Demagogue; The Philippine Political System
Image courtesy of Spot.ph
By Ronald Michael Quijano
The core purpose of this essay is to give information and insights into how politics in the Philippines operates. If the reader of this essay intends to criticize my words against their political fanaticism, then the essay itself has no effect at all.
The Philippines - considered to be a third-world country and most often listed as one of the most corrupt countries in the world - is on its edge of political and economic downfall. But most politicians are in the denial stage. Afraid to admit the truth to its nation and chose to conceal the dangers with their astonishing, incompetent, short-term projects. The people of the Philipines are easily persuaded by these types of political campaigns. Perhaps - as I can observe - the voters themselves are the ones who are leading the downfall of its nation. In this essay, I will be discussing the problems of the Philippine political system, and I believe, there’s no need for someone to become an expert on politics to detect these loopholes. It’s obvious, but the people choose to focus their attention on insignificant ends.
Truly, one of the characteristics that almost all politicians are missing is philosophy. Their ability to recognize a problem and to solve the issues logically is what they lack. These poo-bahs are the reason why the Philippine government is being lurked by money-sucking leeches. The presence of philosophy in the lives of a leader and its members shows the significance of the progress of its community. This is probably why the place that has given birth to democracy also produced a great thinker who saw the problem with democracy; Socrates - as to how Plato describes him in his book - is highly pessimistic about this democracy. In book VI of The Republic, Plato narrates a conversation between Socrates with a figure named Adeimentus. Socrates tried to explain the inevitable flaws of democracy by comparing society to a ship. Socrates asked; “If you will be heading out on a journey by the sea, who would you ideally want to decide who is in charge of the vessel? People who are educated in the rules and demands of sea-faring? Or just anyone?” Obviously, the former. So why do we think that anyone is capable of deciding who is fit to be a ruler of a country? Socrates points out that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition, and like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Humans have a short attention span, this characteristic seems to be the weakness of the mass but the strength of a selfish ruler. Observe the people around you, you will see that they are pleased and overwhelmed by the unnecessary aid of these politicians. Last 2016, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has registered almost 54 million voters. Three parts of its quarter are politically illiterate, and in 2015, 21.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. I pointed out these two factors that lead to irresponsible voting. I may be at a young age but I’ve lived enough to see our society has not much between its ears. In every election campaign, people from middle-class communities are rejoicing whenever a politician sets up a caucus to bestow mainstream promises and short-term incompetent projects. They are blissful to see the politicians dancing and singing like celebrities, their cravings are easily being met when they received free t-shirts. Sadly, they are easily persuaded by the politicians’ charisma. They kept on asking who, but they never asked why and how? Try to count the number of politicians who used to be a celebrity; we have Fernando Poe Jr, Joseph Estrada, Bong Revilla, Lito Lapid, E.R Ejercito, Jhong Hilario, Edu Manzano, Mikee Arroyo, and countless more, who mostly portray a role as a country-loving man who is always after bad guys. By these unrealistic arts, our views are changed. We no longer see them as an actor, we think that their role is also their real-life character. Look at what Joseph Estrada did, same with Bong Revilla together with Jinggoy Estrada, a set of good-guy in films but plunderers in reality. I remember this one time on the news when a journalist asked a woman - who is supporting Bong Revilla for assuming again a position in Senate after facing a plunder case - “Bakit niyo po ibobotong muli si Bong Revilla?”, the woman replied “ang pogi-pogi niya kasi”. This is just one example of how citizens have easily persuaded by charisma. Remember how the people patronize Lito Lapid and Fernando Poe Jr despite their lack of experience? These kinds of voters are proof that not anyone is supposed to be given the right to vote. Letting the citizens vote without education is as irresponsible as letting anyone fly a plane. Supposedly, only those who think critically, logically, and more deeply are qualified to vote. We forgot the important distinction between intellectual democracy and democracy by birthright. Our fancy for immediate satisfaction and luxury most of the time leads us to wrong decisions. Socrates knew how easy for people who are seeking elections can easily exploit our desire for easy answers. He asked us to imagine a debate between two candidates, one is like a doctor, and the other one is like a candy shop owner. The candy shop owner would say to his rival “Look, this man has caused you pain, he hurts you, made you drink a potion and prevents you from eating anything you want, he will never serve you sweet treats as I will” Socrates asked us to consider the audience's response. The fact that the doctor goes against their desire in order to heal them will cause turmoil among the audience. Until we have our tooth decayed, only then we will realize our wrong decision made. Today, it seems we have elected a lot of candy shop owners and very few doctors. We are outraged by the wrongdoings of those we have voted to navigate our country. In reality, we are outraged by the things we have authored.
Another problem to point out is our pride. Voters have this common dogmatic ideology that poisons society and makes it scattered, and this is fanaticism. The people of the Philippines often label themselves in accordance with the faction they are supporting. They often tag themselves as Dilawan, Maka-Marcos, Duterte Supporters, etc., not knowing that the purpose of their vote is not to support their points of pride and factions like fans club but to lead the country to the betterment. I remember a day when I had a conversation with my colleague named Dr. Wilson Fajardo, as we were talking about the Philippine political system, his words sum up the simple solution to a simple problem, he told me “why do we always label ourselves as Maka-Marcos or Maka-Aquino? Why not be Maka-Bayan”. Truly, our vote is for the people of the Philippines, not for the pride of a family of faction. The problem with Filipino fanaticism towards their supported figure is that whenever their favorite figure does something right - they rejoice, but whenever it does something horrible - they defend. The same approach to those which they are against, whenever it does something wrong - they complain, but whenever it does something good - they are silent, or sometimes, they make fun of it. Social media is a place where all these uneducated, ignorant, and dull-wittedness citizens are lurking. Remember when President Rodrigo Duterte made a joke about rape or even bestowed uncivilized words during international affairs? His supporters defended him. And when Vice President Leni Robredo - whom they are against - says “Rape exists because of a rapist” they made fun of it. Not to confuse the readers, I am neither a supporter of both sides. This is what’s wrong with fanaticism, we close our minds with different possibilities to be given by different people. Instead of supporting the politicians, why not support their ideas seeing them as transparent individuals whose job is to lead the country and rule properly.
The last point to make is the politicians themselves. As I’ve mentioned at the beginning of this essay. Rulers nowadays lack philosophy. Only those who are qualified to rule a country. Sadly, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) qualification’s standard for Presidency and below are too low. The only factors that a candidate deems to be a concern are its residency, age, and to be able to read and write. By this criterion, almost anyone can assume a position. In the Philippines, even you've been to jail with all your cases, you are still free to run for a position. Steering the wheel of the state requires expertise. We can’t let anyone navigate the ship just by being able to read and write. We need them to be educated, to be experienced, to be tested. I assume some of the readers of this essay will be confused about how can philosophy help a leader to navigate such a nation in its prosperity. I’ll leave it to their hands to discover the essence of philosophy in someone’s life. To be able to think, to be able to question, and to be able to solve. Specially trained philosopher kings or queens must be chosen because they are incorruptible and have a deeper understanding of reality than others. Plato’s words on this are “There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those, we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.”
The Philippines - considered to be a third-world country and most often listed as one of the most corrupt countries in the world - is on its edge of political and economic downfall. But most politicians are in the denial stage. Afraid to admit the truth to its nation and chose to conceal the dangers with their astonishing, incompetent, short-term projects. The people of the Philipines are easily persuaded by these types of political campaigns. Perhaps - as I can observe - the voters themselves are the ones who are leading the downfall of its nation. In this essay, I will be discussing the problems of the Philippine political system, and I believe, there’s no need for someone to become an expert on politics to detect these loopholes. It’s obvious, but the people choose to focus their attention on insignificant ends.
Truly, one of the characteristics that almost all politicians are missing is philosophy. Their ability to recognize a problem and to solve the issues logically is what they lack. These poo-bahs are the reason why the Philippine government is being lurked by money-sucking leeches. The presence of philosophy in the lives of a leader and its members shows the significance of the progress of its community. This is probably why the place that has given birth to democracy also produced a great thinker who saw the problem with democracy; Socrates - as to how Plato describes him in his book - is highly pessimistic about this democracy. In book VI of The Republic, Plato narrates a conversation between Socrates with a figure named Adeimentus. Socrates tried to explain the inevitable flaws of democracy by comparing society to a ship. Socrates asked; “If you will be heading out on a journey by the sea, who would you ideally want to decide who is in charge of the vessel? People who are educated in the rules and demands of sea-faring? Or just anyone?” Obviously, the former. So why do we think that anyone is capable of deciding who is fit to be a ruler of a country? Socrates points out that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition, and like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Humans have a short attention span, this characteristic seems to be the weakness of the mass but the strength of a selfish ruler. Observe the people around you, you will see that they are pleased and overwhelmed by the unnecessary aid of these politicians. Last 2016, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has registered almost 54 million voters. Three parts of its quarter are politically illiterate, and in 2015, 21.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. I pointed out these two factors that lead to irresponsible voting. I may be at a young age but I’ve lived enough to see our society has not much between its ears. In every election campaign, people from middle-class communities are rejoicing whenever a politician sets up a caucus to bestow mainstream promises and short-term incompetent projects. They are blissful to see the politicians dancing and singing like celebrities, their cravings are easily being met when they received free t-shirts. Sadly, they are easily persuaded by the politicians’ charisma. They kept on asking who, but they never asked why and how? Try to count the number of politicians who used to be a celebrity; we have Fernando Poe Jr, Joseph Estrada, Bong Revilla, Lito Lapid, E.R Ejercito, Jhong Hilario, Edu Manzano, Mikee Arroyo, and countless more, who mostly portray a role as a country-loving man who is always after bad guys. By these unrealistic arts, our views are changed. We no longer see them as an actor, we think that their role is also their real-life character. Look at what Joseph Estrada did, same with Bong Revilla together with Jinggoy Estrada, a set of good-guy in films but plunderers in reality. I remember this one time on the news when a journalist asked a woman - who is supporting Bong Revilla for assuming again a position in Senate after facing a plunder case - “Bakit niyo po ibobotong muli si Bong Revilla?”, the woman replied “ang pogi-pogi niya kasi”. This is just one example of how citizens have easily persuaded by charisma. Remember how the people patronize Lito Lapid and Fernando Poe Jr despite their lack of experience? These kinds of voters are proof that not anyone is supposed to be given the right to vote. Letting the citizens vote without education is as irresponsible as letting anyone fly a plane. Supposedly, only those who think critically, logically, and more deeply are qualified to vote. We forgot the important distinction between intellectual democracy and democracy by birthright. Our fancy for immediate satisfaction and luxury most of the time leads us to wrong decisions. Socrates knew how easy for people who are seeking elections can easily exploit our desire for easy answers. He asked us to imagine a debate between two candidates, one is like a doctor, and the other one is like a candy shop owner. The candy shop owner would say to his rival “Look, this man has caused you pain, he hurts you, made you drink a potion and prevents you from eating anything you want, he will never serve you sweet treats as I will” Socrates asked us to consider the audience's response. The fact that the doctor goes against their desire in order to heal them will cause turmoil among the audience. Until we have our tooth decayed, only then we will realize our wrong decision made. Today, it seems we have elected a lot of candy shop owners and very few doctors. We are outraged by the wrongdoings of those we have voted to navigate our country. In reality, we are outraged by the things we have authored.
Another problem to point out is our pride. Voters have this common dogmatic ideology that poisons society and makes it scattered, and this is fanaticism. The people of the Philippines often label themselves in accordance with the faction they are supporting. They often tag themselves as Dilawan, Maka-Marcos, Duterte Supporters, etc., not knowing that the purpose of their vote is not to support their points of pride and factions like fans club but to lead the country to the betterment. I remember a day when I had a conversation with my colleague named Dr. Wilson Fajardo, as we were talking about the Philippine political system, his words sum up the simple solution to a simple problem, he told me “why do we always label ourselves as Maka-Marcos or Maka-Aquino? Why not be Maka-Bayan”. Truly, our vote is for the people of the Philippines, not for the pride of a family of faction. The problem with Filipino fanaticism towards their supported figure is that whenever their favorite figure does something right - they rejoice, but whenever it does something horrible - they defend. The same approach to those which they are against, whenever it does something wrong - they complain, but whenever it does something good - they are silent, or sometimes, they make fun of it. Social media is a place where all these uneducated, ignorant, and dull-wittedness citizens are lurking. Remember when President Rodrigo Duterte made a joke about rape or even bestowed uncivilized words during international affairs? His supporters defended him. And when Vice President Leni Robredo - whom they are against - says “Rape exists because of a rapist” they made fun of it. Not to confuse the readers, I am neither a supporter of both sides. This is what’s wrong with fanaticism, we close our minds with different possibilities to be given by different people. Instead of supporting the politicians, why not support their ideas seeing them as transparent individuals whose job is to lead the country and rule properly.
The last point to make is the politicians themselves. As I’ve mentioned at the beginning of this essay. Rulers nowadays lack philosophy. Only those who are qualified to rule a country. Sadly, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) qualification’s standard for Presidency and below are too low. The only factors that a candidate deems to be a concern are its residency, age, and to be able to read and write. By this criterion, almost anyone can assume a position. In the Philippines, even you've been to jail with all your cases, you are still free to run for a position. Steering the wheel of the state requires expertise. We can’t let anyone navigate the ship just by being able to read and write. We need them to be educated, to be experienced, to be tested. I assume some of the readers of this essay will be confused about how can philosophy help a leader to navigate such a nation in its prosperity. I’ll leave it to their hands to discover the essence of philosophy in someone’s life. To be able to think, to be able to question, and to be able to solve. Specially trained philosopher kings or queens must be chosen because they are incorruptible and have a deeper understanding of reality than others. Plato’s words on this are “There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those, we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.”
Comments
Post a Comment