Democracy, that invention of the Greeks, remains an illusion in this great country of ours. The reason is more historic than anything. Our brains are not wired to accept the Western model of democracy. In fact, we Filipinos have a warped sense of democracy. We are confused of what it really means. It’s really not our fault since, if you read our history, we were forced to accept this Western version of democracy as our own. Filipinos, prior to the colonization of these islands, had their own governance paradigms, except that a foreign bacteria with a cross in it killed that indigenous concept.
Take for example, our concept of “constitutionalism” and “democracy”. Many of us equate these terms as synonymous to each other. For many, an action is democratic when it works within constitutional frameworks. Say, if we want to oust an illegitimate president, we should first file an impeachment. That’s democracy.
How about ousting a president through the exercise of the people’s rights? Say, a revolution? Or say, a coup d’etat? For us, that’s not democratic since it does’nt operate within the constitution. But, are these actions not democratic at all?
How about that phrase ” the AFP is the sole protector of the people”? That’s in the Constitution, yes? If the AFP exercises its mandate in the Constitution and protects the people against a government that harms and injures them, and take, say, a militant action and forced a government into exile, this will be constitutional, yes? And it would be democratic, yes?
For many, that’s not democratic. Why? Because that paradigm postulates on violence. Ah, so, for an action to be democratic, it must both be constitutional and non-violent.
What if the government itself creates and fosters an atmosphere of violence that interferes with our exercise of our inherent democratic rights, would it not be democratic if we oust that government through People power? That’s not democratic, some would argue, because the only constitutional way to do that is thru elections or impeachment. Form a political party. Support partylist groups (as if they have a stronger and louder voice than the trapos). Move on. We can’t do anything. It is not democratic to exercise our inherent rights to free ourselves from a tyrannical regime, since the sole way of doing that involves a little violence. And if an action is violent, that is not democratic.
How about an independence campaign or an anti-dictatorship campaign, would that be democratic? Surely, that is. Even if it involves violence? Yep, it is. One may do that because that’s a movement against an anti-democratic or pseudo-democratic government. So, if I move against Gloria now, the same way I did against Marcos, would that be democratic, given that I see Gloria as the head of a pseudo-democratic regime, like Macoy. Nope, many, like ex-COMELEC chair Christian Monsod, would argue. You can’t. Why? Because that’s anti-democracy.
So, what do I do now? Wait for the heavens to fall to me and my family. Do nothing. Write in the blogosphere. Rant everywhere. Have sex. Chant if you may. Work. Have faith in partylist groups. Run in the elections. Pray. Go to sunken garden. Beautify your Facebook. Make friends in Friendster. Plurk thousands. Sulk. Wait. While my country burns and thieves go amuck, I’ll wait for 2010. Move on. You can’t do anything.
Popularity: 1% [?]
It is quite easy to bash the Catholic missionaries when we are talking about our society’s ills. Consider the alternate, would we have democracy if a “foreign bacteria with a crescent in it” killed our indigenous government structures?
The crescent bacteria was on its way to colonize the islands when the Augustinians and Dominicans friars met it, head on!
The success of our democratic institutions has very little to do with foreign religion but has to do with the vectors of religion, colonialism. Whether that vector is a foreign sultanate a guardian of the Holy Cities or their Catholic Majesties or even the Supreme Governor of the Church established by Law, it is still colonialism.
What colonialism destroyed or prevented is an indigenous concept of the rule of law. William Henry Scott “Scotty” has demolished our romantic notions of a society ruled by pre-colonial law as in the discredited Kalantiaw code. Of course there was law and this was evidenced by the Laguna Copperplate, where the debtor was released from her obligations.
What is the source of this law? In our modern system it is the 1987 Constitution, which is schizophrenic when it provides avenues for direct democracy and representative democracy. Are these equal under our American dervived rule of law? All workable constitutions prevent the abuse of direct democracy. Example the Canadian Constitution is interpreted to say that non-negotiated (unilateral) seccession by Quebec is illegal under Canadian law. One of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court adhere to a similar interpretations.
However no constitution can really declare illegal a revolution. That is what should challenge Patricio Mangubat. Revolution is not a point of law but of politics and possibly democracy. But consider first the credentials of revolution. How many democrats have turned tyrants via this road? This was what Rizal tried to warn Pio Valenzuela and the Katipunan all about.
It is quite easy to bash the Catholic missionaries when we are talking about our society’s ills. Consider the alternate, would we have democracy if a “foreign bacteria with a crescent in it” killed our indigenous government structures?
The crescent bacteria was on its way to colonize the islands when the Augustinians and Dominicans friars met it, head on!
The success of our democratic institutions has very little to do with foreign religion but has to do with the vectors of religion, colonialism. Whether that vector is a foreign sultanate a guardian of the Holy Cities or their Catholic Majesties or even the Supreme Governor of the Church established by Law, it is still colonialism.
What colonialism destroyed or prevented is an indigenous concept of the rule of law. William Henry Scott “Scotty” has demolished our romantic notions of a society ruled by pre-colonial law as in the discredited Kalantiaw code. Of course there was law and this was evidenced by the Laguna Copperplate, where the debtor was released from her obligations.
What is the source of this law? In our modern system it is the 1987 Constitution, which is schizophrenic when it provides avenues for direct democracy and representative democracy. Are these equal under our American dervived rule of law? All workable constitutions prevent the abuse of direct democracy. Example the Canadian Constitution is interpreted to say that non-negotiated (unilateral) seccession by Quebec is illegal under Canadian law. One of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court adhere to a similar interpretations.
However no constitution can really declare illegal a revolution. That is what should challenge Patricio Mangubat. Revolution is not a point of law but of politics and possibly democracy. But consider first the credentials of revolution. How many democrats have turned into tyrants via this road? This was what Rizal tried to warn Pio Valenzuela and the Katipunan all about.
Patricio, clarify if you will: youre for a monarchy? A government ruled by the Maharlika class? That’s what we had before “a foreign bacteria with a cross in it killed that indigenous concept.”
Democracy is different from mob rule, Patricio.
What is this colonial mentality. How do shed it? The problem is semantics. Because we put it thus – colonialism – we don’t have a solution. If we put it thus – racism – then we have an obvious solution.
Obviously, the present democratic-republican space with the backdrop of Filipino culture, Catholic religion, and psyche had not worked to produce the economic progress that our Southeast Asian neighbors have achieved. Well, these neighbors were also under colonial rule, but it seems they are doing much better.
Some say its the Confucian ethic that is missing. Others say the Philippines will never make it because of the geo-physical hazards the country is prone to.
Yet, the natural resource we call ‘heroes’ are leaving the country by the thousands every day.
Let’s
Philman, it’s inequality and the Oligarchs. We never got rid of them. Our Southeast Asian neighbors have addressed the issue of inequality:
Japan – exterminated the Samurai class, instituted land reform.
China – drove the oligarchs and warlords to Taiwan, implemented market reforms under Deng
Taiwan – oligarchs & warlords initiated land reform so peasants won’t rise up against them.
South Korea – implemented land reform, oligarchs went into industry were rewarded based on performance.
Vietnam – drove out oligarchs into the south china sea.
Malaysia – initiated New Economic Policy, affirmative action for bumiputra’s.
Singapore – no big agricultural land, so no landed oligarchs problem to start with. (although i personally know someone whose family’s farmland was expropriated by the gov’t.) initiated government housing & universal education.
Tayo?
Just to make clear, in the case of Vietnam and China, aside from the Oligarchs, there were also large number of non-Oligarchs adversely affected by their revolutions, which i am in no way condoning.
patricio, the constitution is the product of democracy. constituted by the people through their duly chosen representative, every act done, or not done, pursuant to the constitution is an exercise in democracy.
the age of changing governments through violence is long passe, although certain “banana republics” and african regimes, among others, were spawned by armed struggle. perhaps, you are at the wrong place at the wrong time. then again, you can try immigrating to myanmar or sudan, among others. maybe your obssession for revolution will find fulfillment there.
“…every act done, or not done, pursuant to the constitution is an exercise in democracy.”
what another load of utter bollocks.
yeah, like that substance inside your head, shit-slurper!
well, bencard, I don’t need to go to Myanmar or Sudan, because it’s far worst here, courtesy of your idol, Madame Gloria the Labandera.
Gloria is my favorite labandera. Look at how she and her gang of misfits laundered our monies? That’s why she went to the States, Bencard. That’s why Mike, her husband, had a stroke.
anyway, Bencard, the age of changing governments through violence is not passe. The US did that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thailand did theirs just recently. Sometimes, Bencard, we need to open our eyes a little more rather than blindly believing in Gloria.
well, I don’t really blame you. Faced with no option, or a far worst option (re: some oppositionists), it’s better to “move on” or choose the lesser evil. What I’m saying is, it does’nt have to be that way, bro. We have the power to create.
By the way, please read Conrado de Quiros’ article today over at Inquirer (http://www.inquirer.net)
By the way, why do we always use Western paradigms in analyzing what’s happening to us? I mean, should’nt we be concerned on crafting our own?
Why do we shirk to that ultimate responsibility of creating our own ideology, our own system of governance, our own paradigms? What hinders us from doing so?
Why do we always quote Western leaders and their concepts of governance? Do we have a philistinistic desire for everything Western?
Pat,
You know the answer to that question. The west has been our self-flagellating measuring stick from the very start :P
Yeah, it seems that we have this philistinistic obsession with Western paradigms. I blame the intellectual for this. But, don’t misinterpret me.
as what I told Bencard, I’m pursuing the model of intellectual revolution, with the Intellectual Class as the Vanguard class, a great opposite to Marxist Thought of the worker as the lead class.
however, for the Filipino INtellectual class to hold the reins of this great responsibility, they should realign or refocus their energies more on analyzing the Philippine situation using Filipino paradigms instead of always using Western ones.
The greatest fallacy of any revolution, especially here in this great country of ours, is the fact that our intellectual class are so obsessed with proving themselves at par with their Western counterparts that they forget the very essence of what it is to be part of the Intellectual class.
That is, to exercise that power to create theories. In an age of theory-making, the Filipino Intellectual class should be the ones creating new paradigms, not rehasing those old, antiquated ones being peddled in the academic world by Western theory-makers.
We have Filipinos who excelled in the fields of science and the arts, but we still don’t have a Pinoy who excelled in the science of Politics and governance.
It is time for the Pinoy intellectual class to go within itself and analyze society; then, instead of intellectualizing, explain or show those observations to the ones who need it most–the Filipino People. It is time for us Filipinos to talk among ourselves, instead of always explaining ourselves to the world.
Not to pick a fight, Bencard. But it’s interesting that you bring up the matter of banana republics. Contemporary history in South America is replete cwith examples of how banana republic came into beiung thanks to the covert ministrations of The Agency. You may not admit it but even in you adopted country the politico-military industry complex is largely seen as having engineered America’s modern day colonialist adventures which serve as live-fire testing grounds for better killing machines churned our by the US military contractors. Who was it who said the US need to go to war on a regular basis as world policeman lest the military industrial complex goes bankrupt? Remember George W’s tall tale re the WMD’s. And who was it who propped up Saddam only to later hang him?
Patricio, i don’t subscribe to the vanguard class approach because intellectuals (to borrow an analogy) are like a mustard seed. If we set ourselves apart as a class, then we remain a mustard seed. As it is, there’s already too much elitism in Philippine Society so it would be counterproductive to add one more category. The discourse has to involve the general public with everyone having their say. I’m all for R&D but everyone should be welcome to participate.
you’re right CVJ. However, vanguardism has its historical roots and its logic in every society. yet, i’m not trying to say that we need to set ourselves apart. in fact, i would want the intellectual class to get closer to the people, try to understand them, analyze their thoughts, their value systems, and from there, create our own paradigms, our own ideology. without a vanguard class, who’ll initiate it then?
The simple solution here is to come up with our own system.
Unfortunately, and if nobody had noticed yet, the ideals we choose to uphold are democratic which, last I heard, is a way of government and even a way of thinking that is Western in both origins and by its very nature.
The choice therefore is, guess what, simple.
We either get our shit together and understand the Western mindset required to make the Western concept of democracy work for us;
- OR -
We come up with our own Paradaym ni Lola Basyang and build our state and society around it.
hehehe…..that’s the point Benigno…we simply cannot do it. we don’t really understand the Western mindset and we can’t even come up with our own Paradaym ni Lola Basyang. Or not even a Paradaym ni Lolo Basyo or the paradaym of anak nina Lolo at Lola Basyang because we don’t even understand Lola, Lolo at anak nina Lolo at Lola Basyang!
what we need is for the Intellectual Class to go on a sabbatical, go to the provinces, search the nooks and crannies of Metro Manila, and undertake research. then, come back, tell us their observations and present a new paradigm nina lola, lolo at anak. Then, afterwards, we launch a revolution.
Thanks Patricio (at 11:17 am), i now better understand your point.
Game Over, kung baga.
That is, unless we try to think and do differently.
As Raquel Welch is said to have said:
Insanity is expecting different results while doing the same thing over and over again.
why do we need our “own” paradigm. can we not take in the best bits from all over and use them?
“yeah, like that substance inside your head, shit-slurper!”
says the crapola hypocritical lawyer who licks GMA’s ass.
well, nash. can. we can do that. but, as benigno writes, its “insanity”
i disagree with blackshama.
the catholic religion is to be blamed on the ills of this society because it misused its powers and enslaved the people to believe in false worship of God.
if you studied the people, and what they really want, what if the lesson was, they don’t really want anythung changed, just for thinfs to be more compassionate and conservatively stable? then what?
i don’t claim to study the people, mlq3. I only defend people. and nobody can adequately say what the people wants. Philosophers, sociologists, and historiographers have attempted but failed.
i just want this Patricio to know that it’s idealistic albeit even totally moronic to suggest that academicians involve themselves in policy-making because that would not happen.
High Priest,
Well, well, well! Even here you’re spreading your venom. Let me say that it was done before, during the time of Erap. That academicians were asked to be involved in policy-making.
Mlq3,
If the people want that, then, the next thing is to make society compassionate and conservatively stable thru societal re-engineering. That should start through value engineering.
mlq3 (at 1:15 pm), if after asking a representative sample of the population (rich, middle class and poor, urban/rural, luzon/visayas/mindanao) and it is determined that the outcome they want is similar to how things are today, only more compassionate and stable, then i say let’s work toward that goal which, incremental as it sounds, i don’t think is as easy to achieve given current trends. We have to keep in mind the Hunter S. Thompson quote at Uniffor’s site about how much effort it takes just to keep things from deteriorating further.