His voice thundered. He cursed the Oligarchs while keeping some unto himself as friends. I am not referring to a living personality. I am talking about Adolf Hitler.
I just finished reading Mein Kampf, Hitler's popular autobiography, and if I remember correctly, this is my fifth time. Hitler lived a very interesting life. From relative obscurity to global popularity to eventually, killing himself out of his self-demagoguery.
Hitler's no buffoon mind you. He was a son of a government official. He was an educated man, yet due to some unfortunate circumstances, Hitler suffered. For five years, Hitler lived in the streets of Austria as a struggling artist. He went into the military and from there, discovered his profession.
Hitler associated himself with German intellectuals and in no time at all, found himself leading a movement of change. Yes, Hitler was a change agent. Back then, those Germans who found Hitler as their champion, wanted nothing more than change their country for the better. They meant well. Who, in his right mind, would ever think of destroying one's country?
When Hitler got arrested and thrown into prison for staging a failed putsch, he got himself a writer and wrote his thoughts into a book. If you read the Mein Kampf, it was not as intellectually stimulating as, say reading Marx, Hegels, Kant or as highly entertaining as Marquez, etal but for the Germans, that book became their bible because it bared truths about their existence. It explains in very simplistic terms the dynamics of German politics, how the country was under the capitalist control of the Jews and how foreign powers were keeping German's greatness in check. Hitler painted Germany as a country enslaved by the faults of its past Leaders, yet, still possesses the right qualities to even conquer the world.
That book paved the way for Hitler to ascend the highest position of Power. His eventual ascension as Chancellor and eventually, Head of the third Reich was to some, the end result of a systematic manipulation of German nationalism. Others however, blame the geopolitics of the time. Back then, leaders of the Free World only thought of Hitler as an ordinary chap, a politician like other German politicos. Six years later, with almost five million dead and billions of dollars worth of damage to the global community, did these leaders realized how wrong they were when they underestimated a Hitler.
Is it correct to say that Hitler was the German people's curse? Not exactly. Hitler might have been perceived correctly by his own people back at the time as their savior. Honestly, we can't blame the Germans for believing Hitler. Back at the time, Hitler exactly wrote and precisely told the Germans the truth about their existence. The fault of Hitler was he led his country to the extreme, a path which only idiots and psychotics dare to tread. Had Hitler concentrated on just making Germany a prosperous country and stayed his hand against Germany's traditional enemies, history would have been kinder. That is simply the genetic fault of many Dictators-- they die by their own hand. When you give immense powers to just one man, that man will eventually consider himself as God, and his subsequent actions eventually lead him to perdition. Hitler was simply not the first of these kinds of men. Napoleon, Nero and even King Solomon suffered from the same disease of megalomania. And these men will simply not stop increasing. Expect to see these kinds of men in every generation. It is simply up to that generation if they have the collective will enough to disengage themselves from the spell and spiel of these megalomaniacs.
It's 2017 and we are facing a phenomenal shift towards populism. Many countries, not just in the Philippines, are seeing their democracies crumble under the weight of populist strong man ideas. With surveys showing how high people's frustrations are against their governments and their duty constituted authorities, politicians are pandering on popular sentiments. And the people show their appreciation thru the ballots without even thinking if that's the right thing or not. People are like consumers--they simply care for themselves.
Blame the global financial crisis for this. It created a world-wide environment of uncertainty. People react by expressing anxieties. Worse, adherents of populism tried to rationalize their actions by discrediting democratic pillars like the media, obviously promoting more confusion and more obfuscation of reality.
As people scratch their way out of the economic rut, they become susceptible to first aid talk. Most people became gullible and exploitable by sweet talking demagogues who assume the people's language while hiding their true agendum. By the time these people wake up, they are already under the spell of devious Enchanters who are themselves, oppressors, but now, people's champions.
Read 1984 by George Orwell and that book remains relevant up to this day because it exactly describes what peoples around the world are suffering from--they suffer from false belief aided by mass consumption of fantastic promises of salvation against almost any conceivable problem.
Our world right now is how the producers of Matrix envisioned the future world. Populism enabled the peoples of the world to think everything is secure and normal when the Truth is, they are being sucked dry by aliens who rely on humans for their sustenance and as energy sources.
This is our world. This is our Now. It is up to us if we decide to struggle and wake ourselves up and fight the scourge of philistinism which is slowly affecting our world.
Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts
Friday, April 28, 2017
Monday, June 7, 2010
Vibal Foundation, two awesome books and Manolo's great article today
(By the way, this photo here, shows me and friend John Tronco during the SLAMAT LORRD party. I'm the one with the glasses, stupid!)
Two things--I'm off to a meeting today in Katipunan. Before I do so, let me share with you a very nice article written by my friend, Manolo Quezon III. This article, I believe, is best read by those close to president-elect Noynoy Aquino. I just pray that they avoid the pitfalls of "clientelism" which infected previous administrations. Thanks Manolo for this piece.
Oh, by the way, I have two books which I hope to publish within the next few days. The first one, " Istorya: Essays of a Pot-bellied rebel turned blogger" is an anthology of historical essays. Great read I must say. I hope to publish it thru an e-book format and in regular size octovo form book.
The other one, " How to diffuse a PR Crisis in Just 3 Days" will also be published both in e-book and in regular size. If there are interested publishers out there, just contact me.
Anyway, here's Manolo's great article today published sa Philippine Daily Inquirer
The Long View
A more balanced Philippines
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:23:00 06/07/2010
Filed Under: Politics
LET me tackle the presentation by Dr. Mark Thompson during the roundtable on presidential elections in the Philippines, held last May 28 in Berlin, Germany. In “Cleaving Clientelism,” he approached the recently concluded election from the perspective of the dominant type of politics practiced here, which is clientelism. Coined in the 1970s from the Italian “clientelismo,” the dictionary defines it as “a social order that depends upon relations of patronage; in particular, a political approach that emphasizes or exploits such relations.”
In the Philippine context, Thompson characterizes clientelism as revolving around material or immaterial inducements/attachments to gain support; pyramidal networks based on kinship, patronage, vote-buying, coercion; and involving transactional voting behavior. Clientelism, he says, can be extremely divisive, as seen in the Philippines and Thailand, as transactional politics polarizes both the political players (as those outside the ruling circle are punished) and the public (since the normal emphasis of politics on compromise is deliberately ignored).
In contrast to this “politics of the normal,” Thompson proposes that what clashed in the campaign were reformism, represented by Aquino and Teodoro, and populism, represented by Estrada and Villar. These two approaches served to cleave, or split, the electorate along natural lines. These lines lead to lasting political divisions. These cleavages, in turn, can be polarizing, too: most particularly when along class or ethnic lines, the stuff of which civil wars and revolutions are made. But they can also lead to stability as clear divisions can end up clearly resolved, with the winning side (a social movement or a winning party) deriving a mandate society as a whole respects and adapts to. He points to Europe and North America, Brazil and Chile, and India and Indonesia as examples.
Reformism, according to him, is a “bourgeois” political narrative, has a media-based campaign strategy, is not based on clientelist political networks, and relies on voter appeals on messages like “Vote for me because I am good” or “I will not steal”: essentially a promise to govern in the national, not personal interest. Thompson points out this had broad appeal across classes, but is particularly attractive to the clergy, urban reform activists and the middle class and globalized business.
In the Philippine context, it originated with Rizal and the ilustrados; was continued by “Great Dissenters” such as Juan Sumulong (Aquino’s maternal great-grandfather), Claro M. Recto and Jovito Salonga; and involves the dynamics of questioning the ruling party, as exemplified by Ramon Magsaysay, Cory Aquino and the anti-Marcos movement, and the Defensor-Santiago and Roco campaigns from 1992-2004. Institutionally, it’s represented by technocrats and their approach to governance. Reformism also has a tradition of personal sacrifice, as represented by Rizal or Benigno S. Aquino Jr.
The problem of course is when the “outs” become “ins”: once in power, clientelism can become corrosively attractive: that is, unless “Developmental Reformism” can be upheld, which then has the potential for a “long-lasting cleavage,” focusing on the trinity of combating corruption, development-oriented economic policies and improving economic efficiency.
Populism, on the other hand, rather than being inclusive, adopts an anti-elitist political narrative. Even when its proponents themselves come from the elite, they tend to be outsiders who emphasize popular sovereignty, and who use media-based appeals in contrast to a clientelist political network, relying on appeals through messages like “I am like you,” and “I will help you.”
In the Philippine context this is a more recent line, going back to Rogelio de la Rosa’s Senate election and 1961 (aborted) presidential bid; to Imelda Marcos’ “star power,” prestige projects and welfare programs; and exemplified by Estrada’s “long” populist decade from his senatorial election in 1987 to winning the presidency in 1998 and his proving, in 2010, a constituency numbering a quarter of the entire electorate. Estrada himself and Thaksin in Thailand demonstrated the limitations of populism, too.
But unlike Thailand, somehow in the Philippines, after the shocks of Edsa Dos and Tres, society seems to have pulled back from the brink. Thompson attributes this to the ability of Philippine elites to engage in introspection and Arroyo’s antagonizing the upper and middle classes that had initially supported her. Elections in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 focused public energies on dividing on the question of the administration, offering competing points of view for endorsement or rejection by the electorate.
Add to this his belief that the Left has found itself unable to “institutionalize” the cleavage populism represents—including being unable to cope with what Thompson calls “Gramscian ‘bourgeois’ reformists” on one hand and “millenarian movie star populists” like Fernando Poe Jr. on the other.
The great dividing line, then, is efficiency versus equality, where reformists and their focus on developmental efficiency must contend with the populist demand for economic redistribution to the poor: and where over-emphasis on development, which increases inequality, must be balanced with an over-emphasis on equality-eroding efficiency. The need to balance both is the message of the 2010 elections: both have proven dedicated constituencies, with a shared commitment to resolving differences within the electoral framework and no longer by means of insurrections.
Thompson calls the 2010 polls the “most widely accepted election result since 1965,” in terms of the presidency. It could, he says, be the basis for long-term political stability, and signal an end to “military or people power coups,” and an era of accommodation by a small elite with the poor majority. (To be concluded)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)