The Rise of the Caudillo & His Dialectics

Cross posted over at Filipino Voices. Check it out at :http://filipinovoices.com/the-rise-of-the-pinoy-ubermensch

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.