With news stories popping up every so often of another elected official taking an oath of allegiance to a different political party, one has to wonder what does the oath even mean? With so many politicians eager to switch colors once a new political party is in charge, what is the point of taking an oath? There is reason for putting on some ceremony where people claim to take on a set of beliefs, just to do the same for the other side once they get elected in the next cycle.

When it comes to political parties, essentially, swearing an oath means one is adhering to certain principles and beliefs they supposedly hold in their hearts. However, if one is changing parties every election cycle (or whenever it is most convenient), then it is not principle they are upholding, but is it more than personal ambition?

If this is the way elected officials interpret an oath, where one can pledge loyalty one year and switch the next, then these ceremonies are meaningless; taking it to a wider scope, perhaps this is how any oath-taking executed, a mere spectacle. Professionals such as physicians and attorneys swear an oath to uphold the ethics and morals of their positions, is that oath more significant than any other? If the oaths taken in politics are so gutless, how is it different elsewhere in the country?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the word principle as “a basic idea or rule that explains or controls how something happens or works” or “a moral rule or standard of good behavior.” When these politicians swear an oath of allegiance, they are vowing to abide by a set of beliefs; in other countries, it is what drives these types of people to join a certain party to begin with.

In the United States, those who believe in smaller government and are more pro-capitalist lean towards the Republican side; those who believe government should have more say in how to run things trend towards the Democrats. It is the same when it comes to choosing between Liberal and Labor in Australia or the Partido Popular and the Partido Socialista Obrero Español in Spain, with a myriad of smaller parties representing a variety of other beliefs in the mix.

The Philippines, much like these other democratic nations, has a similar framework, only without having two major parties.

In the past, when the country was a two-party system, there was a similar order that other nations see whenever they have national elections.

Even when France had its last election, where the two major parties were voted out, there was still the right wing faction of Marine Le Pen and the Front National against Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche!, often referred to as “third way,” which leans center-left.

In the Philippines, there was no differentiating between the candidates in 2016 beyond their names. However, then-Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte did successfully separate himself from the pack; beyond his candid persona, he offered plans and ideas that weren’t the same pandering done by every average politician – the likely key to his landslide victory.

Former Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Manuel ‘Mar’ Roxas II was the standard politician, lots of name recognition and a lot of previously-held titles without much to show for it; Senator Grace Poe was best known as the child of two of the biggest stars in Philippine cinema; and Vice President Jejomar Binay was mired by an overpriced parking garage constructed years before he even being elected as vice president.

The only other candidate that offered something beyond tokenism was the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, whose long battle with cancer clouded the campaign since announcing her third bid for the presidency.

While political parties have grown to be less principle-driven and more personality-driven, the major turning point was when the Liberal Party and the Nacionalista Party, the two major parties of yesteryear, joined in coalition. Introducing that notion to friends overseas, posing an equivalent of Republicans and Democrats joining together as one party, it was an unheard of concept.

The idea that two ideologically opposed parties could somehow come together makes no sense. Sure, there is such a thing as bipartisanship, but it’s completely different than agreeing to a platform. When two sides disagree on everything from tax reform to abortion to foreign policy, there is no way an alliance can be formed. Yet, in the Philippines, it happens every time the results of an election are revealed. Once the party on top is named, a new batch of elected officials line up, raise their right hand, and swear another oath.

There must have been some point in time when an oath meant something other than political expediency. Perhaps when the country had a two-party system, those in politics were aware of the core principles behind their beliefs and why they aligned with either party.

An all-more disturbing trend with elected officials leaving parties is not even a matter of abandoning principle (if they have them to begin with), but the way they defend themselves by saying they spoke with (essentially, getting permission from) some party leader.

Why would one need “permission” if they were merely following their “principles?” Is this one person going to stop them from expressing their “deeply-held beliefs?”

Have always thought a person who leads a political party is chosen as an individual who can inspire others to join their movement, not some kind of despot who has control over another person’s decisions – the powers granted to a party leader seem even more influential than those from be elected into public office.

Carmel V. Abao, associate chair for the department of political science at Ateneo de Manila University, wrote a piece for the news website Rappler, where she describes the current make-up of Congress as “the same, not just in composition, but also in terms of patterns of behavior, internal dynamics, and relations with the executive branch.”

“While there have been some shifts, especially in political alliances because of the Duterte presidency, these shifts have neither eliminated nor weakened the fundamental character of the Philippine legislature,” she explained. “Entry is still via political families, alliances are still determined by who is the incumbent president, voting on laws is still shaped by vested interests and not ideological unities, and money still speaks.”

A fair summary of the “principles” held by today’s political parties and the true tenets of what they are swearing loyalty to./WDJ