I say this because political advertisements being aired and published now are all basically saying the same things. There’s really not much difference among them. In my observation, here are some of the most glaring similarities insofar as TV ads are concerned:

1. the ads communicate the message that their candidate is a saviour of some sort
2. visual elements are mostly the same — candidates mingling with ordinary people, distraught people, poor people, etc.
3. the ads highlight at least one all-encompassing promise
4. the ads end with a cheesy slogan
5. the ads are backed by a catchy song

Advertising experts may say that with the limited allotted time — usually from 30 seconds to 1 minute — there’s hardly any room to include more substantial information therefore they just make do with using the elements enumerated above. I suspct there’s more to it than just that. I think the candidates and/or their campaign managers are just afraid to take risks and would rather just stick to tried and tested methods.

The website www.media-awareness.ca provides us with a more comprehensive list of political advertising techniques. Here it is lifted from their website:

1.  Patriotism: The ad stresses the candidate’s love of and service to his/her country.

2. Gender: The ad presents the candidate as appropriately “manly” (or feminine) to make viewers trust him/her.

3. Family: The ad uses images of ideal families to give you a positive image of the candidate.

4. Excitement: The ad tries to create a sense of energy and excitement around the candidate.

5. Star Power: A celebrity is telling you that they support the candidate.

6. Bandwagon: The ad tries to create the impression that everybody already supports the candidate.

7. Put Downs: The ad insults the candidate’s opponent.

8. Facts and Figures: The ad uses facts and statistics to support the candidate’s policies.

9. Just Folks: The ad portrays the candidate as a “regular guy” (or girl).

10. Heart Strings: The ad tells a story that makes you feel good.

11. Sounds Good: The ad uses music (with or without lyrics) to be memorable, entertaining and exciting.

12. Cartoons and Animals: The ad makes its point with cartoon characters or (usually symbolic) animals.

13. Weasel Words: The ad includes promises that sound good but lack details.

14. Integrity: The ad tries to convince you that the candidate is honest and trustworthy.

15. Fear: The ad tries to frighten you into voting for the candidate (or at least not voting for his/her opponent).

(to see the list on their website go to this link)

Entry 12, cartoons and animals, is interesting. I’m sure you can make the connection yourself, but if you ask me I’d say the word reptilian comes to mind — and chicken too. I’m actually more interested in entry number 8, facts and figures. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think this is a standard feature in local political ads, is it? Anyway, this leads me to the main point I’ve been making all this time: Our political candidates are all just pandering and none of them are audacious enough to add more substance to their political advertisements.

This is quite unfortunate considering that more and more people are now demanding real and useful information. I’m of course talking about detailed plans. The way I see it there is an untapped opportunity here for any candidate to set himself or herself apart from the rest. This opportunity is especially perfect for candidates who are trailing behind perception-wise. Since they’re in the lowest rungs anyway they should be willing to take more risks with how they communicate their message. Instead of the usual pandering stuff they can come out with truly informative ads.

Runnning time a limitation? No problem. Just follow the format used for those one-minuter radio or TV reports. An example would be an ad featuring just the candidate talking about one specific issue and providing some specifics on exactly how he/she plans to address it.

Senator Noynoy Aquino’s “Hindi Ako Mag-Nanakaw” ad shows us that one can already say a lot of things in a one-minuter ad. Unfortunately, substance-wise it does not make the grade. Fortunately, this is easy to fix. Simply removing all the pandering stuff and keeping the focus on just one particular issue would easily do the trick.

Candidates, especially those who are lagging behind, should seriously consider this approach. In terms of cost, information-filled ads like the one I’m suggesting will obviously cost much less. The budget deprived can even create one just using a webcam and uploading the end-product on the internet. If the message is really good, the ad may even go viral.

1. Am I physically, mentally and psychologically fit to be president?
2. Do I have the sincerest of intentions?
3. Do I have the strength to put the country’s best interest over that of my own?
4. Do I have the courage to take a stand on contentious issues?
5. Do I have the wisdom needed in times of crisis?
6. Do I have an above average grasp of all issues affecting the country?
7. Am I smart enough to come up with long lasting solutions?
8. Do I have foresight?
9. Do I have enough creativity to be able to think up ways to fix what is wrong with our culture?
10. Do I even acknowledge that there’s something wrong with Filipino culture?
11. Will I be able to go against the flow of transactional politics?
12. Can I refuse any and all requests for special favors from my relatives, friends and allies?
13. Can I resist temptation?
14. Do I understand that the position of president entails real work?

This list is by no means comprehensive. Feel free to add your own.

I need to go to the toilet and seek discernment.

To solve our country’s problems. Talaga lang ah.

When our politicians say this line you can bet that they want us to think that they are our hope for salvation and that not getting them elected will be our loss. I have no doubt that is the subliminal message they want us to absorb.

I’ll pretend there’s some truth to this. I’ll  suspend my disbelief and accept the possibility that these politicians really do have the answers.

Now, I’m wondering  if they really do have the answers and they really care about our country’s welfare why haven’t we heard about their ideas?

That’s one of the problems inherent in our current system. Anyone can just come out and present themselves as a presidential candidate (remember Eddie Gil) and just about anyone with enough media mileage and financial resources can get themselves elected. Sure, those of us who are smart enough to demand for more than just soundbytes and cheap gimmickry from our candidates can do so till our candidates give in. The problem with this though is that it’s all optional. It’s still all up to the candidates to give us substance.

Obviously, something has to be done about this. Our candidates should be required to give us something to work on in our search for our next leader. To me the obvious solution is to adjust the qualifications for president. Aside from the already established qualifications, prior experience in an administrative position in government should also be required of all candidates for president. This way the presidential aspirant will have some sort of public service track record, which voters can use as a gauge of his or her worthiness for the top post.

I think we should also have a law or policy requiring anyone who wants to run for any public office position to start demonstrating their ability “to solve our country’s problems” at least two years before an election year. Of course that same law or policy should also create the environment that would allow these aspiring public officials to do their thing.

Here’s an imaginary scenario to make this all clear.

It’s 2005. Mr. Pagasa wants to run for congressman in 2010. His reason: he wants to solve our country’s problems. Aware of the abovementioned policy, he drafts a number of proposals that he claims can solve Metro Manila’s traffic problem. He submits his proposals to his congressman and/or the MMDA. He submits the same to media for publication.

Also aware of the policy (which should mandate media participation in this whole set-up), media outlets come out with reports or advisories informing the public of Mr. Pagasa’s ideas.

What was achieved in this imaginary scenario? First off, Mr. Pagasa was given a chance to establish his worth as a possible candidate in a future election. He came up with a possible solution to a problem. If it’s any good, the congressman and/or the government agency to whom he gave his proposal should then take the necessary action to make it official. The congressman should have it tackled for possible legislation. The MMDA should implement it. The media mileage given to Mr. Pagasa and his proposal should ensure that credit is given where credit is due. It should also give the public the opportunity to see for themselves if Mr. Pagasa could be the next big thing in Philippine Politics.

Of course, if the proposal turns out to be worthless then nothing happens and Mr. Pagasa simply fails to establish himself as a worthy future candidate. But, at least he tried.

I must admit I’m a little concerned this suggestion of mine might be seen as ‘weird.’ Well, at least I tried to help. But, no. I have no political ambitions whatsoever.