THE CORRUPTION OF THE PHILIPPINE ELECTORATE
ARE WE STILL A ‘DEMOCRACY’?
By: Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:07 AM April 16, 2019
I knew our democracy was
endangered, precisely because it
never fully matured. It was always aspirational rather than genuine.
After all, how can you even dare to speak of representative
institutions when more than seven out of 10 legislators hail from political
dynasties? How can you speak of dignity and development when, according to the
World Bank, the 40 richest families took home 76 percent of the 6-percent
annual economic growth?
Our proposed solution to such glaring democratic deficit, however, was
real democratic reform, not a mindless return to discredited, disastrous forms
of authoritarianism.
…a plurality of our people
placed their hopes of personal redemption and collective regeneration in authoritarian fantasies, with
President Duterte’s cuss-laced, tough-talking rhetoric and style of governance
serving as the harbinger of a new age in Philippine politics.
Yes, we still have elections, vivacious and boisterous as ever. As
things stand, however, it’s highly likely that the upcoming elections will be
the most lopsided in recent memory.
The opposition, desperately short on finances, volunteers and local
governments willing to host their campaign events, is struggling to get even a
single senator elected.
This not only puts into question the fairness and competitive nature of
our elections, which is a minimum prerequisite for procedural democracy, but
could also leave the legislature at the mercy of executive prerogative in the
coming years.
Above all, what is most
troubling is the shocking dearth of
appreciation for the basic principles of human rights and civil liberties,
as our country descends into an increasingly illiberal order. Are we now
replacing “cacique democracy” with “new
elite autocracy”?
—Richard Heydarian, “Are We Still a ‘Democracy?’” Inquirer.net, April 16, 2019
IS
THIS THE END OF FILIPINO LIBERALISM?
By:
Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 09:07 AM April 23, 2019
A
specter is haunting the Philippines—the specter of unfettered illiberalism.
What the country confronts is not necessarily the dystopia of dictatorship, but
instead a 21st-century version of what Fareed Zakaria famously termed as
“illiberal democracy.”
To
be clear, we will likely have “democracy” (the selection of top political
leaders through relatively competitive elections) for decades to come. The
whole ritual of electoral contestation has become too integral to the DNA of
Filipino political culture.
That’s
why even Ferdinand Marcos had to orchestrate a façade of democratic elections
at the height of martial law. But as Zakaria warned as early as 1997, “… it
appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a
substantial degree of democracy [elections] with a substantial degree of
illiberalism.”
What’s at stake, however, is our categorical fidelity to our liberal
constitutional principles of human
rights and civil liberties as well as institutional
checks and balances.
Strip any political system of those
elemental values,
and what you will likely get is a toxic
cocktail of violent demagoguery, imperial presidency, and tyranny of the majority.
If
there is one person that should be credited with perfecting this new regime,
it’s Russian President Vladimir Putin. Under his iron-fist rule, the former
seat of the Soviet Empire has assiduously upheld a mirage of democratic
elections.
In
such regimes, elections are simply
the means for empowerment and
legitimization of the ruling elite,
not a chance for effecting progressive change. Elections are designed to ensure
that the opposition has no real chance of winning power in Russia.
Moreover,
there are hardly any independent courts, institutional checks and balances
don’t exist or never apply to the Kremlin, the constitution is in the eyes of
the throne-holder, and civil society and the private media face the most
systematic forms of intimidation, if not state-sponsored violence.
Sounds
familiar? Well, we are already experiencing a foretaste of this regime, where
an elected czar becomes the ultimate arbiter of law and order. After all, our
President has called Putin his “favorite hero” for a reason.
The
Dutertismo ideology, however, is
only a symptom of a more fundamental gap
in our democracy—namely, the dearth
of widespread internalization of the Enlightenment
Values.
…To many voters, a president is a de facto king
who stands above the fray, and even the Constitution. Never mind that none of
our contemporary presidents, including Mr. Duterte (16 million votes out of 108
million Filipinos), got more than a plurality of votes, which came from only a
minority of the total Filipino population.
The
“original sin” of our now-imperiled democracy is perhaps the unfinished Edsa Revolution. After
toppling the Marcos regime, what our leaders failed to do was to inculcate
a profound and lasting appreciation of
human rights, civil liberties and the doctrine
of separation of powers. Moreover, our chronically underfunded judicial and
penal institutions were never empowered enough to properly dispense justice on
the side of the oppressed majority.
…Above
all, the post-Marcos administrations fell short of addressing perhaps the
greatest source of popular grievance: persistent socioeconomic inequality in a
country where a narrow oligarchy has gobbled up both the national wealth and
elected offices.
This
is why the 2016 elections was largely a “protest vote.” Yet, instead
of “real [good] change,” we have ended up with tens of thousands of unexplained
deaths, corrosive institutional emaciation, and diplomatic crises with our
closest allies.
Nelson
Mandela… As the great South African leader advised, however, the best way to
defeat the tyranny of illiberalism is sustained and compassionate engagement
with people, even those who disagree with you.
—Richard Heydarian, “Is This the End of Filipino Liberalism?” Inquirer.net, April 23, 2019
THE MAKING OF A BATTERED NATION
By: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:10 AM April 07, 2019
…Behind the anticolonial rhetoric that Mr. Duterte effectively employed
was a kind of nativism that seemed to romanticize premodern culture and
society.
What I think was taking place at a deeper level is the awakening of the
feudal authoritarian mindset that
has always underpinned relationships
in our highly stratified society.
The backdrop to this phenomenon was the growing sense that our institutions
have failed to solve our most persistent problems.
…Our successive constitutions,
from the Malolos Constitution to the present one, have tried to bury this mindset with a thick overlay of modern institutions and principles, almost all of
which were inspired by Western
democracies. Foremost of these are the rule of law, the primacy of civil
and political rights, the separation of powers, equal access to public office,
and limitations on governmental power.
Drafted in the wake of the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship, the 1987 Constitution best exemplified this
aspiration to establish a modern democratic political system in this
country. That charter was explicitly designed to put an end to the dragon seed of
authoritarianism.
What its framers perhaps underestimated was the persistence of a feudal political culture
that is renewed and reproduced at every turn by the imperatives of a social system riven by deep inequalities. Democratic and
modern in intent and form, the Edsa
Constitution simply lacked the
conditions that would make it possible. Where the vast masses of the people
live under conditions of extreme poverty, dependence and patronage quickly
become the norm.
The majority who are without power trade their loyalty for the
benevolence and protection of the patron. They may feel deeply resentful of
this system, but they also think they are powerless to change it. Change for
them is thus conceivable only as change of masters. In general, they don’t like
politicians. But they are also mesmerized by leaders who seem different and are
able to articulate their resentments.
In many ways, Mr. Duterte attracts the same authoritarian
types—obsequious before their masters, but tyrannical before their
subordinates, observes Theodor Adorno. More than anything else, they can’t
stand criticism. They react to every criticism as though it were a personal
attack. They respond not by reasoned argument, but by relentless attacks on the
critic’s person. Of those below them, they demand total trust. But they
actually mean total acquiescence.
…hearing his admirers express their comments on radio the other day, I
began to wonder if many of our people even understand the basics of democratic
citizenship. One caller, who sounded like an elderly auntie next door, called
on critics to stop provoking the President. “If you can’t say anything good
about the President,” she said, “it would be better for you to just shut
up. You’re not helping the country. The
President is trying to solve many problems all at the same time. Let’s not add
to these problems by criticizing him.”
I sensed that beneath admonitions like these is a concept of government that is less like the one imagined by our
Constitution but more akin to the
traditional Filipino family headed by an intemperate patriarch who —
despite his abusiveness, uncouth language and impulsive character — must be respected, given the benefit of the
doubt, and obeyed. There’s a term for spouses that fall victim to such
patriarchal tyrants — battered wives.
They suffer in silence, and fight back when least expected.
—Randy
David, “The Making of a Battered Nation,” Inquirer.net,
April 7, 2019
LIFTING TERM LIMITS WON’T END POLITICAL DYNASTIES
By: Dindo Manhit - @inquirerdotnet
09:03 AM April 17, 2019
…Ronald Mendoza, dean of the
Ateneo School of Government, pointed out in his study, “Term Limits and
Political Dynasties: Unpacking the Links,” that term limits and dynasts are correlated.
However, lifting term limits will not necessarily eliminate political
dynasties.
The antidynasty provision in the
1987 Constitution is intricately linked to political, economic and social
reforms, and whose implementation lays down the foundation for an antidynasty
law. “Simply removing term limits at this point,” said Mendoza, “will secure
the political foothold of fat political dynasties. Real reforms should be
focused not on removing term limits, but on further strengthening those reforms that
should have accompanied it — including enhancing
competition in the political sphere by supplying
alternative leaders, strengthening political parties and regulating political dynasties.”
Dynastic rule, he added, worsens poverty incidence and relegates the
disempowered masses to the sidelines of development. From 2007-2016, the
average dynastic share in elections has shown a disturbing trend: 81 percent of
governors, 78 percent of congressmen, 69 percent of mayors, and 57 percent of
vice mayors came from powerful political clans.
The challenge posed by the persistence of political dynasties
necessitates a three-pronged response.
First, social and economic inequalities should be consistently and
evenly addressed by the government regardless of who is in power.
Second, the electorate must be
educated on how populist politics
encourages the culture of mendicancy and gives rise to strong leaders with
a misplaced messiah complex. Encouraging that mindset only creates a population looking for a strongman patron that would
provide their needs.
Third, the electorate needs to be judicious, especially in next month’s
midterm elections. Voters should shun
populist candidates and vote for those who have solid and clear plans in
addressing the country’s problems.
If dynasts are democratically elected, this simply suggests that there
is something very wrong in the electoral system.
…Nevertheless, dynastic
governance is a stumbling block to development. It continues to constrict
social, political and economic spaces, and deprives others of their right to
political participation.
To lift millions from poverty means giving people a fighting chance to
break away from the medieval practice of
patronage politics, and empowering them through education. This will
provide them a chance to contribute more meaningfully to social development.
* * *
Dindo Manhit is president of Stratbase ADR Institute.
—Dindo Manhit, “Lifting Term Limits Won’t End Political Dynasties,” Inquirer.net, April 17, 2019
SPLIT-LEVEL VOTERS
By: Rina Jimenez-David - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:05 AM April 17, 2019
…Survey after survey, especially those conducted by the Social Weather
Stations (SWS), reveal that Filipinos care a lot about a candidate’s (and
official’s) honesty and integrity. Indeed, the latest of these polls shows that
one in four Filipinos choose a candidate “who will not be corrupt.” Indeed,
through the decades, Filipinos of voting age have said again and again that the
qualities they look for in candidates they
will support are honesty, integrity,
being true to oneself, and willingness
and ability to help the less fortunate.
…how to explain then the
most recent Pulse Asia and SWS polls where, asked to name the candidates they
would vote into the Senate, a great many respondents gave the names of personalities
(many of them current or former senators themselves) embroiled in corruption charges and linked to legislation that ended up
making life harder for most of us?
…accused and/or convicted senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Bong Revilla and
Jinggoy Estrada among the top-ranking candidates. The three…are ensconced in
comfortable positions among the Top 12. Joining them (though barely hanging on)
is Imee Marcos who, despite living in denial of her family’s record-breaking
plunder spree, is trying to sell herself as something like an “action lady”
with answers for all the country’s problems.
And yet we still have the gall to say we value honesty, integrity and
“performance” in judging who’s worthy of our vote?
—Rina Jimenez-David, “Split-Level Voters,” Inquirer.net, April 17, 2019
A WORLD IN TURMOIL
By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:04 AM April 08, 2019
…the dysfunctional democracies that emerged in so many of these
countries caused widespread disillusionment. Disenchanted citizens have begun electing deceptively labeled “populist” leaders who prey on people’s
frustration with the status quo by blame-shaming the ruling class.
What caused the people’s disenchantment with the type of democratic
government that preceded the rule of populist leaders?
It is a variety of representative government that has fragments of
democracy for its outer shell, but its core is plagued with these afflictions:
it is controlled by politicians who make
rosy promises that are never fulfilled; it is ruled by leaders addicted to corrupt practices, and; it is governed
by officials in bed with favored
businessmen who monopolize the country’s economic gains. It is a government
that adopts policies that never dent
generational poverty, and all the problems that destitution spawns like ignorance, mendicancy and exploitation.
But the so-called populist leaders are themselves bringing superficial changes to the
dysfunctional governments they inherited, without removing the structures of
inequality and injustice embedded in their societies. They are no different from the traditional
politicians they replaced. Sooner or later therefore, these so-called
populist leaders will also disappoint the people.
How soon or how late will it take for Filipinos to realize that change
is not coming under the Duterte administration?
On one hand, we see that the overwhelming
support for President Duterte remains unchanged notwithstanding the
unending scandals he himself inflicts on his own administration. This reveals the deep-seated disenchantment of the people with the dysfunctional
democracy of past administrations. On the other hand, the President’s avid
supporters will eventually realize that the traditional politicians they
passionately hated in previous administrations have been taken by Mr. Duterte
under his fold and he has fostered them to continue with their crooked ways.
Will the Philippines wander for 40 years in the wilderness before it
reaches the proverbial promised land? The answer lies in the hands of every
Filipino.
Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com
https://opinion.inquirer.net/120628/a-world-in-turmoil#ixzz6Cey5NwMG
—Joel Ruiz Butuyan, “A World in Turmoil,” Inquirer.net, April 8, 2019
—Joel Ruiz Butuyan, “A World in Turmoil,” Inquirer.net, April 8, 2019
THE ANTIPOLITICAL IN POLITICS
By:
Randy David - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 09:07 AM May 05, 2019
There
can be no doubt that, on almost every criterion used in modern political
systems, President Duterte’s personal choices for the Senate pale in comparison
with those offered by the opposition. Gary Alejano, Bam Aquino, Chel Diokno,
Samira Gutoc, Pilo Hilbay, Romy Macalintal, Mar Roxas and Erin Tañada are about
the best we could possibly get if we were forming a professional political class
to help our country and people navigate the complexities of a globalized world.
Highly
educated, adequately informed about national and world affairs, and widely
experienced in public service, the Otso Diretso candidates exude dynamism,
vision, intelligence and love of country. They are not just names of
individuals who happen to be endorsed by a popular president. These are
outstanding professionals who are running on their own qualifications and
experience.
If
that be the case, the question is why are they lagging behind in the election
surveys?
I
would like to venture an explanation for this sad state of affairs. What is
curious about Filipino political values,
I think, is that they seem to have regressed
from being modern, at least in
aspiration, to being traditional. The respect reserved for
the articulate, the high-minded and the brilliant is at an all-time ebb in our
political life. Critics, debaters and people of ideas are often denigrated as
useless charlatans.
Voter preference today
appears to favor those who are
perceived to be approachable,
compassionate and service-oriented.
In short, those who can help Filipinos with their short-term needs. Our people
are looking for patrons, not
nation-builders or statesmen.
It has not always been like this. Something has definitely changed in the way we
view politics. The mastery of modern politics and democratic governance is now
largely viewed as the sport of a self-serving elite.
This
is nothing less than a reaction to
politics itself. It manifests itself in the way the average Filipino
generally equates politics with politicking, and politicians with corruption,
opportunism and double-talk. This
cynicism is palpable in the way Filipino voters treat elections—i.e., not as an
opportunity to choose exemplary leaders but primarily as occasions for
extracting the maximum they can get from candidates, convinced that the money
spent during electoral campaigns comes from the public anyway.
But
even as they turn their back on candidates who anchor their quest for political
office on an intelligent vision of democratic governance, Filipino voters today
tend to be drawn to those they implicitly trust. Here, what is paramount is
their spontaneous emotional disposition
to a candidate, rather than the rational evaluation of the candidates’
individual worth vis-à-vis some idea of the nation they wish for their
children.
…it was the mock polls held in select
universities and colleges that, I think, showed the great divide between the masses
and the intelligentsia in this
country. The opposition’s Otso Diretso bets consistently topped these polls,
whereas Mr. Duterte’s anointed candidates were nowhere near the winning circle.
By the way they voted in these mock polls, the youth showed in no uncertain
terms how they would like to see the rest of the country vote in the May 13
elections.
…The
great American satirist and cultural critic H.L. Mencken foresaw what could
happen when democracy loses the enthusiasm of its most intelligent champions:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more
closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach
their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron.”
—Randy
David, “The Antipolitical in Politics,” Inquirer.net,
May 5, 2019
BISHOPS
WEIGH ‘ACHIEVEMENTS’ OF DUTERTE ADMINISTRATION
By
Tina G. Santos - Reporter / @santostinaINQ
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 07:25 AM July 22, 2019
…Sorsogon
Bishop Arturo Bastes said President Duterte’s
biggest achievement was being able
to maintain a high public approval rating.
“[But
it’s] a fact [that] is a mystery to me because of his utter lack of respect for
human rights,” Bastes said on Friday.
“This is a sign that there is
something wrong in the sense of judgment of values
among Filipinos — to our shame,” he added.
Bastes
acknowledged that the economy is healthy, but said this was not due to work of
the Duterte administration, as the country’s economic growth started during the
administration of President Benigno Aquino III.
“However,
as in the past, only few are enjoying true prosperity. The majority remain
poor,” Bastes said.
—Tina G.
Santos, “Bishops Weigh ‘Achievements’ of Duterte Administration,” Inquirer.net, July 22, 2019
The
MAIN problem of d Philippines now is no longer d president. Yes, he may have
caused d problem. But d biggest &
most difficult to solve is d way d
Filipinos condone whatever stupidity this president has been [sic] &
continues to be doing. Sad but the damage might be irreversible.
@notanOFWdutert1
Philippine
Daily Inquirer, July 22, 2019
IMPRESSIONS OF THE PHILIPPINE ELECTORATE
Unfortunately, it seems that the Philippine electorate fails to grasp that professional competence and relevant intelligence is necessary to work effectively on behalf of the poor. To a lesser extent they also fail to understand that integrity is necessary to do the same.
A
candidate who shows compassion and says beautiful things on behalf of the poor—something
a good actor or actress can do—but who is plundering
and transgresses the Constitution and
our laws that are necessary for society to function effectively and thereby
prosper—a crook, in other words, does very well in Philippine politics.
Most
Philippine voters appear to lack an understanding of the connection between, on
the one hand, intelligence, competence,
integrity, and honesty, besides
compassion, and on the other hand, industrial
and economic development, and between the latter and the improvement of the condition of the poor. This
kind of understanding, necessary to our advancement as a nation, requires
education and a minimum level of intelligence. We end up electing Dumbo,
Kurakot, Berdugo types—Bobos, Plunderers, Warlords.
I
don’t believe the majority of the Philippine electorate grasps the systemic
connections of political economy, in particular, the economic risks and repercussions of dictatorship. They appear to
vote based on their personal experience
of the economy, which is an understanding that obtains at a relatively low
level.
The
Duterte vote during the 2016 presidential election was, in my opinion, a poorly
informed protest vote. Notably, it was also a tribal (Mindanao) vote.
In
the foregoing respects I have outlined, the Philippine electorate appears to be intelligent but ignorant mostly.
Public domain photo
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rodrigo_Duterte_is_greeted_by_overseas_Filipinos_during_his_official_visit_to_Vietnam_on_September_28_(2).jpg
Gonzalinho
The moral dimension of politics is poorly addressed in our education system, yet political actions have the capacity to inflict grave and far-reaching moral evil affecting millions and millions. Morality that is taught in our private Roman Catholic schools focuses on the moral actions of the individual and generally neglects to take up the morality of political actions that affect many millions. Politics has far-reaching, dramatic, life-altering effects on masses of people so that political morality demonstrates a structural character. Politics is the enabler and perpetrator of social sin. It is according to this aspect that politics strikes at the very core of our moral life, competing directly with individual allegiance to God's law.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
THE REALITIES THAT DEFINE OUR ELECTIONS
ReplyDeleteBy: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM October 14, 2018
Our political institutions are as modern in conception as they could possibly be. They were, after all, copied from the most advanced democratic system of our time — the United States of America. But, like almost all our borrowed institutions, our political system can only perform to the extent permitted by our society’s basic structure. That structure is highly hierarchical and essentially still segmented into families and tribalistic communities.
The sad reality of our time is that the prevailing social conditions of Philippine society cannot sustain the operation of its modern institutions. The evidence for this is all around us. Membership in our political parties means almost nothing. Our politicians feel neither shame nor awkwardness as they merrily move from one political party to another, depending on who is in power.
These so-called parties exert little effort in promoting the fundamental beliefs and vision of their organization. They admit members and field candidates with no regard for the seriousness of their commitment to party principles and objectives. Indeed, it is far more difficult to be admitted into a university student organization than to become a member of the average Filipino political party.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party, a party with very clear democratic socialist goals, is one. Formed as a party-list organization by an alliance of ideological social movements, it matured into a disciplined political party with a national presence. It managed to win seats in every party-list election, and, in 2016, succeeded in electing one of its young leaders, Risa Hontiveros, as senator.
Bayan Muna is another progressive leftwing political movement that registered and won seats as a party-list organization. Its representatives infused congressional deliberations with cogent views arising from a clear ideological perspective. Its success spawned the formation of likeminded parties representing the sectoral interests of marginalized groups.
Alas, it didn’t take long for traditional politicians to make a mockery of the party-list experiment by riding on the inclusive language of the law and creating their own party-list groups.
To be continued
THE REALITIES THAT DEFINE OUR ELECTIONS
ReplyDeleteBy: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM October 14, 2018
Continued
We are dealing here with the same problems that have bedeviled our politics for a long time. The most glaring of these is the mass poverty that afflicts our people, a condition that compels them to seek the patronage of those who have access to public services like healthcare, housing, and educational assistance. So long as elected politicians can claim a role in deciding who actually gets access to these services, so long will ordinary people see elections primarily as a quest for personal connections than as a contest of political visions.
Though we may think it perverse, there is actually some rationality at work here. We may think that the Filipino voters support the likes of Lito Lapid out of ignorance or out of a failure to distinguish between characters played in the movies and those played in real life. But, no, many vote for such candidates because they see them as approachable and compassionate protectors of the poor, so different from the ones with a pretense to high-mindedness and competence but keep their distance from the people.
Indeed, Filipino voters are not unaware that their compassionate patrons are often engaged in the shady business of enriching themselves at government expense. But, they quickly find excuses for this practice as long as their “idols” don’t do it brazenly (“hindi garapalan”), and are not perceived as taking for themselves much more than what they need (“moderated greed”). In our present scale of values, patronage morally trumps modern governance, making it extremely difficult for the Ombudsman to enforce the law against the high and mighty in government.
A modern party system cannot thrive in such environment. There is simply too much disparity in wealth and power between leaders and their followers. Ordinary members look to the party for their everyday material needs in exchange for continuing loyalty. Leaders end up financing the party they lead if only to keep it alive when it’s out of power.
Small wonder then that, in our system, political clans assume the function of grooming candidates that, in modern systems, belongs to political parties. It is foolish to expect that legislation alone can neutralize the monopoly of power by political families. They will always find ways of complying with the letter of the law while violating its spirit.
…This is clearly a part of our society’s wrenching transition to modernity. It is a process that can be completed only when the majority of our people achieve enough economic security to make them take their political rights seriously. That moment may not be as remote as we think it is. Akbayan’s Senator Hontiveros finally won after her third attempt, demonstrating that a constituency for democratic change is already growing in the womb of the old society.
public.lives@gmail.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/116738/realities-define-elections#ixzz5WDV7cVkG
Gonzalinho
The problem with the Philippines are Filipinos: the Filipinos who laugh at rape jokes, who applaud the killings, who threaten, insult and demonize the critical, who can't abide facts and are unteachable, and who elect the same monsters every three years
ReplyDeleteLuis V. Teodoro
@luisteodoro
April 15, 2019
Gonzalinho
DON’T BLAME FILIPINOS FOR INCREASINGLY POWERFUL DUTERTE, BLAME THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM By Bianca Ysabelle Franco
ReplyDeleteThe Globe Post, June 4, 2019
It is sensible for Filipinos to believe in their president who champions their rights and desires. The approval for Duterte is due to his ability to project the people’s aspirations, not because they have been deceived to do so. More importantly, Duterte legitimizes the people’s frustrations against a political establishment that has long disparaged them.
It is not the people who are to blame for an increasingly powerful Duterte, but the political system that has failed them time and again. This time, this political system created a man who ruined democracy for the people who elected him.
See: https://theglobepost.com/2019/06/04/philippines-duterte-popularity/
The great irony is that the system, democracy, albeit weak, has not failed the masses. It has brought about major economic advancement for the country, although the benefits have been felt mainly by the elite. This inequity has to be addressed by enlightened social spending. Tragically, the electorate is largely ignorant of our economic rehabilitation—slow, painful—since the catastrophic Marcos dictatorship—and wants to recapitulate historical folly under another maniacal dictator. The expression for this thickness is, “shoot oneself in the foot.”
Gonzalinho
WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW TYRANTS?
ReplyDeleteHistory repeats itself because of human nature.
By Jean Kim, M.D.
Psychology Today
Posted Feb 02, 2017
Time and time again in history, and today even in workplaces and beyond, it seems that a certain personality type keeps cropping up in positions of power: the tyrant. They are strikingly similar—charismatic and charming but also calculating and cruel.
They tend to have a blend of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder traits such as a lack of empathy, grandiosity, thirst for power and control, lying and deceit, indifference to conventional laws or rules or morality, and more. The noted psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg and others often coined this type the “malignant narcissist.”
…what is discussed less often is that these leaders do not and cannot rise in a vacuum; they come to power on the backs of the masses they ultimately disdain and discard at will. It’s the people who follow these bully dictator types that we need to examine and reflect on as well; why do people worship and enable these leaders? What is it in human nature that makes us vulnerable to this repeated cycle of cruelty and danger? …
1. A craving for strong parental figures…
2. Assuming the best in others/faith/naïve idealism…
3. Wish fulfillment and admiration of transgressive behavior and confidence…
4. Drawn to superficial markers (money, looks, status)…
5. Feeling weak or uncertain in our own lives…
6. Cowardice/passivity/false safety/survival…
7. Power/popularity cliques/alignment with the ‘in’ crowd…
8. Lack of critical thought/logic/education…
See: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/culture-shrink/201702/why-do-people-follow-tyrants
I would say for Duterte, it’s Nos. 3, 7, 8 especially.
Gonzalinho
FRUSTRATED NETIZEN WRITES TO 16 MILLION DUTERTE VOTERS
ReplyDeleteFederico D. Pascual Jr.
The Philippine Star
April 10, 2018 - 12:00am
We share below an open letter of netizen Gege Cruz pouring out in social media her disgust with the 16 million voters who handed the presidency to Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte in 2016. (This version is 500 words shorter than Cruz’s original rant that we edited to fit space.)
You’ll never hear the end of it from me for your Duterte vote. And the more intelligent, the more educated, the more well-bred, the more “Christian” you are, the more I blame you. Shame on you!
…One reason I got from friends – because he’s the only one who can achieve radical change that this country badly needs. Bullcrap! There was never ever any empirical proof of that. You just believed the macho stories. You bought into the myth they built with manipulated polls and paid trolls.
It was a vote of desperation. And you chose to be desperate at a time when our country was at its best economic standing in a long time. When we were emerging as a new tiger. Desperation makes you stupid, you know.
Because you were angry about traffic, frustrated with the MRT, outraged by laglag bala. You voted for the one who only said he would solve those problems, without presenting any viable solution, just imaginary numbers and ridiculous deadlines. Naniwala naman kayo!
You just felt like voting for him. Basta. And look at where that vote has brought us. Loans piling up. Peso slipping. Jobs and investments dwindling. Grants disappearing. Our islands being grabbed from us. Corruption growing. Nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, the death of meritocracy. Wala nang bigas! May crime at drugs pa rin! At may traffic pa rin!
Eto pa – “Hindi siya trapo!” Tingnan mo ngayon – trapo na siya, at isa pa siyang malaking doormat – Welcome, China! Our Islands, Yours Na. Tinapon ang ating victory sa Hague. At binenta ng libre ang bansa natin. With loan interests on our side. Hindi pa natin tapos bayaran ang mga utang ni Marcos, eto na naman!
See: https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2018/04/10/1804450/frustrated-netizen-writes-16-million-duterte-voters
The worst part for me is that just when we are about to turn the economic development corner and have nearly paid off the Marcos debt after 30 years, the Philippine electorate places another massively corrupt politician into office.
“Forgetfulness is the incomprehension of those who misconstrue the past.”
Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
Gonzalinho
Philippine presidential election is coming up in 2022. Democracy forces must mobilize now against anti-democracy forces, building trust among the electorate, especially among the lower socioeconomic classes, by implementing active and effective mechanisms for listening and dialogue. Once in power, democracy forces must foster democratic values and attitudes among the populace by institutionalizing formal education courses.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
POLITICAL THEOLOGY
ReplyDeleteLet me hear what God the Lord will speak, for he will speak peace
To his people, to his faithful, to those who turn to him in their hearts.
Surely his salvation is at hand for those who fear him,
That his glory may dwell in our land.
Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet;
Righteousness and peace will kiss each other.
Faithfulness will spring up from the ground,
And righteousness will look down from the sky.
The Lord will give what is good,
And our land will yield its increase.
Righteousness will go before him
And will make a path for his steps.
—Psalm 85:8-13
“[Jean] Gerson’s argument for a righteous political order that makes for peace feeds a political imagination where order, justice, and peace come from good human rule under God. Today the role of human politics in generating peace, order, and justice is often severed from God’s guidance, but Christians still expect rulers to create justice and peace.”
https://politicaltheology.com/the-politics-of-getting-justice-and-peace-to-kiss-psalm-858-13/
—Richard Davis, “The Politics of Getting Justice and Peace to Kiss—Psalm 85:8-13,” July 6, 2015, Political Theology Network
We cannot separate a just political order abounding in peace and prosperity from the imperative of human rule under God's law and guidance. If not only the leaders but also the people are evil, the nation will not experience righteousness, faithfulness, justice, and peace but rather iniquity, lawlessness, oppression, and discord.
We are given the opportunity to choose our leaders. Let us choose well.
Gonzalinho
A good proportion of the Philippine electorate do not know how to make good electoral choices. They elect liars, thieves, and murderers into power, and in doing so impoverish the nation for generations and generations. The trolls contribute very substantially to this process. They do the work of Satan.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
There are moral aspects to the struggle between autocracy and democracy in the Philippines, indeed, worldwide. An awareness and understanding of this inescapably mortal conflict involves education in democracy vis-à-vis competing systems. Education entails promoting democracy as a preferential moral regime, however imperfect, in contrast to autocracy, while asking us to investigate hybrid alternatives.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
EDUCATION: MIRROR OF A DEEPER CRISIS
ReplyDeleteBy: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:02 AM February 04, 2024
One of the most useful insights on education I have come across sums up the function of education as the preparation of individuals to live in future social systems. I’m paraphrasing the sociologist Niklas Luhmann, but the key word in his concept is “future.” It’s hard enough to prepare our children to live in the present. It’s harder to imagine what form of education would minimally equip them to live in the future.
Given the pace of development in artificial intelligence and the biological sciences alone, our young people would have to be equipped with a robust mathematical and scientific foundation to enable them to handle increasingly complex problems and emerging innovations in science and technology. At the same time, in the face of the myriad challenges posed by globalization, they would have to develop a special quality of mind and a steady moral compass that could keep them oriented through periods of technological and social disruption.
…For people of my generation who went to elementary and high school during the golden years of the Philippine public school system, it is difficult to imagine how the Asian region’s most modern educational system could have deteriorated so completely as to be left behind in all areas of basic literacy by nearly all its neighbors. We used to be the model of public education and the undisputed center of higher learning in the region. At the University of the Philippines and other universities in the early ’60s, foreign students formed a sizable presence in the academic community. The top public high school graduates from every province competed with the best from the elite private high schools. All were driven in their studies by a clear sense of nation and a vision of personal growth closely intertwined with that of the nation’s progress.
Today, we are confronted by educational outcomes that are as unimaginable as they are unacceptable. We can only hope that our political and business leaders, our academics here and abroad, and leading scientists and professional practitioners in all fields, whether or not they benefited from the country’s educational system when it was in much better shape, would see in its present crisis an invitation to review what has happened to the whole country in the last 50 years and to urgently act to reverse the drift to comprehensive national failure.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/170547/education-mirror-of-a-deeper-crisis
Education in science and technology, yes, but also education in “a special quality of mind and a steady moral compass” that prepares “individuals to live in future social systems.” If the future social system we are contemplating for the Philippines is democracy—not dictatorship or autocracy in its various forms—then education in democracy is a necessary part of the formula for national development.
Gonzalinho