Revolving Doors

Friday, 21 August 2009 00:00

Written by Malou Tiquia

Reputation and credibility are very important for media practitioners. They live and build a career on these two elements. What happens then to practitioners who get involved in a political exercise without taking a leave or making a disclosure with their company on their involvement with a political candidate or a political party? Worst, what if the writer, reporter, columnist took his/her oath as a member of a political party? I guess nothing is wrong there per se but what if they are involved in partisan politics and are part and parcel of a campaign team?

Shouldn’t there be a law prohibiting writers, columnists, reporters from being public relations agents and propagandists for politicians and political parties in this country? Imagine an imbedded journalist being now part of the communications group of the incumbent President, is there nothing wrong there?

Shouldn’t the TV network, the broadsheet and even tabloid institute a policy, if regulation is not easy to secure, of full disclosure and that the writer, reporter, columnist should take a leave during his/her involvement with a candidate or during the campaign? Whether the writer, reporter, columnist is advising, actively involved, paid or otherwise? After the Election Day, the writer, reporter, columnist should be again allowed a leave in order for he/she to decide whether he/she should join the communications group of a winning candidate. As once foreign, veteran journalist would say, “Our role as media practitioners must remain one of making every actor on the political landscape accountable to the people; in fact the media should be the voice for the voiceless and we must listen to the citizens at all times.”

Another revolving door is that of a political consultant. It is interesting that in this country, there are political consultants, advisers and what have you who join political campaigns and are not paid only because he/she leverages his/her contribution for a position once the candidate wins. That in my book is not being a professional. That is holding hostage the candidate who wins since “utang na luob” (debt of gratitude) will come to play. The effect, the winning candidate gets to appoint a political consultant to a position he is not an expert of. But as one would aptly say, “madaling matutunan yan, madaling maging eksperto dyan” (one can learn it fast, one can be an expert of it).

Another revolving door case is when a political candidate loses in an election and ends up doing influence peddling. And this has often been the source of conflicts, both in the Executive and the Legislative Branches. It is time that a law be enacted to regulate these practices.

And finally, regulatory capture is also connected to revolving doors, such as the pattern of working in government (or being an elected official) only to leave (as a means?) to work as a lobbyist or consultant for those you "regulated" while in government. It also works in reverse, when "private sector" employees are appointed to high-level positions where they are responsible for "regulating" their former employers.

Lets revisit the law that bans cabinet secretaries from practicing their profession a year after being in office. Time to also enact a law that that covers the reverse, when “private sector employees are appointed to cabinet positions where they are responsible to regulate such business interests of their former bosses. A cross analysis of donors and bosses and oligarchs would show that they are all the controlling interests in this country. The 1957 law on lobbying should also be reviewed in order to get a professional industry up and running and to make it attune to the needs of the time.

Some call revolving doors a form of corruption. Others say its using your connection and getting ahead. Change?

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites