Democracy under siege

Frankly, most of my generation are sick and tired of this decrepit system that we live in. We think that democracy provides us an environment of equal opportunity. We are conditioned to think that the system recognizes no color dominant, no race, no class and no family--dominant.

In every society, there exists dominant individuals who are recognized by us as the "ruling elite" but upon closer inspection, they dominate their societies based on being progenies or their claims of having that royal blood flowing in their veins.

Those who have fiefdoms given to them by foreign colonizers or those who seized huge tracts of land from indigenous tribes use these as platforms for dominance.

They don't dominate because they have far developed intelligences or they have unique skills that differentiates them from the rest of us.

Most of these claiming to be members of the elite are as ordinary as any other, and to allow those propertied to dominate and manage us, is to allow irrationality over rationality.

Democracy is under siege, far too long.

Anong silbi ng pamahalaan kundi nito kayang protektahan tayong mga mamamayan?

Nakapanghihilakbot ang mga nagaganap sa ating bayan sa kasalukuyan.

Masakit isiping ang mga kababayan nating nagsisikhay sa kanilang pamumuhay at tinalikuran ang kanilang mga pamilya't lupang sinilangan ay ngayo'y biktima rin ng mapamuksang hangarin ng kapwa kababayang nasasa pamahalaan.

Nagtayo tayo ng isang pamahalaan para sa iisang hangarin---isulong ang ating kagalingan. Bawat pamahalaan ay naka-angla sa iisang paniniwala---na itinayo ang pamahalaan upang protektahan laban sa pwersang mapamuksa ang mga mamamayang nais lamang ng katahimikan.

Ganyan ba ang pamahalaan natin sa kasalukuyan?

Nararapat protektahan ang mga mamamayan laban sa mapamuksang gawain ng ilang mangangalakal---ito ba ang ginagawa sa kasalukuyan ng pamahalaan?

Protektado dapat tayo sa epekto ng mataas na presyo ng mga pangunahing bilihin, gayundin sa singil sa kuryente, tubig at maging sa transportasyon---ito ba ang prayoridad ng pamahalaan ngayon?

Protektado dapat tayo sa predatoryong gawain ng mga kumpanya sa telekommunikasyon--ito ba ay nagagawang mabuti ng pamahalaan?

May karapatan ang bawat isa na mamuhay ng tahimik sa kanyang tirahan---may katahimikan ba sa pamayanan natin ngayon lalo't higit sa mga lansangan?

Nakalulungkot isipin na milyong Pilipino ang nangibang bansa upang takasan ang "kalakaran" ng kapabayaan sa kanyang Inang Bayan. Ang ilan sa kanila'y pinalad samantalang ang karamihan naman ay hindi.

Sa bungkos ng mga PIlipinong nabiktima ng "kalakaran" ng pandaraya, nakapanghihilakbot marinig na kapwa Pilipino pa nila ang nagiging kasangkapan ng kabulastugan ng laman.

Nabiktima ka na ng dayuhang mang-aapi, bababuyin ka pa ng mga opisyales de gobyernong pinagkatiwalaan upang pangalagaan ang iyong kapakanan bilang mamamayang namalagi sa ibang bayan.

Kailangang sikilin ang buhay ng mga dambuhalang mammon na mga ito. Walang karapatang mabuhay ang mga piratang sumikil sa buhay at dangal ng iba gamit ang ngalan ng pamahalaan.

Wala ring puwang sa demokratikong lipunan ang mga opisyales de gobyerno na ang tanging hangad ay pagkakitaan ang bayan.

Sa demokrasya, anong silbi ng pamahalaan kundi nito kayang parehasin ang lahat?

The Dialectics of Civic Obedience

Norman Dunn, I think, was the one who clearly stated the obvious---civil disobedience is not the problem, but civil obedience. When a group of people agree on the course or direction that their government took despite large-scale opposition from the masses of people, civil obedience harms rather than promote progress. Civil obedience succeeds when a system runs without hitches. An example would be when the system of justice works in perfect unison with the political system, civil obedience is expected of everyone to synchronize with the workings of a perfect system.


When the system itself mucks up, civil obedience impedes changes because the people themselves accept the unjust rulings rather than do what is expected of them---express their sentiments freely and democratically.


In the case of laws, people are expected to obey laws that promote society's welfare and not a law that pursues the will of a few. Such laws ought to be tested and frown upon by the body politic to discourage rule-makers of making such ridiculous ones in the first place.


Democracy thrives in an atmosphere of dissent and accent. Democracy is not static. It perennially changes depending upon the will of those who adopted it. When democratic societies stop accepting dissent, it is not democratic anymore but totalitarianism. When democratic societies absorb more dissent, they become more anarchic than democratic.


The dialectic therefore of civil disobedience in relation to democracies depends on the equilibrium brought by a system that fully absorbs both dissent and accent and dispenses rules based on both sentiments. Fact is, the true color of democracies are more of grey rather than blue--or the synthesis of black and white. More of the same color harms democracies.