments such as the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) “timely preparation” of polling stations and ballots, the experience and competence of its staff, and a “pluralistic media coverage,” the group cast doubts on the credibility of the election process.
For instance, Lee Rhiannon, a former Australian senator from the Greens Party, said that “the convergence of political violence, widespread disenfranchisement, harassment and unexplained technical irregularities point to systemic vulnerabilities that risk undermining public trust in the electoral process.”
The outsiders’ view clashed with the Comelec’s general assessment of the most successful midterm elections thus far, in terms of the 82.2 percent participation of eligible voters and the enthusiasm of the youth, who made up the bulk of those who cast their ballots.
The Comelec restricted the observers from the voting areas to comply with election rules, which require that only voters and poll officials be allowed access — but the meddlers were all over.
Another of their observations — the “credible indications” and direct observations of vote-buying involving cash and goods and instances of “bidding wars” for votes among local candidates — should have been reported to the Comelec instead of being broadcast to the world.
Influenced by their left-wing local cohorts, the report also cited the “dominance of a few political families in the lists of candidates, detracting from overall competitiveness” and widespread “red-tagging.”
The term “red-tagging” was coined by local groups identified with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) after they were held accountable for exploiting the democratic space — including the electoral process — to pursue their aims of a radical overthrow of the government.
None of those perceived to have connections with the communist movement got the vote except through the partylist system, a known shortcut to the House of Representatives for those who can’t win the popular vote.
The watchers — whom the government allowed to comply with international obligations — flew in record numbers during the polls, showing the Marcos administration’s openness to global cooperation.
Such hospitality appears to have been abused, as most of the monitors, citing international laws, disregarded the limitations that the Comelec imposed for the orderly conduct of the polls.
Thus, they downplayed the democratic achievements, saying in the report that “voter engagement was strong nationwide but belied the fact that one in five district races were non-competitive, typically featuring only the incumbent.”
Citing media reports, the EOM also said that at least 30 people, “including several candidates and election officials,” were killed during the three-month campaign.
On election day, it said that “at least 10 fatalities” were recorded, including in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
The government must review the extent of these foreign meddlers’ involvement during the polls, since it appears they will be a permanent fixture, with some of them being left in the country as “permanent observers.”
How would the members of the EU EOM feel if the Philippines sent 200 observers every time their country holds an election?
The government must limit the presence of these groups since they contribute nothing but an added security concern for law enforcers.