Among our national political institutions, the Congress best embodies the notion of representative democracy. Members elected to the post theoretically represent the will of their constituents every time they craft and vote on bills.

Because members of the Lower House are elected at the district level with a well-defined electorate, the operationalization of the theory of representation (who is represented, to whom the representative is most accountable) is more clearly defined, though not totally unproblematic. The notion is much more problematic in the Senate. Why is this so?

Before continuing, let me first thank Manuel L. Quezon III for prodding us to re-examine the Senate.  In his Inquirer column, Manolo disagreed with a statement I made here last week that “I don’t see how the Senate can speak in behalf of all when there is not even one Moro among them.” He argued that “One does not have to be a Moro or a Christian senator to care what happens, or be duty-bound to speak at this time. This is what representative government is about, it is what having national institutions chosen by means of national elections is all about.”

Manolo is right. One doesn’t have to be a Moro to talk about Moro concerns. But my point was not about the right of everyone to speak, or even not to speak.  Senators enjoy more than the right to speak. As Manolo noted, how senators choose to speak and act determine our fate, Moros and non-Moros alike. Through their lawmaking, investigative and budgetary powers, they have control over our lives.

***

This leads us to the crux of the matter. Just how representative is the Senate?

According to Manolo, the Senate represents the whole nation because it is a national institution elected by the people. Unfortunately, this in not the case in real life: the Senate never truly represented the Filipino people, much less those who call themselves Moros.

Take a look at the composition of the present Senate. You have two siblings, and most others are related by first or second degree to at least one current and/or former president, senator, governor, House representative, etc.  You’d think there are only 100 families in the Philippines. 

All the senators are multimillionaires.  They lived most parts of their lives in urban centers; have influential social and political networks; and own big houses in upscale subdivisions. Most of them come from Luzon; only two are from Mindanao. All are baptized Christians.  There are only four women; the rest we presume belong to the male gender.

Given this profile, can we conclude that the Senate is a representative institution?

***

To be sure, even if one came from the ranks of the poor, one would not necessarily be pro-poor; that if one were a woman, one would not always be pro-women; a Moro, but not necessarily pro-Moro. Besides, it is not always easy to know what the pro-poor/women/Moro position is on all issues, including on the controversial MOA on Ancestral Domain.  One has to study, consult, listen and discern to come up with informed judgments.

Like any individual, however, each senator is shaped and influenced by his/her personal circumstances.  Thus, the more social and political segments represented, the more perspectives on board in the decision-making, the more “national” the decisions can become.  A Moro,  for instance, understands why Moros should be allowed to have their own banking system: because in Islam, profiting from loans is not allowed.

To achieve broader representation in the Senate, several reforms must be put in place. One is to pass the long-delayed anti-dynasty law to allow more entrants other than entrenched political clans into this political arena.  Another is to strengthen the political parties so that people vote for programs, not personalities. As it is, senators ran under political parties that have no real platforms so they don’t even represent a program.

Wider geographic and multisectoral representation can be ensured by reconfiguring the Senate.  Instead of election at large, seats can be allocated per regional cluster. Sectoral representation can also be introduced.  This system is a variant of what is known in political science as a consociational democracy, a form that addresses the main weakness in “majoritarian” democracies by inclusively allocating the right to representation to diverse social groupings in order to correct their underrepresentation.

If senators represent a certain constituency and program, they are obligated to more consciously consider and protect their constituents’ interests, even as they put a premium on the interest of the whole. Individually they are made directly accountable to this grouping, whose conflicting interests within, they must help reconcile.

In fairness to the senators, the democratic deficiencies in the institution are not entirely their fault. But until these deficiencies are addressed, the Senate as presently constituted cannot and does not speak in behalf of all.

 
E-mail: mcf178@yahoo.com