(Conference Paper, PHAVISMINDA Conference, Visayas State University, 2013)
Political relations define the state
of affairs of a nation. Where a country is immature politically, its people will
naturally desire or cry for justice from their government. The poor, who lack
the requisite resources for a life well-lived, have no other means except to
kneel before their leaders. Development is impossible if people are denied access to or are excluded from the just distribution of social goods. People starving and queuing
for food assistance indicate the enormous inequalities that systemic political
elitism can create.
President Ferdinand Marcos remains to be
the fitting figure of this country’s eternal damnation. He took away from the
traditional oligarchs the total control of the national economy. But his reason
for doing so is to systematically steal from the Filipino people. While it is
true that he built many projects, he also plunged the country into deep debt.
The insatiable greed of the Marcos dictatorship essentially wiped out any
democratic gains after the Second World War. Furthermore, this crime and injustice
extends to the rapacious exploitation of the country’s natural resources. Marites
Vitug writes:
In the 1980s, the Philippines had one of the worst
deforestation rates in the Asia-Pacific region, losing on an average of 316,000
hectares of forest a year from 1980 to 1990 (ADB 1994)…To a great extent, the
presence of loggers in the national legislature demonstrated the traditional
ties between political power and access to the country’s natural resources.
Vitug adds that “this was most blatant
during the era of President Marcos from 1965 to early 1986, when the number of
licenses to log vast forest areas called timber license agreements, or TLAs,
soared to a high of more than 400,” noting further that, “Marcos used TLAs as a
tool for political patronage, dispensing it to relatives, friends, and
supporters.”[1] Now, why
this problem? In point of fact, influential and wealthy families, including some
moneyed prominent names, have ruled and will continue to rule this land. The
scions of the landed few, educated in exclusive schools, are seen as a cut
above the rest in terms of leadership potential. There is no level playing
field in the opportunities for governance. This makes the common Filipino an
idiot on the very day he casts his vote. He has no choice. We live in a
shattered nation. Professor Lukas Kaelin writes that in the Philippines, "all is in the family."
A Politically
Disarticulated Country
Consciously or otherwise, the majority
thinks that in order for the ordinary Filipino to emerge from the
callous exigencies of his unwanted existence, he looks up to some demi-gods who
will rescue him from a meaningless and boring life. This is the reason why many
Filipinos, the masses most especially, worship their political idols. Where a
state is weak and dysfunctional, the element of trust and personalism sets into
the picture. Policies are mere abstractions for the common Filipino. He sees
results in his connections. He therefore seeks to establish and secure
connections rather than help build his nation.
While it is a particular truism that
we must build this life in which we live brick by brick, we have to acknowledge
that this nation is forged in the blood and tears of men and women who
willingly sacrifice themselves so that others may live. The harsh reality
though is that whatever gains we have achieved in the last fifty years or so,
these have been slowly decimated by our leaders who steal with impunity from
our people and by the ruling class who continue to take advantage of the
innocence of a dynamic but religiously isolated young population.
The dictatorship of the old order has
destroyed this country no end. It has rendered electoral exercises a mere moro-moro featuring the most popular and
the moneyed. The uncanny ways that many of our intelligent but morally
incompetent politicians take advantage of their position and power extends to
this very day. Some glimmer of hope came into being in 1986 after the first
EDSA Revolution. Still, EDSA was a massive failure on many fronts, including in
the area of environmental justice. Vitug cites the case of illegal logging in
the country:
“The transition to democracy during the Aquino and Ramos
administration spawned reforms in the logging industry. Under each
administration there was considerable consensus on the need for forest policy
reform. The major obstacles in the reform process lay in actually implementing
policy. What blocked implementation or made it difficult were and continue to
be, pressures from vested interests in Congress and other politicians…”[3]
The plunder of our natural resources contributes
in a very huge way to the suffering that our people have to endure in their day
to day hand-to-mouth existence. The lack of environmental sustainability deeply
contributes to the unavailability of livelihood and employment opportunities in
the mostly underdeveloped but overly exploited rural communities in the country’s
poorest provinces.
Incidentally, the above is not what the
fundamental law of the land envisions. Article II, Section 26 of the 1987
Constitution clearly states that “The State shall protect and advance the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature”, but this has been blatantly violated by those in position in their
despicable display of brute force and clout. According to Atty. Ruben Carranza,
“the constitutional precepts are clear. But they are also subject to
implementation by a time-bound bureaucracy dominated by traditional
politicians, who in turn, are largely controlled or motivated by big business
interest.”[4]
We have to examine, however, why this
is the case from the point of view of political theory. We can continue to live
in the beauty of an abstract world, but sooner or later, we have to confront
that praxis is more difficult than the most
elegant of theories. Young men and women can continue to dream and hope that
their ideals of a better life will be fulfilled, but somewhere along the way
they have to meet the truth and accept the fact that the country in which we
live is not an ideal place to be. But we have no option. We have to re-build
the shattered dignity of our nation.
While it is true that “what the state
needs from the citizenry cannot be secured by coercion, but only cooperation
and self-restraint in the exercise of private power”[5], most of our leaders, however, desire
that most Filipinos remain uninformed and apathetic so that the former can
continue with its own ways of manipulation. One example of which is the
undeniable power of Imperial Manila. Consider the fact that all appointments
with the rank of a regional or provincial director have to be signed by the
President. In a country as geographically disarticulated as the Philippines ,
this is a tremendous task if such is given its due moral and honest
consideration. The fact of the matter, however, is that appointments sometimes
are given on the basis of political accommodation. Commitment to public service
is no more than an after-thought.
The above is the
implication of the situation when the families of the few and powerful
political elites rule, thereby contributing to what Prof. Kaelin calls the
“demonization of the State”. As such, according to Dr. Jose V. Abueva, “in a
nation of ethnic, linguistic and social diversity, and social inequality, there
are varying degrees of resentment towards a highly centralized and
Manila-centric governance”.[6] This
explains the Moro rebellion and the communist insurgency. He adds,
Many Muslims resent their relative poverty, exclusion
and underdevelopment and the political and cultural dominance of the
Christians; thus the perennial Moro struggle for political and cultural
autonomy, if not secession…The Maoist Communist rebellion dates back to 1968,
succeeding the Soviet-oriented communism that began decades earlier. The
rebellion is partly ideological – based on social inequities and injustice…[7]
Professor Alex Magno has explained on
many occasions the disarticulation of the Philippine economy, which for him, is
based on a landlord-tenant relationship. Forever enslaved, the tenant is at the
mercy of his master, and colonialism helped foster this master-servant
dialectic that has totally alienated the poor from power. Resigned to his fate,
the poor Filipino does not believe his country has something for him. He thinks
that he is a slave even in his land of birth. Professor Randy David explains that if only Filipinos understood that the future of one's family depended on the progress of the country, then he would not cheat on his taxes and would consider giving what he has as a contribution to the country's growth.
A Weak State
of Transactional Leaders
The Philippines is not a democratic
country. What we have are dysfunctional political institutions. They are not
irreparably damaged, but because we have a badly debased political culture, any
type of moral reform will not make societal change imminent. Thus, this
dysfunction advances the opportunity for corruption. Our weak state sows the
seed to what Abueva calls transactional leaders. Transactional leaders exist
only in order to derive profit from any form of political relations. Alliances
are formed on the basis of political convenience. While politicians forgive and
forget each other, the indelible scar on the diminished life of the masses
haunts them and the children of their children. Dr. Abueva writes:
Our weak nation and soft state are clearly related to our leaders who use their power and authority more to serve their private and political interests, rather than to promote the common good.[9]
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
states that the “Philippines
is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them”. (Article II, Section 1) But this is
not the political reality because our leaders and their cahoots in business
engage in their rent-seeking ways in order to extract everything from the blood
and sweat of the Filipino. The problem is not only a matter of representation
nor of recognition. There exists some kind of a demonic machine out there that
systematically exploits and takes advantage of the powerless majority. The
result – people are excluded from growth and development, inevitably resigned
to their fate, hopeless and without a future.
Still, this situation is being
exploited by some who prophesy that their genius is some kind of a silver
bullet that the poor needs. This reminds me of Ludwig Feuerbach – for God to be
good, man has to view himself as wicked. The moment someone projects himself as
intelligent, then that makes his listener mentally poor. This leader instantly
becomes his salvation. In truth, this intelligent savior has offered nothing
but motherhood statements about jobs, education and housing. Somewhere in the
woods and the jungle of city life, the common man is concerned about where to
get the next meal for his brood of five.
A real democracy exists when
institutions function for the good of the people. Transactional leaders do not
want to change the system because they profit from the status quo. Reform, however,
cannot begin from the top. It must begin from where real power emanates – the people
themselves. But we do not need the children from the old order because they are
a product of our original oppressors. What is happening is that their children
or grandchildren have now suddenly become the saviors of the poor victims of an
oligarchic economic and socio-political system. Can we expect these people to
rectify the errors of natural lottery?
If the leaders we produce are nothing
but those that come from the most exclusive of schools, then we shall have
failed to truly democratize leadership and public service. Democracy, to be
truly effective, must work for the common man and not only for the talented
few. Former President Fidel V. Ramos succinctly puts it this way:
Under dictatorial rule, people need not think – need not
choose – need not make up their minds or give their consent. All they need to
do is to follow. By contrast, a democracy cannot survive without civic virtue.
The political challenge for people around the world today is not just to
replace authoritarian regimes by democratic ones. Beyond this, it is to make
democracy work for ordinary people.[10]
A liberal democracy may not be
possible for a society of devils, but nor does it require a society of angels.[11] What we need is a critical mass of
people who still believe in the decency of human life and that the Filipino
nation still has a future. This will require the overhaul of our oligarchic
economic system in order to achieve an all-inclusive growth for our people. To
achieve this, the political order must be reformed by means of establishing
authentic people’s parties where ordinary citizens can participate in creating
the political agenda and ergo, in state decision-making.
Conclusion
Solving our problems will require dismantling the dominance of the political elite who manipulate the
consciousness of the masses. Any real democracy means that each and every
individual possesses the power to realize his desire to be, which means,
loosely translated, that he has the opportunity to acquire a decent life and
provide for the well-being of his family without fear of losing it. Thus, instead of being the instrument toward the achievement of the
greater value of human freedom, the state in various instances of a poor man's life has simply become its irreverent obstacle.
[1] Marites
Vitug, Forest Policy and National
Politics, in Forest Policy and Politics in the Philippines , ed. Peter Utting (Quezon City : ADMU Press,
2000), 11-14.
[2] Lukas
Kaelin, The Problem of Family
Politics, Philippine Daily Inquirer Commentary. Retrieved April 23, 2013. http://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/lukas-kaelin#ixzz2RGImoig6
[3] Marites
Vitug, Forest Policy and National
Politics, in Forest Policy and Politics in the Philippines
[4] Atty.
Ruben Carranza, Energy Development and
its Impact on the Environment, in The Economy or the Environment, Maribeth
Reyes, et al, eds. (Manila: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 1993).
[5] Alan Cairns and Cynthia Williams, Constitutionalism, Citizenship and
Society in Canada
[6] Jose V.
Abueva, The State of our
Nation and Democracy in 2010, Governance Folder, 2011, 3.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Randy David, Citizenship,
Philippine Daily Inquirer Commentary. Retrieved April 23, 2013. http://opinion.inquirer.net/50919/citizenship#ixzz2RGHjAXph
[9] Abueva,
2011, 5.
[10] Fidel V. Ramos, Democracy
and the East Asian Crisis, Inaugural Address at the Center for Democratic
Institutions, ANU, Canberra, November 26, 1998, 2.
