by Alex Roldan
Why do we create fear before we know there is something to be afraid of? Up to the last minute of our first automated election, many feared what the technology could do to the election. In fact, the computer program glitch in the flash disks a few days before Election Day almost brought the nation to the edge of disorder. Many were fearful that the coming May 10 elections would fail. The call for abandoning the automation in favor of manual election reverberated all over the nation because of fear!
We are fearful of what we do not know. It was very hard also for Comelec to admit that during those days they didn’t have the answer, or were not sure how “something” would turn up to derail the process.
Fears that the computerization of our elections would create a black hole that would pull the nation into disarray and put an end to our democracy as we know it have joined the roster of pseudoscientific scares.
There is something in the human psyche that makes us view some innovations with great suspicion, fearing that there are people whose main business is just to make sure that they gain most from these innovations.
Though there’s a saying that “we learn more through failure then we do through success,” an election is too risky a business in case it fails. It means a collapse of the whole democratic system of this country, thus many are tempted to embrace the principle of rather not try something at all rather then try something and fail.
Sociologist Robert Bartholomew, author of the 2001 book Little Green Men, Meowing Nuns and Head-Hunting Panics: A Study of Mass Psychogenic Illness and Social Delusion said that “people see what they expect to see in search for certainty, especially during times of crisis, as they attempt to confirm their worst fears and greatest hopes.”
Lack of understanding of new technology to be used combined with anxiety, has been responsible for most scares.
The trouble is, Smartmatic and Comelec tend to avoid absolutes and speak in terms of probabilities – that they are expecting minimal partial manual counting, that the machine is more reliable, the system is working and the chances for failure are virtually nil. Which is not saying that they are absolutely 100 percent sure that the election would be successful, although they may mean it.
On the other hand, I admire the persistent stand of the Comelec not to abandon the computerization and despite all the calls–others even tried to bring the matter to the Supreme Court to force for manual election–took the risk to teach the nation a new but uncomfortable way.
Now that elections are over, everybody seems to be comfortable with the computerized method of election. We have conquered our fears, and everyone is now begging to raise the technology level of the next election for it to be more efficient and reliable.
We must remember that a living democracy evolves, the processes shifting, thus, change is inevitable. Our processes should be about exploring the world around us, constantly changing and adapting to new situations and opportunities. Our elections, therefore, should be continually trying new things, exploring possibilities and looking at the technologies that the nation needs for the future. It is not asking much, we are merely asking to do what a dynamic democracy should be.
For comments, e-mail to: roldanalex@yahoo.com
