Techno-politics in the Philippines
By Christopher Ryan Maboloc
According to Herbert Marcuse, one of the
accomplishments of modern society “is the non-terroristic, democratic decline
of freedom – the efficient, smooth, reasonable un-freedom which seems to have
its roots in technical progress itself.” By implication, Jeffry Ocay writes that it is worthwhile to examine
closely how modern politics and its technology as an apparatus of power, to use
the words of Mario Bunge, has been employed to “to control, transform or create
things or processes, natural or social,” in order to achieve “some practical
end deemed to be valuable.”
For Marcuse, machines have replaced the
autonomy of the individual, and for this reason, technical rationality has
dominated the latter’s life. Socially, the individual has been reduced into a
commodity whose needs, desires, and life as a whole are manufactured as a false
consciousness of reality. This same type of technical rationality is operative
in our modern political system. It is a type of thinking that enslaves the
individual where political values now depend on personal advantage. The world
in which moral virtue defines the highest form of qualification for public
office is nowhere in sight. It has long been overtaken by the metamorphosis of political
power into a monstrous megamachine.
The use of technology is ubiquitous in
any capitalist society. Technological development defines the modern way of
life. But the unholy alliance between capitalism and politics is very
dangerous. Without a doubt, if it is the self-serving interests of political
patrons that dictate the design of economic policies, governance becomes nothing
but a negative value-laden tool in the misuse of power. This is what
techno-politics is all about. Techno-politics is that system in which the
politician knows how the electorate thinks, and for this reason, he uses modern
technology in order to control and manipulate the psyche of voters.
The improvement of the
standard of living of people in the cities means easy access to modern gadgets
and the internet. It also means the advancement of social media as a potent political
tool. The positive aspect of this emerging trend so far is the active and
dynamic involvement of academicians, professionals or civil society in the intelligent
discussion of political issues online. Cyberspace has created a new agora for public
discourse. Moreover, social media plays a crucial role in insuring the panoptic
power of authority. A viral video or post of any scandal can change the
fortunes of any politician overnight.
In the rural areas of
the country, the online avatar cannot replace the human face of politics. Local
politicians know this by heart. It means something to a congressman’s
constituents to be able to attend baptisms, weddings, funerals, town fiestas
and the like because presence matters to barrio folks. Technocrats dismiss this
as another form of exploitation. The point, however, is that in an impoverished
country such as ours, people do worship local idols with whom their lives resonate.
Rightly or wrongly, a very firm handshake, like rhetoric in a timeless past,
remains indispensable as a tool of persuasion.
The thing is that we have to be cautious
in terms of online technology for it can also mean that political publicity,
and not moral virtue, could determine how our political leaders conduct
themselves publicly in cyberspace. The negative side of online technology then
is that the knowledge of some learned voters about their political heroes is
only an outer layer. Traditional politicians also maintain their presence
online where they utilize social media as a new tool for deceptive political propaganda. While technology can aid humans in
making decisions, true democracy still depends on the maturity of the voter. In
this regard, moral virtue remains to be our fundamental guide in choosing the
right leaders with whom we give the sacred mandate to govern.
