Is Baguio Anti-Dynasty Or Not? Is BAD ON?

 A looming political dynasty in Baguio has been staved off. However, about 18K, give or take, from that of congressional bet Sol Go’s votes thought it was ok. That’s around 20K+ short of her husband’s mayoralty votes. Apparently, that 20K+ discrepancy for a number of voters probably thought that at least one of the two Gos getting any of the local’s two highest seats would be fine. That actually says a lot about the Go couple’s out of sync supporters; for if they truly believe in the would-have-been Baguio’s first ever husband and wife elected tandem, their respective votes should have been in sync. Needless to say, even their supporters didn’t agree with the political dynasty they themselves tried to justify. Were (or are) they really “maka-Baguio” to begin with given how they enabled the inherent byproduct of such likely centralization of political influence. That’s something true-blue “maka-Baguio” people do not actually condone. Or is it? Or do we, Baguio peeps?

Or was it really against the political dynasty? This is in consideration of how it was former Mayor and now congressman-elect Mauricio Domogan’s reason for running again as it was his apparent main concern; taking into consideration that “meeting” with other congressional candidates (Gladys Vergara and Nicasio Aliping) regarding “GOing against the GOs” prior to all this brouhaha… If so, in aid of legislation, would he “go” for the anti-dynasty law given how he is likewise an inclined supporter of political figures/parties/entities/families (on a much bigger scale and stage at that) of whom such “in-your-face” law is aimed at. Now-congressman Domogan, having won that seat (with around 45K votes, however just about 27% of the total registered voters), will that translate to something other than being the “red light to the ‘go’ signal”? There are more (almost 75% of the electorate) who didn’t vote for Domogan as much as there are those who either veered away or those who are just using him for bureaucratic leverage. Oh politics. Speaking of which, Councilors Datuin, Tabanda, Yangot and Lawana of the Maka-Baguio party used to be under Domogan’s Timpuyog Ti Baguio slate. Does that mean these four are supporters of a political dynasty more than just politicking? Or did they think of their polítical survival instead, assuming-then that Mark Go holds a stronger clout? That’s not very “family oriented” if that’s the case, which on the other hand is how the hugely-overmatched Vice Mayoralty candidate Mylen Yaranon justified their “family dynasty-oriented” “Maka-Baguio” team. 

Seemingly, Councilor Mylen Yaranon is as precarious as her ever-shifting political affiliation and colors: red, pink, blue… Onjon Ti Baguio, “kakampi ninyo sa konseho”, Maka-Baguio to name a few. A colorful figure she has become. Reputedly, very politician. And refutably as word has it that she was asked to take a backseat for Mark Go’s mayoral aspiration in exchange for an administrative bloc that could assure her of formidability. It was likely under the premise of “close-knit familiarity and succession”. Similarly, that’s also how it seemed to have played for the rest of their city council lineup considering each of their likely collaborative potential and current pull despite questionable implications some of them were or are caught up in. Is each one or any of them tolerant of those issues? Sucking it up for the time being, I guess… A familiar (or should I say, a common) scenario in politics. That said, given how even family members within a political dynasty are as political (not to mention, even those who are at odds now), is political dynasty the real issue? Here in Baguio, it has been decided on quite recently, as much as it has been stalled early on, before it even gets half-a-cue for anyone to even think it’s possible. It’s not even close. Not one of the GOs were given the green light. And quite “halting”, Domogan’s political color put the brakes on; “red means stop.”

However, for all the downside and drawbacks of such power controllership, what’s the difference between dynasty and the concept of political alliance? Hence, the call for voting straight? Or the “jumping ship” and switching sides? Right? For checks and balances, as much as to weigh the differing preferences of not just the electorate but that of the whole community, opposing parties are as good as being considerate of options other than one’s own, simply because none of us are the same. Needless to say, we have our differences and respective choices. Oh and can I likewise include, also our personal agendas and ulterior motives, right? Either way, we’re all oppositionists to any entity with a different take or belief.

Thus, the opposition is a vital component for oversight and accountability, control and regulation. It’s an elemental factor for the prevention of abuse and corruption. Of course, oppositionists may appear to be the obstruction but, mind you, obstructionists are a different breed. That’s what the formidability of a political alliance or dynasty is supposedly for, as much as what they’re avoiding. An obstructionists’ goal is not to oppose but to obstruct for all the political maneuverings and positioning’s worth; not to forget, the kickback in their favor. Nonetheless, there’s a sensible point for bureaucratic alliances if only for the right reasons. And if only to quell obstructionism corresponding with respect for the opposition which translates to a communal benefit and for the greater good, it’s not all that BAD.

~ To be continued ~