THOUGHTS ON OUR POLITICAL PREDICAMENT Recently I came upon a series of news articles I find particularly disturbing not because of what they contain but more so because people seem to be either too tired or too apathetic to even provide a decent reaction to the issue, or at the very least, instigate a certain amount of practical discourse to address the subject. The articles pertain to the seemingly incessant and highly inappropriate, not to mention untimely, political maneuverings of likely presidential and vice presidential contenders in 2016, the cast of which are no longer unknown to us – you have the incumbent vice president who, devoid of any hint of discretion or sense of propriety, has already made his intention public (arguing that he is doing so in order to court more heavyweights to join and complete his senatorial lineup - two years ahead of the elections); his political arch rival and defeated opponent, the current DILG secretary, who, despite poorly camouflaged attempts to improve his prospects, does not seem to be gaining sufficient traction for him to be taken seriously as a formidable frontrunner; an embattled senator and son of a convicted ex-president who seems to be wallowing in some kind of delusional mindset, thinking his prospects of snagging the number 2 spot are still high in spite of all the negative publicity he’s been getting due to his involvement in the pork barrel scam; a shamelessly overambitious young senator whose claim to fame is his relentless tirades against an aging and reliably corrupt ex senate president; and a number of other potential players who are still testing the waters and observing the political dynamics but are surely keen to cast their lots given the slightest hint of opportunity and provocation. Such is our array of choices that it does not take a genius to sense why people are no longer showing an air of excitement for something so important that it could literally change the country’s future and usher in a new era of hope and prosperity. Herein lies the problem. Many of us are obviously turned off by all this interminable political posturing and grandstanding. Who wouldn’t be? Instead of resolving to fix our present problems, our leaders seem interested in nothing but keeping themselves in power. All the flaunted work and well publicized activities, most of which are superficial, are but means to an end – that is, to pretty much keep their corrupt asses in power. So, the problem must be the corruption - hence, the resulting apathy. But a deeper introspection into the root cause of the problem will reveal that there’s actually more to this than meets the eye. I once heard somebody say, “The reason why producers keep making stupid movies is because there are a lot of stupid people who will pay to see them.” This is true. Applied to our predicament, the reason why we have corrupt and mediocre officials running the country is because we have an equally corrupt and mediocre electorate to begin with. The corruption has been so deeply embedded in our culture that the resulting mediocrity has likewise become endemic. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the quality of our government is directly proportional to the quality of our electorate. We all reap what we sow. We all get what we deserve. The raw materials of government come from society. So if our society is corrupt, then government becomes corrupt. It cannot be the other way around. Such a sad and unfortunate predicament forces me to bring up the question: Will we be able to extricate ourselves from this sad state of affairs we’re in? Considering the odds and the prospects, there seems to be very little leg room for change. Is democracy working for us? Will there be light at the end of the tunnel? These questions are difficult to address, given our dilemma. Dilemma, in popular use, means a position of doubt or perplexity in which one is faced by two equally undesirable alternatives. Our dilemma is quite unique. Not only are we compelled to choose from a set of leaders that are all equally undesirable, we are likewise required by circumstance to rethink the manner by which we choose our leaders. An interesting theory is forwarded by the Nobel Prize winning author JM Coetzee, in his seminal work A Diary of a Bad Year. According to Coetzee, it seems that the main problem of every society, when it comes to governance, is the problem of succession: to ensure that power will be passed on from one set of hands to the next without a contest of arms. From a pragmatic point of view, it does not matter how succession is managed as long as it does not precipitate the country into civil war. Through his main character, Coetzee argues: “A scheme in which many (though usually only two) candidates for leadership present themselves to the populace and subject themselves to a ballot is only one of a score that an inventive mind might come up with. It is not the scheme itself that matters, but consensus to adopt the scheme and abide by the results. Thus in itself succession by the firstborn is neither better nor worse than succession by democratic election. But to live in democratic times means to live in times when only the democratic scheme has currency and prestige.” He goes further, “As during the time of kings it would have been naïve to think that the king’s firstborn son would be the fittest to rule, so in our time it is naïve to think that the democratically elected ruler will be the fittest. The rule of succession is not a formula for identifying the best ruler, it is a formula for conferring legitimacy on someone or other and thus forestalling civil conflict. The electorate – the demos – believes that its task is to choose the best man, but in truth its task is much simpler: to anoint a man (vox populi vox dei), it does not matter whom. Counting ballots may seem to be a means of finding which is the true (that is, the loudest) vox populi, but the power of the ballot-count formula, like the power of the formula of the firstborn male, lies in the fact that is objective, unambiguous, outside the field of political contestation. The toss of a coin would be equally unambiguous, equally incontestable, and could therefore equally well be claimed (as it has been claimed) to represent vox dei. We do not choose our leaders by the toss of a coin – tossing coins is associated with the low status activity of gambling – but who would dare to claim that the world would be in a worse state than it is if rulers had from the beginning of time been chosen by the method of the coin?” The above argument may seem laughable at the outset, but there’s a ring of truth to it. No matter who we choose, the primary issue that has to be addressed is a peaceful transition of power, and it makes no difference how we choose our leaders so long as civil conflict is avoided. Democratic elections guarantee that we choose someone - and it hardly matters who we choose. But that choice is something that we have to make either way. The challenge, I believe, is for us to find ways to make democracy work for us – so that the choices we make will work to our advantage. People nowadays are desperately in need of something to believe in. I think that could be a good starting point. We need a leader that’s strong - someone who can truly lead and who does not simply pander to the popular will, since we the electorate are apparently in no position to decide what’s best for ourselves. Just because it is the will of the majority does not make something right. It is not correct to assume that the majority of the people must be intelligent, otherwise we wouldn’t be stuck in this predicament. It is in light of this argument that I find myself in agreement with Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. According to him, we seem to have this erroneous notion that elections are the cornerstone of democracy, that democracy is all about freedom, and that democracy is a necessary prerequisite to prosperity. The true essence of democracy is not freedom, but responsibility and accountability. The electoral process is just a manner we use to select our leaders, but we have other responsibilities as well. It is our responsibility to (1) select the right leaders; (2) use the system to hold them accountable; and (3) hold ourselves accountable for the quality of leaders we choose using the system. For democracy to truly work, prosperity and economic progress are the necessary requisites. A progressive country will breed a well-informed and intelligent electorate, and an intelligent electorate will now have the capacity to choose the right leaders, thereby allowing democracy to work to our advantage. The solution does not lie in political change, but in cultural change – a change in the way we think, see and conduct ourselves. It is ironic we Filipinos fancy ourselves as a democratic and freedom loving people, yet we continuously suffer from the tyranny of the popular sentiment harbored by a largely ignorant electorate. So going back to the question: Will we ever be able to extricate ourselves from the rut we’re in? I think so. I certainly hope so. It is never too late.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:23:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015