People Power – Pinoy Style is indeed our “commonstory“. Scarier still, it is “our ticket to redemption” and our “magic talisman to reclaim freedom”. Our need to “cling to it with all our might”, it seems, is understandable when one considers that there is nothing that the limited collective faculties for imagination of our society — even among our elite “thinkers” — can produce that can substantiate any real hope for a different Philippines, much less a prosperous one existing somewhere out there in the future.
The concept of the Edsa “Revolution” persists as a mighty symbol in Philippine society in the same way the Jeepney continues to be King of the Road in Philippine cities. Both relics of former bursts of “ingenuity” (using the low bar by which we tend to define such terms) have become pathetic corrupted perversions. The irony here is that while Edsa “Revolutions” are pitched to the public as anathema to people corrupted by power (presumably because they monopolised said power), it itself has become a cultural artefact corrupted and perverted by a 23-year monopoly over our collective regard for what “democracy” is in essence.
Our perverted concept of the essence of democracy can be summarised in the following myths we stubbornly latch on to:
:D Non-violence is always superior to violence.
:D Pinoy-style People Power is the “revolutionary” road Filipinos took to “winning” our “freedom”
Puh-leeze.
FIRST OF ALL, everything in this world worth winning (in the timescales used to measure significant human breakthroughs) was won using the sword. We will note that the wealthiest and most powerful societies today had strong and ancient martial traditions — Japan, China, Germany, Britain, and France. The spawn of the latter three — America — inherited and carried on this military prowess.
So, benign0, a guy like Dean Jorge Bocobo might ask, does that mean that we need to go home, pick up our itaks, palo-palos and paltiks, storm Malacanang, hogtie the President, and lead her (or for that matter him — as I expect this article to be timelessly relevant 20 years from now) out to the street to be forced to listen to Regine Velasquez’s singing until rescued by death?
To which I’d say yes, that is, if we happened to be in the process of inventing “democracy”.
The fact is, and SECONDLY, this “democracy” we imagine ourselves to have “won” in 1986 has, for the last 200 years already been a well-branded and shrinkwrapped product that had been developed over more than 1,000 years whose “research and development” was funded by blood spilt on the battlefields and ancient city streets of Western Europe. The model or flavour we picked off the shelf in 1946 (and supposedly “re-won” in 1986) was a refinement that American blood paid for. The opportunity to be real heroes for “democracy” has already passed.
Indeed, there is nothing to be “won” — only something to be implemented.
Our “experts” will have us believe that there is a “fight” to be “won” and that “people power” is our “weapon”. Being the collective fools that we are, we’ve lapped up that laughable tagline for the last quarter-century — in the process losing sight of (I dare say deliberately ignoring) what essentially is the real job at hand.
We don’t need “heroes”, magicians, or magical artefacts to move forward. All we need are (1) people who think and (2) people who mount actions that are robustly underpinned by said thinking.
More imporantly we need a population smart enough to understand this. After all, it is these people who elect the bozos we so love to hate.
It’s simple, really™
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
@benign0 on February 27th, 2009 11:24 am
on a personal note, i’m glad u don’t think non-violence is inferior to violence morally.
on to social issues… let me echo jeg’s thoughts. there are two ways in which u mean its ‘superior’
1) violence is used more times than non violence — if this is what you mean, then ‘superior’ is mis-used.
also, it makes the case for non-violence even more compelling. violence is more often used because it is the easiest way to get what a person/country wants. in the times where non-violence is used successfully, you realize the people/country didn’t opt for the easy way to resolve differences/effect changes
2) violence is more effective — Again, this is due to the fact that violence has been used more times. however violence breeds more violence (see the arab-israeli issue, amongst so many others), and its effectivity is tempered…
further, the damage that violence makes, in terms of lives lost is tragic, and is a real loss (you may not think so, but thats ok, many do)… that makes the case for non-violent methods… non-violent methods are successful and they result in zero-loss of life…
in other words, there is NO SENSE in which you can use superior and violence in the same sentence — unless its “violence is NOT superior…” :)
sorry na lang if i’m hung up on this. the desire to use of violence is the reason why violence is still around.
terrorism is a great example… in their eyes, they believe exactly what u wrote benign0:
“everything in this world worth winning (in the timescales used to measure significant human breakthroughs) was won using the sword”
thats why they strap bombs and set it off in crowded places… coz they think that by killing they get what want…
@Marcelo on February 27th, 2009 11:46 am
i wouldnt want that on my head either…
@Bencard on February 27th, 2009 10:53 am
well, we talked about this before… i personally think its struggle, not violence perse… take black white relations, or the current gay marriage issue.
the blacks of the gays never took up arms against the majorities that ‘tormented’ them… yet i’m sure the victories they’ve amased thru non-violent political means are less meaningful.
second, i’m a little surprised coz i thought u were a christian…
christ, even if you didnt believe he was divine, had political and social ideas that were beyond his time.
he chose to die instead of leading a militaristic revolution to change people’s hearts.
no doubt he has had such a huge effect on people. in part coz jesus demands struggle and sacrifice from the flock, not violence (how apt in this time of lent… i’m catholic :) )
in fact, if i were benign0, i’d say that people have perverted his non-violence idea and has used his name to commit violence on other people.
benigs, yes, i was asking those questions of you because i want to go beyond the way things are written to understand your proposals/criticisms deeper.
in the case of iceland, basically, they banged on pots and did people power until the government fell, and since it was a parliamentary government, it could fall and be replaced swiftly. notice this was done without a vote of no confidence in the legislature, but rather, as a result of banging on pots and pans.
i also brought up the civil rights movement and the french because all these are done in outright defiance of the laws, of authority, of the government and in furtherance of aims that flout the government -and it is entirely up to the government whether it will find a way to channel those protests into an institutional change to the status quo or not; for every civil rights legislation there’s also the risk of a watts riot, etc.
i think i do get a sense of where your criticism is coming from, in the sense that things have become reduced to a tired old script; the script, though, no longer works and there’s an interesting reason which i think is both heartening and saddening -on one hand, precisely because a great swathe of the public no longer wants to take emotional leaps into the void, but also, dishearteningly, because the civic sense of a large swathe of the public has atrophied. every change has a plus and minus after all.
concerning your explanation of how you think a society that’s evolved to be counter-rational can be nudged along to become rational, and your idea that what is required is an appreciation for, and application of, risk management (which means a grasp of statistics, of finance, etc.) even risk management as shown by the case of . to cut a long story short, refer to the last chapter of niall ferguson’s “the ascent of money” where he compares and contrasts George Soros’ essentially gut-feel approach to speculation and Fischer Black and Myron Schole’ more scientific approach (nice synopsis for those who don’t have the book or seen the program here: http://brennybaby.blogspot.com/2008/12/ascent-of-money-episode-six.html) and the result was that although they’d earned a nobel prize in economics, factored in risk, had a portfolio that was well distributed, they faced a debacle when the russian market tanked and other markets tanked, too, to the extent that they had to try to raise cash from warren buffet, whose berkshire stock they’d been trying to sell short and even from soros who’s approach they’d tried to debunk.
so let’s look further at how you’d counsel a citizenry whose behavior may have changed noticeably since you left, and officialdom who may have tried to approach (at some levels of the bureaucracy, anyway) problem solving factoring in risk, and how you think the pluses can be encouraged and the minuses eliminated further.
cvk, er, cvj, you’re not doing a titanium, are you? :wink:
in the deep recesses of my mind, i actually buy violence as a last resort. like how you make katay the hogs in the local abbatoirs–which is not actually a more superior technology than the method they use in australia, but still a means to the same end. but to be fair, i’d very maximally desire benigs and his ilk shall be here when that happens. why spare the intellectual masturbators? come over na.
gabbys @ 1:47pm.
why do you keep on mischaracterizing my position as an endorsement of violence? i resent that. isn’t it clear enough for you that what i (as well as benigno, obviously) have been pointing out was the value of self-sacrifice, including spilling one’s own blood, to achieve redemption? and what has my being Christian got to do with the price of bago-ong? fyi, Christ died VIOLENTLY for the sake of humanity. obviously, He could not have moved the world just preaching “non-violence” to his disciples. similarly, gandhi had to suffer violent death to make a mark among his countrymen, in particular, and the world, in general. and so on and so forth.
as to the blacks, they may not have “took up arms” themselves to achieve freedom, but an enlightened segment of their “oppressors” had to fight the fight for them – and guess how, through violence.
the gays are an entirely different case. i have never heard of any government in history which oppressed gays just for the fact of their being gays. until recently, perhaps, it was society in general that abhorred homosexuality. that’s why they had to hide in the proverbial closet. in any event, it was never considered a crime to be gay. the “acceptance” that they may be enjoying now is a credit to the same society that used to puke them out. there is no liberation to speak of – just a change in attitude of the society which they are a part of.
@Bencard on February 27th, 2009 10:40 pm
sorry if u think i mischaracterized ur position. i don’t believe i ever said u endorsed violence. u’ve never said so.
only that you said if blood is spilled it will be more meaningful for nationbuilding, sense of community.
yup, in all those examples, the violence was more received than dealt.
since we were on the topic of edsa I, i thought you meant that if more people had dead (the number) fighting marcos, then the more meaningful it would be.
is this a fair characterisation?
in all those examples, i strove to show that the point was they could have easily used violence themselves (as a group i mean, not as fringe groups, or individuals), but chose not to because of non-violence…
lastly, i thought/think jesus was an exemplar in this. when a soldier hacked off peter(?)’s ear, he said, don’t fight back, this is what needs to be done. he also said, give the other cheek. he famously got angry only once…
by god, you got it, gabbyd!
as if not enough people died during Martial Law.
“Lastly, i thought/think jesus was an exemplar in this. when a soldier hacked off peter(?)’s ear, he said, don’t fight back, this is what needs to be done. he also said, give the other cheek. he famously got angry only once…”
This is when “religious edicts” conflict with the needs for social change, anchor they may be in humanist goals.
GabbyD, how would you interpret when Jesus said — “I did not come not to bring peace, but a sword?”
“I did not come not to bring peace, but a sword?”
Sorry, that should have read, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
i don’t think the number of people who died during martial law from any cause was significantly more or less than in any comparable period under any philippine president. still, however, no significant number, if any, died at edsa 1 or 2.
@madonna
hi! interesting quote… i did an internet search, and the FULL context of that is that jesus was giving the disciples a pep talk about how dangerous the world is when they’re out telling people about the good news…
“Matt 10
Jesus Sends Out the Twelve
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions …
17″Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they arrest you, do not worry …”
then he describes the SH_T that will go down if they decide to spread the word of God… man, this is the WORST pep talk in history… :) but he tells them the way its gonna be, the whole truth…
the quote you mention is HIM quoting/referencing micah, as if to say:
“hey you know what, this word is like a sword… people will find this offensive and will try to beat the living SH_T out of you… see? check out micah! that dude knows what i mean! Jesus OUT!”
Like i said, worst PEP talk in history…
The blog, ‘Funded by spilt blood’ talks of ‘common story’, redemption, freedom, and winning scaled two-prong, namely – people who think and people who mount action.
If this reading be correct, it comes to me that for democracy to be what we rightfully deserve, much like modern democracies, no less requires the sword, a war be fought, and bloodletting, matter-of-factly.
Short of that, the democracy we thought to have won in 1946 and as if in 1986 is a perverted thinking as there is not anymore democracy to win. Clearly benigz thinks the chance to be real heroes has already passed us by.
So in terms of real job on hand, we do not need heroes, magicians, or artefacts – all do not even approximate the prescription offered by benigz.
Thus, rather than sharpening the pin, the bolo.
You need to read more history, maybe that would cure you of your blood lust.
GabbyD,
Very informed and nuanced interpretation! I like it.
Been scratching my head following the thread…
Is it simply about blood split in the course of a nation’s journey to full maturity or is it also about blood being well-spilt?
A nation, any nation, encounter defining moments in its life not once but as eras move from one to the other.
The matter is how our recent history has defined our society and affected our collective psyche as a people.
Our victories and defeats do shape us.
Resilience comes to mind.
There is even an intellectual inning that our own democracy subsumes itself in a far more mature democracy fought in a different front. I don’t buy that at all.
For that matter, ours is not an inferior democracy no matter how one thinks not much blood was spilt in the wars or revolutions it fought.