In the Grip of Electoralism
June 3rd, 2009 by caffeine_sparks
It has been argued here and here that we the people must live with consequences of our vote, as if our duty as citizens begins and ends with casting the ballot. Some call this ‘electoral’ even ‘procedural’ democracy. Elections, along with an elaborate government bureaucracy, are taken as indicators of a democratic society. Our republican model, grafted onto us by an external power, entails electing people in government to ‘represent’ all of us.
We have been tinkering with our democratic experiment for decades and we have yet to arrive at a formula that works. On the surface we practice electoral democracy, but in essence our polity is anything but democratic. I argue that this is because the process of so-called ‘representation’ is top-down rather than bottom-up.
Ideally citizens, all 90 or so million of us, should be able to articulate to our ‘representatives’ our views on different issues of governance. We of the class with a voice have only to reflect on our own lives to come to the conclusion that we have let our so-called representatives get away with murder. And not for lack of capability for discernment or even resources. I submit that our class has fallen short of vision, ambition and an awareness that extends beyond our little enclaves. We have yet to outgrow our tribe mentality. We have yet to fulfill our historic role in giving birth to a nation.
Those of us who have the luxury of agonizing over these matters are a minority vis-à-vis the rest of the population. And throughout the decades our ranks have thinned. The flaw in our electoral democracy lies in the lack of capability of ordinary citizens to subject public institutions, such as Congress, and the individuals who people them, to popular control. For example, the ordinary citizen will be too preoccupied with putting food on the table to properly digest the finer points of the farcical debate last night on House Resolution 1109. This is to say that a citizen’s engagement in our democratic experiment is a luxury when it shouldn’t be. To live decently is a luxury in this country.
When we of the class with a voice exercise equal electoral power with the classes without, we deplore that they have elected the likes of Joseph Estrada. We are offended that they should sell their vote without ceremony. It seems to me the solution to this dilemma is clear if not easy – create conditions in which citizens will not have to sell their votes because – they are in desperate need of cash and because they do not realize the sanctity of the vote for lack of education. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform with Extensions bill, as well as the Reproductive Health bill are legal measures from which the ordinary Filipino – farmers and others in the agrarian sector, and poor families – might benefit. Indirectly, the entire nation also benefits in terms of food security and a healthy population.
A democracy that hews as closely to the ideal believes that every single person matters. If we as a people do not genuinely believe this, then we have no business pretending to be democratic. We deserve what results from the alignment of autocratic forces among our political elites.
While intellectually I understand the character of our polity, there is nothing like seeing its dynamics up close and personal. What awesome monster have we let loose? Last night I saw a House of Representatives that was only representing their own interests. The resolution that was set to convene a constituent assembly and change the constitution did not undergo deliberations in the committee level. Nor were there consultations held among constituencies. Last night, Rep Maza reiterated that only 66, or a third of the districts, submitted their consultation reports to the committee on constitutional amendments. Which means two-thirds of these districts were not at all asked whether they were for or against the resolution?
There were other “rules” put forth by opposition reps last night, one such rule was that a vote could not be called until after a speech in favor of and against the measure have been made. There were thirteen congressmen lined up to interpellate the sponsors of the bill, but only two were allowed time for substantive questioning. Clearly what happened was not a deliberation of an important measure – one that could very well change our trajectory as a nation, writ whole, and also our individual lives. What happened was an awesome display of the consolidation of forces that are not remotely interested in what you and I have to say.
Democracy is dying in the Philippines. What will you do about it?
June 3, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Simple.
Let it die. Or put it out of its misery.
On what basis is the popularly held belief that Pinoys are meant to be a democratic people based on nga ba?
We get freedom, and what do we do with it? We create a moronic “press” and a for-profit market for votes. Pinoy society is like a 4-year-old that was given a blowtorch. It was given the power of fire and ended up burning its own house down.
June 3, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Mr, You are not solving the problem.
We, when we constructed this “imagined community” in 1896, has declared to be a country of democratic institutions. Of course the us and downs of history has made it problematic, but the point is WE AS A NATION CHOSE IT AS A DEMOCRACY. Ethnocentric partisans will argue with this, but since legal independence was conceded to us in 1946 we have existed as a unit of democracy.
If the child analysis will hold, fine. It is a retarded 4 year old child. But that does not mean we are to kill that 4 year old child just because it is retarded: only the Nazis believe in that. That is why efforts from varying sectors are laboring to put together a program for genuine overhaul in this society.
If you think our press has become “moronic” (and this I agree with you in light of their dismal performance), then do away with press agencies that have elitist holdings like ABS-CBN and GMA7 (not to mention their proliferation of, pardon the likely-elitist term, the “Wowowee-Eat Bulaga” culture)! Anonymous Philippines like this blogger (caffeinesparks) has done an excellent duty of documenting what happened yesterday!
Defeatism is PRECISELY WHAT THE LIBERAL-DEMOCRATICS IN THE BASTUSANG PAMBANSA ARE WANTING YOU TO STAND WITH. They are getting a holiday at your expense and mentality.
June 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm
We did not constructed this”imagined community” – it was constructed by colonial powers.
We don’t have to kill the toddler, by providing him with a blowtorch he just burned himself up, along with the house.
Reminding people to be accountable for their votes even as they now have to figure out how to hold swine accountable is not defeatism.
It’s just a reminder – see what stupid choices can do?
June 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Oh my god BongV. Have you not read Rizal?
June 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Caffeine:
I’ve read Rizal – and I’ve read Joseph Fallon – ttp://www.cwis.org/fwj/21/imnr.html
Excerpts:
” Created in 1946 – the result of a series of negotiations conducted between Filipino nationalists and the U.S. government – the Republic of the Philippines is an arbitrary amalgamation of a multitude of diverse islands and peoples.
This political entity is not a nation-state; neither is it a voluntary multinational association. Rather, it constitutes a new, post World War II, colonial order centered in Manila, and dedicated to the political and economic hegemony of the local Christian-Europhile community over the entire territory of the former American colony. That which separates the Philippines from all other multi-ethnic states in Asia is its unique nationalism.
Although distinct Cambodian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, and Thai countries had emerged by the time of the onslaught of European imperialism in Asia during the late 19th century, there never existed a Filipino nation.
While other heterogeneous Asian countries can seek to legitimate the existence of their states by declaring a continuity – however dubious – with indigenous kingdoms or empires that flourished in their lands before European domination, Filipino nationalists cannot.
No single political entity ever ruled the entire archipelago, and those states which did arise to govern significant portions of these islands, including the area around Manila, were Muslim. Unlike other Asian nationalisms, for Filipinos history is an enemy, not an ally. ”
The Nations Within
Filipino nationalism is an artificial, non-Asian construct with no existence prior to and separate from the Spanish invasion of 1565. The extent of its dependency on European colonialism for its very identity is seen by the nationalists embrace of The Philippines as the name for their country, a name given to the islands by the Spanish in 1542 in honor of King Philip II of Spain – a tyrant, and a racial and religious bigot.
Originally, Filipino nationalism did not even seek independence for the Philippines but rather its complete cultural assimilation and total political integration into Spain. The goal was equal representation with “the other parts of Spain” in the Cortes at Madrid. To these Filipino nationalists, Filipinos were just eastern Spaniards, as Majorcans were western” Spaniards, as Andalusians were southern” Spaniards.
Only when this aspiration failed to be realized did the objective of Filipino nationalists shift to political independence – but not to decolonize. If they could not be an integral part of Spain, then the Philippines would constitute a second Spain – one which would complete the hispanization of the islands.
The commitment to this non-Asian identity is so intense that in 1962 then President Macapagal warmly embraced the suggestion of Spain’s dictator, Generalissimo Franco, that the Philippines should initiate the creation of a political-cultural bloc consisting exclusively of states sharing a common Spanish- Catholic heritage.
June 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm
And Mr, you are reading a study which does not consider asking why the order is so. They are being suppressed and manipulated by the current liberal-democratic institutions. If this liberal democratic system is smashed, a confederacy could be established which can assure true integration in the nation.
It is a document which advocates atomism, which is counter to the country’s best interests.
June 3, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Bong: Is Biazon who says he voted against 1109 one of the swine? Would Narciso Bravo or Marina Clarete be among the swine? How did Vincente Omano or Jeffrey Ferrer vote?
Information to focus the action seems missing. Would you pray in this St Peter Cathedral mass for hail-and-brimstone to fall onto Victoria Reyes’ car if you don’t know how she voted?
June 3, 2009 at 7:36 pm
UP,
within the context of the conass brouhaha, raffy isn’t a swine
those who railroaded the measure are swine.
those whom we don’t know what the stance is – then we gotta find out what the stance is.
June 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm
before we talk true integration, there is also the matter of whether the other political components want to be integrated with other components as well. or will this be another round of “benevolent assimiliation”
June 3, 2009 at 7:46 pm
And that is a question that should be taken in the moment we have done away with this old systems and institute new ones. They ARE willing to be integrated a long time ago! Perhaps you were never familiar with the Flag Issue of the 1990’s, however idiotic it appeared.
June 3, 2009 at 8:58 pm
BongV,
By my question I meant that Rizal was the first to use the word “Filipino” to mean ALL inhabitants of the Philippine islands – not Spaniards born here.
That act of naming was a radical thing. It claims our identity. It was an important step in “imagining our community” (Benedict Anderson) independent of the colonial power.
So, it is not fair to say that this imagined community was grafted onto us by Spaniards. We were just a bunch of islands the empire was administering to mine resources, to serve as Asian outpost and to sell exports to. In the eyes of the Spaniards, we were not a ‘community’ in the sense used by then nationalists.
The ‘artificiality’ of a ‘people’ does not just apply to the Philippines. It applies to all nations of the world today. And as identities go, the first ‘nations’ of the world found in Europe are still undergoing evolutions today.
Let us look at history as a constantly-evolving thing, shall we? Also, let us allow for a little bit of agency. :-)
June 3, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Identity a’ight – Filipino by its name alone – a SUBJECT, subject to the whims of a bigot and a tyrant – exactly!
June 4, 2009 at 12:24 am
Billions of people on planet earth are living in ignorance. Before your very eyes, politicians are advancing a global plan. Since the time of Napoleon, secret societies have been influencing politicians to take over and conquer Europe. Now, in the 21st century, their work of ages is coming to fruition. The New World Order is about the centralization of power. It’s about silencing any public criticism of the system. It’s about commercializing and selling everything as a product. It’s about letting China torture students and still allowing them to host the Olympics. It’s about closing down government owned schools and hospitals, turning them into apartments, and then letting private companies make profits from teaching your children or selling you drugs.
June 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Democracy is dying in the Philippines. What will you do about it?
Pinas needs a participatory political culture that enables democracy to work.
Without that shift in political culture, we are stuck in an endless loop.
June 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Participatory yes, but not the inefficient one with a fetish in consensus. It’s what happened yesterday.
June 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The one that happened yesterday is already the product of prior choices that arose from the body politic.
Generating a majority is about consensus, no getting around it.
The question though is what direction is the consensus headed for. It could be a lousily thought of direction that takes us to where we are today.
June 3, 2009 at 7:42 pm
The definition of democracy is NOT the rule of the majority, if I may stress. We seem too faithful in these flawed systems when alternatives are already possible.
And these alternatives are dictated by circumstance. And these alternatives dictate that we do away with such a Congress now, with the means dictated by what the situation shows the best path to take is.
This sounds too risky and vague, but the very situation we are in is risky in itself.
June 3, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Hansley – define “alternative”.
Last time I checked, Webster defines democracy as : “government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority”.
June 4, 2009 at 12:25 am
“Problem-reaction-solution over and over again. Government uses crises to scare the public into submission. That is so important to understand!”
June 4, 2009 at 12:29 am
krame:
seems like you’ve this site is much to your liking – http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/therevelation2.shtml ;)
June 4, 2009 at 10:13 am
Let me put this short, Sir BongV:
A dictionary is NOT a political book.
June 4, 2009 at 10:34 am
Even a political book has to start with a definition.
Without a common standard of reference, and a common understanding of its definition, we will be talking apples and oranges.
June 4, 2009 at 10:38 am
And the dictionary is NOT the real reference to it. Political jargon has its own definitions defined by those who study and practice it, and it is definitely not Webster. For the very basic one, you could look at “Politics” by Andrew Heywood and you will see it is never about ONLY the majority.
June 4, 2009 at 10:42 am
Hansel:
Why don’t you present your definition of democracy – and your alternative, right here – or provide a link.
I really have no idea what you are talking about until I get to see the specifics.
we can run a search engine – and look up “definition of democracy” – click here – and identify a common theme.
June 4, 2009 at 10:55 am
Frankly, I’ll tell you:
My definition of democracy, from what I have garnered from my limited studies, is that of a system wherein representation is truly representative and the decisions made are not of what the majority of rumbling stomachs and/or greedy mouths believes it to be. Democracy is the rule of what is good for all as deemed by those who know what is the practice of politics, and it all boils down to a system of liberating education. As soon as the substantive members of our entire population have the wisdom and the will to decide, then we can lay down what this nation’s definition of democracy is.
I am not in the liberty to lay down my own definition myself as I do not presume myself to be a well-versed political scientist: I am still studying it. But I share what I have learned from where. Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Politics have them and are always accessible from the Net, whether it be Project Gutenberg or Wikisource.
And I hope I do not sound petulant by saying these, as I know these are the only ways by which can really define what we are talking about.
June 4, 2009 at 11:08 am
That was the practice in ancient Greece.
With universal suffrage, democracy has been redefined as “the rule of what is good for all as deemed by all – educated or not”.
June 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
And I claim that thus, those who created such a provision is wrong. The United Nations’ promotion of global liberal democracy has undermined the authority of nation-states, and now they seek to protect the rights that should have been protected by the very system they destroyed.
It is why consensus is the name of the game, and why consensus is an illusion that makes us believe we are really heard when we are not, and this fetish for consensus is what led to last Tuesday night’s bacchanalia at the Bastusang Pambansa.
I know this stand is alien and unpopular, but this is how we view it as Social Democrats. (With me unveiling my label, I preempt and deny any association with the NDF so far).
June 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm
consensus is a procedural tool – we can build consensus to make asses out of ourselves, OR we can build consensus to achieve prosperity for the broadest number of citizens possible.
June 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm
And I reiterate: it is a procedural tool that has been perverted, and therefore should be rejected.
We can only return to considering consensus when we have finished laying down new systems for participation. Why bother with consensus now when our system of consensus is contradictory in itself? Rizal put it: “he who is building out a sculpture out of bad type of mud is far more stupid.” (And I do not refer to you, of course, but to our Bastusang Pambansa who waves consensus like a middle finger to the people.)
June 4, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The hospital does not throw away scalpels because there is no one to use the tool properly.
The hospital recruits surgeons who are trained to use the tool properly. The operative phrase being “trained to use the tool properly”.
Ditto for spoon and forks.
June 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Simple, yet again:
Just because we chose to be a democracy does not necessarily mean we earned the right to be one.
Instead of becoming a poster child for American-style democracy in Asia, we became a pathetic embarrassment to the free world. :D
June 3, 2009 at 7:44 pm
And thus movements are already working to reject such labels of poster-child.
We have not indeed earned it yet, but these movements are working to SHOW WE CAN!
Instead of being passive observers, we need active participants and a system that allows so, as what BongV has mentioned a while ago.
June 3, 2009 at 9:00 pm
What? Democracy is something to “earn”? I wonder what Australian aborigines think of that!
June 4, 2009 at 12:25 am
“Problem-reaction-solution over and over again. Government uses crises to scare the public into submission. That is so important to understand!”.
June 3, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I agree. We can.
But that resolve to earn the right to be free comes with responsibility. Are we up to it? Or do we prefer to be a democracy-by-ocho-ocho?
When given the responsibility of choosing leaders and participating in politics, we need to step up and elevate our game.
Thinking and evaluating is a SKILL. And like most skills, it takes PRACTICE to MASTER.
Trouble is we are too addicted to the notion that Pinoys are a happy people — too happy to be bothered by the issues and REAL problems staring us squarely at the face; problems that can ONLY be solved by thinking of REAL solutions.
Thinking is a skill.
Do we have the resolve to ACQUIRE this skill?
June 3, 2009 at 9:57 pm
June 3, 2009 at 10:15 pm
So who should propose amendments? the minority?
June 3, 2009 at 11:31 pm
The trouble is our elite for generations have only focused on the “electoral” component of democracy. Democracy is more than just elections. Elections should be the apex of a socio-political system that really takes care of the majority (economically, socially, etc.). Our foundation or base is ramshackled and undemocratic — so our electoral politics is also essentially undemocratic, even if on the surface level it is “democratic” (rule of the the majority via the one-man, one-vote system during elections).
June 3, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Madonna:
Exactly. Benign0 has pointed out “Culture” and I added ,a href=”http://filipinovoices.com/philippine-political-culture-circa-2009″>”Political Culture” for specificity.
it will take some time for change to settle in, given the societal dynamics going on. assuming that the philippines is ready for change.
for the meantime, i’ll stick to knowing more about the thingamagig, whlie humming how how how the carabao
June 3, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Madonna:
Exactly. Benign0 has pointed out “Culture” and I added “Political Culture” for specificity.
it will take some time for change to settle in, given the societal dynamics going on. assuming that the philippines is ready for change.
for the meantime, i’ll stick to knowing more about the thingamagig, whlie humming how how how the carabao
June 3, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I just want to ask apology to caffeine for possibly having distracted her attention while she was busy documenting and twitting democracy – up, front, and personal – on its dying moments.
June 4, 2009 at 6:46 am
A gentleman’s apology indeed.. You set a great example Primer..
June 4, 2009 at 12:27 am
There is no sense of talking about Democracy. When Dictatorship is
already at the front door. The Dictator to be and her minions are
all busy trying to sanitize their stinking intentions.
Here are what to do if they amend the Constitution:
1. The amended Constitution will just be another piece of document.
If we all reject it. A less than 200 member of Congress cannot
impose its will to us. If we fight against it.
2. Safeguard all Media Facilities. They will target to close and
control all Media Facilities. Like: TV stations, Radio Stations,
Internet Main Facilities, Phone and Texting Main facilities,
Newspapers, etc…THE FLOW OF INFORMATIONS MUST BE OPEN.
3. They will use “Pekeng” Media people to sow misinformations, disinformations, etc…These people will Demonize all those who
opposes them.
4. Dont listen to what they say. Watch all what they do. Gloria
Arroyo and her administration have alrady lost credibility.
5. Video Tape Police and Soldiers brutalities in cracking down
Protesters. Send these pictures to all Media Facilities thruout
the world. Especially to the U.S.
6. Inform your relatives in the Armed Forces. That they must not
implement the will of a Dictator. THEY MUST PROTECT THE FREEDOM
AND RIGHTS OF FREEDOM LOVING FILIPINOS. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
June 4, 2009 at 1:15 am
Goodness sparks. What kind of misrepresentation is that? I’ve never said that we have to quietly live with the consequences of our vote. I’ve criticized the Comelec more than once for standing in the way of recall elections, so no, I don’t think that equates with your misrepresentation of my position.
If you don’t like what your rep is doing, do what you can to throw him out. But don’t call the system a failure just because he disagrees with you. You do that often enough, you just might be mistaken for a Congressman.
June 4, 2009 at 3:14 am
‘We of the class with a voice….’
‘I submit that our class has fallen short….’
‘When we of the class with a voice exercise equal electoral power with the classes without…’
Are we talking about India here? I did not know that there are now classes in Filipino society. Can I freely choose to which class I will belong or do you have to choose for me, my Master?
June 4, 2009 at 3:45 am
‘Democracy is dying in the Philippines. What will you do about it?’
Go to Malaysia during Ramadan and try eating in a Chinese restaurant during the day. Let’s see if you can order food without answering the question ‘Are you Malay?’.
June 4, 2009 at 4:27 am
flipland’s democrazy: has all the hardware but has no functioning software…
originally, a carbon copy of unc sam’s… but flips corrupted the copy and left the carbon…
June 4, 2009 at 4:44 am
Voltairine de Cleyre, in her essay “Anarchism and American Traditions”:
“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”
June 4, 2009 at 11:01 am
The thing is, the distance from the way it is and the way is should be is small. A strong, decent president would be an excellent starting point. And the simple amendment of the constitution to ban nepotistic hiring would be a an excellent second step.
Joe
June 4, 2009 at 5:04 pm
If I may butt in.
All these ideas seem to crowd to a single point – as to whether or not – we can be held accountable to our own decisions.
If our congressman voted for 1109 because we have voiced out that he must in order to bring that P20 m congressional earmarks to our district, then that in itself promotes social justice.
On the other hand if the the reverse is true, meaning, we voiced out that he better not vote for 1109 even if that would result in P20 m less of the normal ‘basket of goods and services’, then again fine.
This is how it goes. GMA is at her disposal so much taxpayers money. With it, she can summon obedience to her whim from everyone, even the most principled congressman we know – all of them can be ‘bribed’ or ‘prostituted’, if we can call it that.
In short, it is a God damn political reality.