If we are to really study Philippine History, we find that it’s really an unfinished story of a people longing for its own developed national consciousness. Throughout its 350 year history, no concrete Pinoy philosophical worldview has emerged, mainly due to the efforts of colonizers to subvert the growth of one. Likewise, the archipelagic nature of this country provided geographic barriers to the rise, and growth, of a truly Filipino interpretation of his reality.
Philippine history is a tug-of- war between those who have and those have nots. It’s not just about power that groups wage war of; it’s also about leadership in the change business. If we divide our story, we can conveniently divide it into two: the part where force is ascendant to effect change contrast with the present part where ideas seem to matter. It is in this realm where the elites and the counter-elites wage a struggle, each one desperately creating their niches while subverting each other to the detriment of the collective.
Come 2010, this Nation will have to face the reality of choosing which option to take—long-lasting change through extra-constitutional means or choose a palliative measure through elections. Whatever options the Filipino chooses, the same result will happen—it risks seeing the inevitable rise of a Pinoy ubermensch.
When a Nation, such as ours, faces extreme suffering and there is an absence of vision, that Nation treads a fate worst than economic distress. It faces the inevitable future based on the principle of brute force. When a Nation lacks the capacity to identify what is important and what is not or shows an absence of deciding what is Right and what is Wrong, it goes in the way of the Sheep rather than the Shepherd.
When this happens, the Sheep will go blindly in the direction where the Shepherd will go. And the emergence of this one singular Charismatic individual is inevitable. All human societies show tolerance to the whims of a Leader especially in times of misery and hopelessness.
That’s why, expect a wrong one to be elected in 2010. Current sentiments say most people will elect the “lesser evil”. If we are now in this situation, the sociological imperative is paradigm shift. Why settle for the “lesser evil” when we can act to create a better situation for ourselves by not choosing any evil at all and settle for the good? Yet, whenever a mindset such as this prevails in a country where no firm collective consciousness exists, a repeat of the wrongs taken by this country in post-Martial law years is most apparent and when that happens, paradigm shifts of the most violent class enjoys more traction than those of the Gandhian.
The more we prep everybody up on this elections, the more people will see the hopelessness of things and the more they’ll go to the direction of looking for an ubermensch or a Caudillo, who will put order in the House. The bevy of aspirants to the top post is lacking not on qualifications; most lack the vision. And if the very ones who aspire for the presidency shows apparent misinterpretation of reality or has a differing view of what is important, what is right and what is wrong, then, definitely, anyone who fills that vacuum will make himself Master of a non-collective. Or, worst, the incumbent takes the cudgels of leadership and justifies an extension mainly on the basis of justified convenience. And creates his own collective.
That happened in 1972 when Marcos elected himself Sultan and ruled this country for 14 more years. That would surely happen in our case in 2010 if we fail to create a unified collective consciousness and expand our choices to include those who have the vision, but lack the capabilities to win. Or, at best, entertain the idea of a collective solution through a Council of leaders instead of relying mainly on One Person to solve numerous bureaucratic problems. If the elections fail, we can encourage all stakeholders to come together and form a transition government based on common welfare instead of allowing an extension of the incumbent. It is a paradigm shift which we desperately needed since the very inception of the second EDSA and which we failed as a Nation, to suggest. (cross posted over at http://newphilrevolution.blogspot.com)
Popularity: 1% [?]
I think this snippet of the Word of Rizal quoted by BongV as follows is the fundamental principle at play:
-Jose Rizal, The Indolence of Filipinos
It’s simple, really™ — though not for the small-minded.
If we are to really study Philippine History, we find that it’s really an unfinished story of a people longing for its own developed national consciousness. Throughout its 350 year history, no concrete Pinoy philosophical worldview has emerged, mainly due to the efforts of colonizers to subvert the growth of one. Likewise, the archipelagic nature of this country provided geographic barriers to the rise, and growth, of a truly Filipino interpretation of his reality.
The 350 years only covers the history of the inhabitants of the islands whose territories were conquered by the Spanish.
However, there is another group of inhabitants whose territories were independent of Spanish sovereignty, who fiercely resisted for 350 years, today their identity is distinct and independent from the Europhile majority. A group of people whose culture is more in line with mainstream Asia – a Muslim minority in a dominantly Roman Catholic pseudo-state in an ASEAN region that has a Muslim majority. These group of people have a longer history than that which is currently known about the Philippine pseudo-state.
Bong, that too, was prevented from spreading across the entire archipelago to create a unified consciousness.
The UP Department of Psychology claims to have what is called “Sikolohiyang Pilipino”.
Have you ask the UP Department of Philosophy if it has what you say is Pinoy philosophical worldview? Or what the heck is the need.
Sikolohiyang Pilipino alone is bogus. They think ideas like hiya, diwa, bahala na, utang na loob are Filipino. Who said that? Did they prove it? Certainly not.
At bottom, there is not even a thing called American philosophical worldview, is there? Tell me and let’s see if we can produce pieces of furniture from the timber.
Primer,
An American (not a Filipino) will tell you that the American world view is distilled in the US Declaration of Independence. Read it.
On the matter of sikolohiyang Pilipino, I agree – it is bogus, there is none.
It is only today that there is an ongoing debate, a search for the Filipino identity – there is none.
Joseph Fallon provides a good read:
” 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. “
well, there was, in the 1970′s called Pantayong Pananaw, propounded by UP professors Zeus Salazar and Dr. Prospero Cubar. If you will study more closely, there is an American philosophical worldview (read more works of Joseph Meyer)based on Graeco-Roman concepts. In our case, we still don’t have it yet as what the article suggested, we are on the verge of having one which grows parallel with the growth of technology (sprouting of ideas).
Oh, a paradigm shift…. a committee — of Filipinos — to lead the nation, how promising!!!!
Probably a revolving presidency patterned after the EU based on a Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao – each president serving two years – completing a 6 year term.
yes. think of government as a corporation, and truly, it is. right now, we have as a government a fat bureaucracy, not fully functioning as a corporation. in any corporation, boards are pivotal for growth. in our case, faced with numerous problems, we need a group of people, intelligent and wise and have the interests of the country at heart, to come together and think of solutions to our problems.
Or a change in voting system?
Here are some ideas from http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4260000/newsid_4261200/4261288.stm
Alternative Vote System
Voters rank candidates in order of preference; first, second, third etc.
The candidate with half the total vote is elected.
This system is used in Australia.
Single Transferable Vote System
Voters rank candidates in order of preference; first, second, third etc.
The votes are counted until one candidate has reached a certain number of votes (quota).
They are elected.
Any other votes for that politician are transferred onto other candidates, following voters’ second and third choices etc.
The process continues until the required number of candidates have been elected.
This is used in the Republic of Ireland for large constituencies which may have four or five politicians.
Additional Member System
The first past the post system is used to elect most politicians.
A number of seats are left open.
They are filled by candidates to reflect the popularity of political parties.
These candidates are chosen from a list.
The list can be open, allowing voters to chose their preferred candidate.
The list can be closed, allowing the party to chose the candidate.
This is used for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Assembly.
Closed List System
Each political party makes a list of their candidates, ranked in order.
People vote for their preferred party.
A party that wins e.g. 30 per cent of the votes gets 30 percent of the seats.
They give these seats to their politicians, working their way down the list.
In other words, people vote for a party rather than a politician.
This system is used by many countries in western Europe.
It was also used to elect the UK’s MEPs in 1999.
Open List System
This is like the closed list system, except that voters can see the list.
They have the choice of voting for a particular party OR a specific politician.
In other words, they re-order the party’s list.
Supplementary Vote System
Voters make a first and second choice of candidate.
A candidate who gets over 50 per cent of the votes is elected.
If this does not happen, the ‘second choice’ votes for the top two candidates are counted.
The winner is given the seat.
“Peoples and governments are correlated and complementary: a fatuous government would be an anomaly among righteous people, just as a corrupt people cannot exist under just rulers and wise laws.
Like people, like government, we will say in paraphrase of a popular adage.”-Rizal and BongV
Bullsh*t popular adage, it’s not popular! It’s nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense……………………………….
THATSALOTOFNONSENSE!
When in fact we are able to exist under MOST CORRUPT governments, why can’t we under just rulers and wise laws?
What’s that again, BongV…..ROFLING?
Bert:
Go ask Jose Rizal :D
well bert, BongV’s postulate is not nonsense–it’s just not popular.
Fascinating reading, BongV. Chaos is certain, as it is almost impossible to automate a national election in one year. Bids, agreement on vendor, thousands of pieces of equipment, install and test software, certification of tamper-proof operation, operator recruitment and training, standby technicians throughout the country. Any breakdown anywhere and chaos results. The democratic foundation of the Philippines is too weak to create order out of chaos, and Ms. Arroyo is no Gandhi. From the chaos will emerge one strong, ruthless leader, or how else is chaos to be re-ordered? Sorry to report that. World history is thick with such patterns.
Joe
Joe:
During the last elections, Arroyo won 16M votes – 34% of registered voters. However when compared against the total population of 90M as of Aug 2007 – NSCB, that’s only 16%. That’s within 4% of the Pareto Principle’s 20% – 20% of people put in place a leader who dishes out more than 80% of the crap. Feel free to disagree or improve.
Thus, as a politcian all you need to win in a multiple candidate race is roughly 40% to be safe – when the politician gets into authority the 60% be damned..,. actually – 100%!
The Philippines is a “nation” by colonial edict. It is an island group inhabited by a bunch of disparate tribal units that was drawn on a Spanish navigation map and named after the Spanish king of the time.
To this day, that’s all we basically are, really.
Yup yup yup.
And factor in the Moro:
No discussion of the Filipino people would be complete without a reference to the Moros, a very picturesque and interesting people. Unconquered by the Spanish or by the Christian Filipinos, they surrendered to the United States Army because they thought they had an understanding that the American flag would govern and protect them from the Filipino flag forever.2
Carmi A. Thompson
Special Representative to the
President of the United States, 1927
more at http://www.ourownvoice.com/essays/essay2008b-1.shtml
true, true, BeniGno. This one I agree.
We became a nation because of the national uprising via the Katipunan that culminated in the Philippine Revolution as well as and the intellectual movement via Rizal, Plaridel, the Lunas.
So many of our ancestors died for our patrimony and you are so freaking ignorant about it.
Read your Philippine history Benigno. Dun ka kulang e.
Depends on who the writer about “Philippine History” is:
As a Maranao, I agree with what Joseph Fallon wrote:
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.
As a result, Filipino nationalists view the rest of Asia with ambivalence and as somewhat alien. Like Israeli and Afrikaan nationalisms, Filipino nationalism considers itself as culturally and spiritually separate from, and in fact superior to, the region and peoples in which it is geographically situated.
The failure of the Philippines to develop into the Southeast Asian showcase for democracy and economic growth which was anticipated for it by both Filipino and U.S. politicians is a direct consequence of this nationalism.
For the indigenous nations in the Philippines, especially, the Igorots and the Moros, this assumed nationalism has endangered their continued cultural and physical survival.
“Politics ought to be the part time professsion of every citizen
who would protect the rights and privilages of free people”
Dwight Eisenhower
U.S. President
We the people, allow these only few Childish people to subvert our
rights as citizens. They hire Hackers to prevent informations to
reach our fellow citizens. They steal elections. They Make themselves
dictators. They steal our money in the Treasury. And use our money
to make us elect them in elections full of misinformation and
disinformation.
Freedom is not free. It is not a walk in the park. We have to give
our best to fight for it. to safegaurd it. If these Maladjusted
People who had become our Leaders are acting this way. It is our
very own fault as citizens. We failed in our duties to safegaurd
our rights and freedoms.
Tosong:
Amen.
thanks for sharing this.. indeed, indeed.. couldn’t agree more, such wise words indeed
We also have to earn the right to be free by acting like a mature people who do not succumb to the moronic sloganeering of halfwit politicians.
true, true, true. this one I agree.
I suppose the question is HOW one achieves change, how one fights without becoming a destructive gangster with values little different than those being criticized. Until there is a massive enlightened scorn of the “me first” attitude that drives corruption and power mongering – that penetrates the ranks of the powerful – I fear little will change. There is too much self-serving going on, too much power, and too little interest in taking care of the nation. I observe from outside, but see little promise . . .
Joe
What’s with all you pinoy bashers?
The Philippine nation exists! If American ideals are summarized in the declaration of independence—we have that also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Declaration_of_Independence
Our ancestors fought a bloody war and died for your freedom!
What’s wrong with you people?
what bashing are you talking about, get a grip
The Declaration of Independence did not arise from satisfaction with the status quo. To seek a higher ideal is not unpatriotic.
Joe