Philippine Politics: Backward, Childish, Conotic

Backward. Childish. Cono-tic. Philippine politics is a highly dangerous factor that could dilute all the positive economic gains the Filipino People worked hard for.

This Enrile-Cayetano-Santiago-Honasan-Trillianes word war reflects how backward, how amateurish and how inately stupid our present "leaders" treat institutions of governance. To be fair, these kinds of exchanges had happened not just in the present Congress but more of the Congresses of the fifties and sixties. Many people blame the Executive back then for allegedly dragging the economy down during those times but if you would examine Philippine history closely, it was this group of oligarchs that constitute the House and the Senate that really made worse our condition back then.

Reading the papers during those times show more of the excessive behavior of oligarchs of old, with most of them overstepping the powers granted to them by the People and even were sources of corruption, of ineptitude and of oppression. Yes, certain laws have limited those powers once previously enjoyed and exercised to the hilt, but there is no noticeable change in the behavior and conduct of oligarchs now that merits the people's trust in their capabilities and pieces of sincerity to help change our present condition.

The "leaders" we so respect and even call Honorable and Your Excellencies are acutely similar with the oligarchs that pulled this Nation down to the morass of economic decay and social chaos back in the sixties.

The behaviors of Enrile and Cayetanos are comparable with those of the old oligarchs who overstep the bounds of decency just to prove a useless point.

Cayetano, by baring a conjecture and trying to prove as fact, the alleged special relationship of Enrile and his Chief-of-Staff, has proven himself unworthy of his post. Imagine, a Senator acting as a Boy Abunda, baring an alleged "extra-marital affair" just to show how powerful Gigi Reyes allegedly is in the Senate?

Same goes to Enrile who, in a fit of anger, waved an envelope full of "I-O-Us" just to stop a rampaging Cayetano from spilling the beans so to speak, on the alleged indiscretions of Enrile while serving as Senate President? Enrile claims to respect the deceased former Senator Cayetano, who died of sickness. Yet, his demeanor during his verbal tussle with Cayetano's son, has shown how immature still our Senate President is.

BY waving that envelope, Enrile tried to pull a fast one by doing what the old oligarchs have perfected as an art---the client-patron relationship. " You owe me something" is the most oft repeated line in every political transaction in this country, and to be fair, this exists in every "democracy" and in every "Republican" form of government. "Utang na loob" or utang sa bulsa" in Enrile and Cayetano's case, shows the worst side of transactional politics and how, eventually, it ruins relationships and institutions, such as the Senate.

This episode at the Senate should be stored in our collective memory as a prime example of how useless politics is, and how politicians are the ones really responsible for dragging this Republic down with their senseless use of our time and monies and how they populate the Public Sphere with their stupidity and backwardness.

We may have achieved economic stability. UNfortunately, our politics remain backward.

Kabayanis, we should act right now and eliminate this malady from our midst. We need a New Politics to preserve the economic gains the People have fought for and sacrificed their lives with.

Down with the present oligarchs! It is time to cut them off from the political sphere and replace with Nationalist Citizens whose missions are to change institutions and bring back the trust of the people in these institutions of governance.

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.