By Atty. Howie Calleja
Absenteeism refers to a habitual absence from “DUTY”— usually intentional and without any good reason. It goes beyond any absences related to things like occasional sickness, vacations, and other personal time. While a few absences here and there don’t normally pose a problem, absenteeism can, especially when one’s presence is crucial for that particular occasion, gathering or event. So, when your presence is needed to ascertain your eligibility or worthiness to be elected into public office (e.g., COMELEC Hearings on the cancellation of your CoC or Public Forum for voters’ information) absenteeism is a character flaw that should not be taken lightly.
Absenteeism (alternatively, absence) is an individual’s lack of physical presence at a given place and time when there is a social expectation for that person to be there. An absence is a behavioral outcome or state rather than a behavior itself, because many different actions can make up an absence. An individual can be absent from many settings simultaneously if groups or individuals from each of those settings have contradicting expectations — brought about by inconsistencies in the character, performance or statements created by the absentee. In other words, one’s absence is a behavior caused by someone trying to escape the realities of one’s present situation or state.
Scholars Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Jeffrey A. Gottfried note that despite the “transformed media environment” — where traditional news has ceded ground to non-mainstream media sources — the televised forums and debates continue to play a unique role, as they have through history. “For almost five decades, studies have confirmed the power of presidential (forums) debates to increase voter knowledge,” they write. Moreover, public forums like the Jessica Soho Presidential Interviews are crucial communications data point in Voters’ Education — taking place amid a sea of ads and other socio-political conversations — and as such was a missed opportunity that absenteeism tends to undermine.
Let me be clear, Marcos Junior has every right to refuse attendance to any forum or gathering. But it is our right as well to deduce the character flaws associated to this absenteeism. As such the hashtag #MarcosDuwag (#MarcosCoward) topped Twitter trends as election drama unfolded towards the end of the week. As a Presidential aspirant facing many hullabaloos himself, that would have been a chance for him to tell the truth, remedy the slipups, and set the record straight? Instead Marcos Junior chose the more convenient thing to do — the “absenteeism” of dodging the queries. After all, by skipping the GMA7 Forum, he also skipped any risk of ineptness that may have been brought upon by Ms. Soho’s tough questioning.
A truly distinguishable candidate empowers our democratic process by allowing public scrutiny in a fair and balance public forum. A lack of information about elections and its candidates can weaken the accountability of elected public servants and, consequently, voting choices. Giving voters access to information through forums and debates between rival candidates can significantly improve their knowledge and increase democratic participation. Shame on those who undermines this process … Shame on you Marcos Junior.
Aristotle once said, “There is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say nothing and be nothing”. If Marcos Junior truly wants to extoll his presidential qualifications and plans (e.g., Wind Power for his Province), then by all means do so without his massive troll armies nor with his scripted media interviews. If he has nothing to hide and if he is speaking the truth (e.g., Oxford degree, Ill-gotten wealth, family’s human rights abuses, or tax cases) then he should bravely do so in all public avenues he is invited to do so. To speak only when it is convenient or only when “messaging” is controlled and customed tailored to fit a narrative; isn’t sincerity but propaganda; and only an absentee candidate does that after all.
