The Political Education of Juan de la Cruz

THE POLITICAL EDUCATION OF JUAN DE LA CRUZ

Why do we have to undergo a major economic crisis to begin to arrest the slide into atrociously bad governance, abusive dictatorship, and massive corruption?

Our dictatorial president Duterte insists on implementing the FAILED authoritarian governance model of the Marcos regime, and the deleterious effects are showing. So-called Philippine prosperity is FAKE, fueled by gargantuan debt from Communist China.

Debt in itself is not bad, but gargantuan dollar-denominated debt combined with BAD governance is a recipe for economic disaster. The Philippine people, many ignorant of the history of the destructive Marcos regime, have allowed this repetition of our degenerate national experience.

POLITICIANS AND OTHER FANTASTICAL BEASTS

By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:30 AM May 21, 2018

…It perplexes many people longing for change why the same families continue to have a stranglehold on important elective posts. It frustrates a lot of people to see scions of political families like the Marcoses and the Estradas still winning elections, even if their patriarchs had been found liable for massive corruption.

It also exasperates many people that Lito Lapid is again in the winning circle, even if his past stint in the Senate is viewed as wasted years. And it vexes people that Manny Pacquiao won a seat in the upper chamber even if the fitness he possesses is incompatible with the fitness required of a senator.

There’s a strong perception of a visible disconnect between the competence and character requirements for elective posts, and the competence and character possessed by those whom that Filipino electorate vote into office.

Why do we keep electing persons who defy the yardstick on corruption, who ignore standards of morality, or who are bereft of the competence required for positions of power?

…there’s an unconventional explanation that provides anthropological enlightenment on why voters behave irrationally in electing leaders who violate norms that are strictly applied when it comes to ordinary citizens.

The common Filipino sees political leaders as gods who are exempt from the rules applicable to ordinary mortals. Politicians are viewed as mythical creatures of the spirit world to whom good and common values do not apply. This is the reason Filipinos accept leaders who flaunt their adulterous lives, whose corrupt practices are tolerated, and whose lack of competence and skill are brushed aside.

Filipinos consented to special prison accommodations for Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla.

…President Duterte is the quintessential leader treated as a mythical creature by the common Filipino. He curses, makes casual mention of his wives, brandishes his misogyny, boasts of his involvement in killings, and yet people look the other way and still continue to support him.

Politicians are viewed as fantastical beasts who can be benevolent or malevolent, and people generally let them be, just like they do with good and bad spirits such as the engkanto, tikbalang, and nuno sa punso. Ordinary people go on with their lives even while they are ruled by wayward politicians whom they deferentially treat like deities of the spirit world. People feel they have no choice but to live with these mythical creatures. It doesn’t occur to them that they can do away with these creatures of folklore…

But what is even more lamentable is that politicians themselves believe that they are gods exempt from the rules applicable to ordinary mortals. Like the gods of Mount Olympus, they quarrel, steal, foment bloodshed, indulge their whims, and engage in extramarital affairs among themselves. They view the people who troop to them for help as pilgrims who seek their blessings.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113343/politicians-fantastical-beasts#ixzz5Ly88zm8I

THAT CHEERING CROWD

Editorial

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:22 AM June 07, 2018

By now, The Kiss seen round the world has been thoroughly analyzed and mostly condemned, with many citizens protesting it as a power play — President Duterte taking advantage of his position to overwhelm an overseas Filipino worker into naively consenting to a very public kiss that she would describe later as “a once-in-a-lifetime experience.”

The woman’s consent was not the issue, critics said, but a President who felt his lofty post entitled him to certain perks from an adoring public, never mind if they humiliated or demeaned other parties.

As one social media post stated: “In ordinary situations, it’s not easy to say NO to a superior whether it’s a boss, teacher, parent, even a husband… The power relation is aggravated by virtue of age and positions held. The woman in question is an ordinary OFW. Why blame her? How can people even think that she could say ‘no’ given the context? Full blame is on the President. He was in control. He wielded power over the woman.”

…Section 3 of the Women’s Development Code, which Mr. Duterte himself signed as Davao mayor, states that: “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, made directly, indirectly, or implied,” can be considered sexual harassment.

But, recriminations aside, what is perhaps the biggest aggravation in The Kiss was the crowd reaction — the lusty cheers that egged on the President, the unmistakable stamp of approval encouraging further mischief.

Not that the roar of approval from a raucous crowd when it comes to Mr. Duterte’s words and actuations is anything new. What makes it disturbing is how indiscriminate and unthinking the cheering has been, starting from that rape joke that the President made about the Australian missionary killed during a prison riot in Davao.

The hooting has only continued through the President’s speeches, punctuating every curse and epithet he has uttered against the Pope, world leaders, business executives, alleged drug lords and addicts, the media, and women officials who dared cross him.

Nowadays, social media is rife with taunts against good manners and considerate behavior. Calls for civilized discourse are often catcalled as being “plastic” or “fake.”

Even politely calling out misdeeds is provocation enough to earn one and one’s family a shower of rape and death threats and, in the case of an outspoken actress, a possible acid attack.

How have we come to this? What ill wind has flung to parts unknown the customary propriety (“magandang asal”) with which Filipinos once so proudly identified themselves?

Could it just be the anonymity of the internet that releases one’s inhibitions and self-restraint?

Or have world leaders in an increasingly populist world pandered so often to the baser instincts of their followers that they have ended up normalizing what had previously been considered crass, cruel or simply out of line for public figures?

How are children expected to know better in this environment?

And who said it’s time to kiss sterling values and decent behavior goodbye as well?

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113737/that-cheering-crowd#ixzz5Ly8yH9kp

THE ‘STRONG LEADER’ FALLACY

By: Charlie A. Agatep - @inquirerdotnet

05:06 AM May 29, 2018

There is a widely held perception that strong leaders who talk tough and get their way, who dominate government colleagues and the political party to which they belong, and who make the big decisions all by themselves are the most successful and effective leaders. In a recent cover story in Time magazine, author Ian Bremmer may have sneeringly identified such leaders when he wrote that “we are in the strongman era” and cited Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte as examples of the most prominent “strongmen” of the century.

While the term “strong leaders” may be interpreted in many ways, it is usually taken to mean those leaders who concentrate a lot of power in their hands and will freely use that power to get what they want. Admirers of President Duterte believe he is exactly the kind of strong leader that we need in order to move projects forward. They may be right. Mr. Duterte has shown on many occasions that indeed he can make things happen through the use of brutal power. In the words of Inquirer columnist Randy David, Mr. Duterte’s approach to power is based on “the methodical use of the coercive power of the state in order to intimidate dissenters, critics, skeptics, deviants, and noncooperative individuals who, in his perception, are not taking him seriously.”

Be that as it may, in his book “The Myth of the Strong Leader,” Oxford University professor Dr. Archie Brown debunks the notion that the more a leader dominates his political party and Cabinet, and arbitrarily makes the big decisions, the greater he is as a leader. Brown argues that while some strong leaders emerge more positively than negatively, “power amassed by an individual leader paves the way for significant errors at best and disaster and massive bloodshed at worst.”

Of course there is general agreement in many democratic countries that a “strong leader” is a good thing. No one ever says, “What we need is a weak leader.” Yet the simple weak-strong dichotomy is a very limited way of gauging individual leaders. There are other more desirable qualities of political leadership besides pure strength, which better describes weightlifters and long-distance runners. Such qualities include honesty, modesty, moral uprightness, intelligence, articulateness, willingness to seek disparate views, flexibility, boundless energy, courage and vision. We don’t expect a leader to possess all these qualities but they are part of the essential requirements of an effective leader.

And this has to be emphasized. Brown said: “Effective government is necessary everywhere, but due process matters. When corners are cut because one leader is sure he knows best, problems will follow, and they can be on a disastrous scale. Due process means involving all the senior politicians with relevant departmental responsibilities in the decision process. It also means that the actions of government should be in conformity with the rule of law, and the government should be accountable to Congress and the people.”

Leadership is often reduced to a simple dichotomy: the strong versus the weak. Though we tend to dismiss consultative styles of leadership as weak, it is often the most cooperative leaders who have the greatest impact.

Brown cited President Harry Truman as a real “strong leader.” In contrast to self-styled “strong” leaders who seek to achieve their goals through intimidation and dominance, Truman was an instinctively consultative president, delegating significant authority to his colleagues — especially his two secretaries of state, George Marshall and Dean Acheson. Brown wrote it was characteristic of Truman’s style that the most outstanding foreign policy achievement of his presidency is known as the Marshall Plan, not the Truman Plan. Truman was modest not only about his own status, but about the powers of the presidency itself. While many US presidents felt the need to exaggerate their powers, Truman said: “I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to do without my persuading them. That’s all what the powers of the president amount to.”

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113518/strong-leader-fallacy#ixzz5LyApUDEA

Classic examples of the so-called “strong leader” include Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zhedong, all dictators responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. True, Stalin defeated Nazi Germany, but he did so in part by ordering his army to shoot his own soldiers when they refused to advance against the Germans. The world war Adolph Hitler instigated caused the deaths of 50 million people, about half of them Soviets. Fifty million people—now that’s a world record.

MEMORY AS RESISTANCE

By: Gideon Lasco - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:26 AM May 17, 2018

The villains of our country take comfort in the fact that people easily forget their misdeeds. “Magpalamig ka muna,” they are told, with the confidence that “lying low” for a few years, or even just months, is enough for people to move on to other issues, after which they can fade into comfortable obscurity. Or, should they wish, they can resurface in the government, eliding the legal and political liabilities of their past.

Perhaps the most glaring example is the political rehabilitation of the Marcos family, whose scions now occupy the high echelons of power, and not just the lifestyle section of publications. Like Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s neck brace, their political handicaps have dissipated like a passing cloud, and they are now close to reclaiming political glory with the dictator’s son aiming to rule the country his father ruined, and with the agency tasked to recover their stolen wealth on the verge of abolition.

But no dictatorship, no corrupt government, is made up of just one person or family. If the Marcoses had to wait for decades for their comeback, their supporting cast — the cronies, the “Blue Ladies,” the “Rolex 12” — had a much easier time. Today, hardly anyone remembers Querube Makalintal, Fred Ruiz Castro, Antonio Barredo, Felix Makasiar, Felix Antonio, and Salvador Esguerra — the Supreme Court justices who in 1973 voted to uphold authoritarian rule. “Tomorrow, history will judge you,” Ninoy Aquino said of the high court, but alas, many decades later, his prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.

Thus, wayward law enforcers are fired, only to be “reassigned” after the furor over their misdeeds has subsided. Thus, officials mired in scandal resign, ostensibly out of delicadeza, only to be reappointed in some other government agency. Thus, plunderers and drug lords are jailed, only to be released, their cases dismissed, the gravity of their crimes forgotten.

Thus, the Harry Roques of this world are encouraged to betray the principles they once held, thinking that very few will remember their treachery. Only their names will remain, along with  the recognition, the familiarity, the viability once more for high office and electoral success.

Reflecting on the tensions between memory and forgetting, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur speaks of the “general trend to destroy,” and goes on to cite Aristotle, who said “time destroys more than it constructs.” That even the Holocaust can be cast as a figment of the imagination speaks of the tenuousness of memory, the natural tendency to forget the past.

Even so, if our collective amnesia is instrumental in the impunity enjoyed by those who have exploited us, then we have, as Ricoeur calls it, “a duty to remember.” We must keep remembering, and retelling, the injustices of our time, and the people that enable them. Not just the dictator-in-the-making, but his sycophants and trolls. Not just those in the government, but those who, cloaked in their priestly garments, judicial robes, or academic togas, provide moral, legal, and intellectual support to an oppressive regime.

There are creative ways to remember, and remembering itself is a creative form of resistance. Amid the rise of fake news, our literature and arts — from “Noli Me Tangere” to “Citizen Jake” — remind us that fiction can be truth’s last refuge. If our educational system will not take it upon itself to do it, then we ourselves have a duty to reach out to young people. And tell them of how a 17-year-old student was shot to death in Caloocan, even as he begged for mercy. How our islands were lost because of a president’s ways. And how a “legal abomination” was made law because of a Court whose majority acted not just against one of its own, but against the Constitution itself.

Only with a sense of history can history be the judge that is immune to the seduction of power and the eroding influence of time’s passage. And herein lies our comfort: For as long as we bear the memories of injustice, the hope of a fair verdict remains.

And so does the hope that the villains of our land will, at long last, be put in their proper place: neither in oblivion nor in glory, but in infamy.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113248/memory-as-resistance#ixzz5LyIW28V5

“Forgetfulness is the incomprehension of those who misconstrue the past.”

“Remembrance is the vision of the future.”

https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/06/aphorisms.html 

DUTERTE’S ‘ERRATIC, CRASS LEADERSHIP STYLE’ SEEN PUTTING OFF INVESTORS

No impact yet but if investments slow sharply, growth prospects may suffer

By: Ben O. de Vera - Reporter / @bendeveraINQ

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:40 AM June 27, 2018

President Duterte has not been a “disaster” for the economy, as some feared, in his first two years in office, but his “erratic and crass” behavior could be a disaster waiting to happen, London-based economic research firm Capital Economics said on Tuesday.

“Growth has remained strong, while economic policy has been left in the hands of technocrats, who have pushed through a number of sensible reforms,” Capital Economics senior Asia economist Gareth Leather said in the report “Philippines: A two-year progress report on President Duterte.”

The gross domestic product grew by 6.8 percent in the first quarter, below the 7-8 percent target for 2018, but still among the fastest expansion in the region.

“For the most part, Duterte has stuck to his campaign promise by staying out of the day-to-day running of the economy. Instead, he has delegated economic management to a few respected officials, most importantly, Carlos Dominguez as finance minister, who has provided reassurance to investors concerned about Duterte’s war on drugs and other controversial policies,” Capital Economics noted.

It pointed to two achievements of the Duterte administration so far: the ambitious “Build, Build, Build” infrastructure program, and the comprehensive tax reform program, the first package of which was signed into law, the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act or TRAIN Law, by the President in December.

It noted that spending on infrastructure was expected to hit 5.3 percent of GDP this year and more than 7 percent by 2022, up from 4.1 percent in 2016.

“If it is to achieve this target while keeping the budget deficit within the 3-percent-of-GDP ceiling, the government will need to raise more revenue,” Capital Economics said, noting that the government was making progress in this area given the TRAIN Law.

However, it noted that the massive infrastructure push and tax reform had also “[created] some problems” to the economy.

“The first has been a big increase in inflation. Following the increase in taxes at the start of the year, inflation now stands at a seven-year high. The infrastructure drive has also led to a surge in imports of capital goods, which has contributed to the sharp deterioration in the country’s current account position and put the currency under downward pressure,” it said.

As of end-May, the headline inflation rate averaged 4.1 percent, breaching the government’s 2-4 percent target for the year.

The peso slid to nearly 12-year lows against the dollar in recent weeks.

“A longer term concern is Duterte’s erratic and crass leadership style, which is showing signs of putting off investors,” Capital Economics said.

A “bigger” worry for businessmen was “a string of inflammatory comments and policy changes by Duterte that have raised concerns in the minds of investors over the President’s judgement and commitment to the rule of law,” it said.

“The President’s war on drugs, which has claimed an estimated 20,000 lives, has generated negative headlines across the world. Duterte’s threat to upend the country’s foreign policy by ‘opening an alliance’ with China risks undermining its much more important relationship with the US. Threats to declare martial law across the whole country and the sacking of the country’s chief justice have led to worrying comparisons with the disastrous presidency of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos,” Capital Economics said.

“The Philippines’ own history shows how poor leadership and political uncertainty can hold back an economy. The biggest risk for the Philippines is that history now repeats itself. There are already signs that things are taking a turn for the worse,” it said.

Capital economics said that since Mr. Duterte came to power, the stock market had underperformed, inflows into the country’s equity market had dropped, while pledges of foreign direct investment had fallen, Capital Economics said. “If investment starts to slow sharply, medium-term growth prospects will suffer.”

“So far, there does not appear to have been much impact on growth. The economy remains one of the fastest growing in the region. Over the next year, the economy should continue to grow rapidly, helped by strong export demand, rapid credit growth, buoyant consumer sentiment and big increases in government spending,” it added.

Read more: http://business.inquirer.net/253091/dutertes-erratic-crass-leadership-style-seen-putting-off-investors#ixzz5LyDCL0xU

“BUILD, BUILD , BUILD” = “BORROW, BORROW, BORROW” = “UTANG, UTANG, UTANG”

“Give me 21 years of (unchecked) presidency, and I will build you more infrastructure than all your presidents combined.

“It’s easy. All you have to do is borrow all the money for it, claim all the credit as if you paid for it, then let three generations pay the debt with massive interest.

“Then when my successors can’t build anything, since they have to pay my gigantic debt, you will hate them and remember me as the best president ever.”—Richard Heydarian

http://politics.com.ph/wanna-remembered-best-ph-president-ever-dlsus-richard-heydarian-tells/

 

—Richard Heydarian, “Wanna be remembered as the best PH President ever? DLSU’s Richard Heydarian tells how,” Politiko, December 4, 2016