Thursday, May 13, 2010


Everything went well with the 2010 elections, so claimed a lot of media outfits and others who deemed it beneficial to say so.

Just because results were transmitted faster than it used to, we can already claim it to be a success? So, that's how far an election should just go?

How about integrity and credibility? Does it not matter anymore?

And now that evidences of automated cheating are starting to surface, would these media outfits be so fast in looking into this, too? Or would they rather stand to what they previously claimed?

Isn't it irresponsible to limit the appreciation of the election's success with the supposed "success of the automated system"? Did we actually forget that an election is supposed to be a democratic exercise for the people to choose leaders who are competent enough to serve the public?

Can we not even give this election a deeper scrutiny and look into reports of violence, disenfranchisement and the traditional electoral fraud as reported by certain electoral watchdog and international observers?

Or how about the issue of competent public servants? What can we say about having the Marcoses back in power again? Or GMA supposedly winning by landslide in Pampanga's 2nd Congressional District?

It is shortsighted to proclaim this elections as successful simply because of the speedy transmission of results - and of which by now is also proven wrong since many precinct count results are still to be transmitted, thanks to "minor glitches" claimed by the COMELEC and SMARTMATIC.

No comments: