6. The discussion above highlights the difference between candidate-centered vs. party-centered electoral systems. In party-centred polities, political parties choose their candidates through primaries, party conventions and caucuses. In these polities, party discipline prevails; party members follow the party (voting) line in legislative bodies. It is unthinkable for politicians to switch parties like butterflies flitting from a flower to another. In sum, what is important is the political party as a ‘brand’. It stands for something–an ideology, a political program–and its leaders and members are secondary. Votes are cast for a politician because he is strongly associated with a party ‘brand’. In contrast, parties are not strong ‘brands’ in candidate-centered systems. Candidates are the ‘brands’ and political parties are just extraneous packaging or wrappings that may be changed in the next election. The candidate does not need an ideology or a political program. Rather, he must have a reputation of performance–of providing divisible favors to constituents, supporters, and financiers such as hand-outs, jobs, infrastructure projects, and preferential treatment by government such as exemptions and special credits. He then claims that these ‘public goods’ were made possible by his ‘private performance’. Thus, the ubiquitous presence of ‘Epal[1] tarps’ in all corners of archipelago make sense.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=81152.0