Philippine Democracy Online

THE APOLOGY AND THE IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA

2011-12-14T22:33:00.001-08:00

Jamil Matalam

After asking students to read Plato’s “The Apology of Socrates” Allan Bloom asks his students what are their verdict; do they acquit or convict Socrates? The question is important because in the Dialogue Socrates was talking to his judges and was not talking about philosophical concepts; Socrates wanted to be judged upon. The great philosopher provided us the method to judge him, i.e. by the method of “truth”. The impeachment of Chief Justice Corona gives us a good opportunity to revisit this most enigmatic Dialogue by Plato.

The first part of Socrates’ apology was committed to the clarification of this method. At first, he asked to be excused for not knowing how to make his defense in accordance with the rules of the proceedings, and that the manner of his speech would not be poetic and pleasing to his audiences. He asks them to hold fast instead on the import and truth of his words and not the manner of his speech. He then proceeds to point out the earlier calumnies against him and asks the audiences not to be carried away by the baseless calumnies against him, i.e. he is a teacher, a good speaker and an atheist philosopher. Instead, he asks them to look critically to the evidences he will point out and the cross-examination of one of his accusers; lest he be prejudged and the verdict untruthful. Lastly, he refused to appeal to their sympathies.

The recent series of unfortunate events that happened to the country culminating to the impeachment of the Chief Justice, it is my position, calls upon us to apply a similar Socratic method. I just cannot and refuse to judge any person, the President, the former President and the Chief Justice without being given credible and strong evidence against them. I point this as a precaution because many seem to have their conclusions and verdict already. Yet most of us only have information from sensational news reporting and insinuations by politicians. For instance, the latent accusation that the Chief Justice Corona is a man of Gloria Arroyo, and thus partial to her and is taking orders from her, that Gloria controls the judiciary. All these could be true, and should be corrected, but it has to be supported and grounded on factual truth; and it is primarily the responsibility of the accusers to provide us of these facts. We cannot be swayed simply by dramatic and passionate speeches, or clearly sensational and partial news reporting.

We all thus await for all the facts to unfold in the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. The trial will provide us with all the evidences that we need for us to give our truthful judgment and verdict. The Senate trial has the responsibility to provide us with the truth on the matter; and not to provide us with a political partisanship exercise. Till then I refuse to give any judgment and any verdict. We all await for the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. Only then can we ask ourselves, truly what is our verdict?

CAN THERE BE PERMANENT PEACE IN THE CONFLICT AREAS OF MINDANAO?

2011-11-02T18:39:00.000-07:00

By Romulo G. Bautista, Ph.D.

Prologue

All sorts of professional experts, except perhaps the professional philosophers, have been asked to help resolve definitively the war in the conflict areas of Mindanao. It is about time that the professional philosophers in Mindanao should say their views to make a difference on the resolution and settlement on such conflict. I would like to share mine grounded in my modest philosophizing, which begins from my “philosophical” view of the Old Testament. This can be viewed and interpreted from various angles of the readers because they could never existentially transcend their subjectivity.

Pre-Historic Origin of War and Peace

From the pre-historic time, the twin phenomena of war and peace have always been seasonal and rational phenomena with humankind. Perhaps, we can trace back the pre-historic beginning of war and peace in the Old Testament. The purpose is to show that the conduct of war and the pursuit of peace in the conflict areas of Mindanao between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippine Government have a pre-historic beginning, and to study whether the pursuit of peace could be definitively achieved in those areas and elsewhere in the country and in other countries of the world. Moreover, the term “Islamic” has underlying religious ideology.

Both the New (Second) Testament of Christianity and the Qur’an (Third Testament) of Islam have their common biblical origin at the Hebrew Bible (First Testament). I think, therefore, that it is fitting for me to start my modest philosophizing from the First or Old Testament

The Genesis and the Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament

The Genesis of the Old Testament opens with the following narration: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth; darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said, ‘Let there be light’; and He saw the light was good: He divided the light from the darkness; He called the light Day and the darkness He called Night”. Philosophically interpreted, we might say that God is the creator of the conflict of opposites, initially Day and Night, and such conflict is found in every level and order of Nature. Thus, at the level of humankind, God created man in His own image and likeness (meaning, He created man with a freedom of choice as He had a free choice to create him or not). He created man into male and female, with their freedom of choice to obey or not. Given such freedom, God commanded them: “Of every tree of the garden, thou may eat freely; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat; for in the day that thou eat thereof thou surely die”. But they eventually chose to disobey God’s command and consequently discovered their inherent inclinations toward good and evil. The opposite inclinations toward good and evil that are inherent in man’s nature are the underpinning principles of war and peace, which are collectively manifested in war and peace among men. Our act of choosing actualizes either one of the inclinations. Which means that peace could be achieved only “by men of good will”, and not by “men of bad will”.

The Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament declared the phenomena of the underlying dialectic in the nature of man: “To every thing there is a season, a time to every purpose under the sun; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace”. The twin phenomena exclude each other yet remain inseparable because they complement each other to give us the meaning of our human existence. We could never appreciate love except in relation to hate and vice-versa; likewise we could never value peace except in relation to war and vice-versa.

Change of Paradigm for the Peace Process in the Mindanao Conflict

The deeply entrenched mutual distrust based on biases and prejudices appear to have been the paradigm or framework of the peace processes in Mindanao. Let us say that the mutual distrust is the two sides of the same peace process, as though two sides of the same coin. But the mutual distrust is extrinsic to the pursuit of the peace process, which appears to hinder rather than enhance the pursuit of peace. There is, therefore, a need to introduce a new paradigm to the peace process.

I have thought and reflected with my reason (not with my emotion) that there is existential wisdom in the paradigm consisting of “a time of war, and a time peace”. War and peace, along with love and hate and the other opposites of human life, are inescapable contradictions inherent in our natural and moral life. Said differently, we, as natural and moral beings, possess inherently the principles of unity of opposites. Accordingly, we should align and attune our mood and mode of rational thinking with the fundamental contraries inherent in our nature. We should view the various forms of conflict in the peace process as nothing but collective phenomena of the fundamental conflict inherent in our nature as human individuals. Accordingly, the fundamental conflict inherent in our human nature should be the paradigm that ‘lies behind’ the negotiations of the peace process in Mindanao. Ancestral domain and religion are issues which are not inherent but extrinsic to our human nature. Certainly other paradigms may be added to enhance the proposed fundamental paradigm in order to ensure the attainment of a lasting but not a permanent peace.

There is no doubt that every one in the conflict areas of Mindanao yearns for a lasting peace.. Yes! A lasting peace is possible, but a permanent peace is impossible. And a lasting peace is truly possible, only if the peace negotiators on both sides are men of good will.

A New Mood and Mode of Approach to the Peace Process

There are three moods and modes of approaching the peace process: a) let emotion prevails over reason; (b) let reason prevail over emotion: and (c) let symmetry between reason and emotion prevail. The third mood and mode would be more consistent with the seasonality of war and seasonality of peace in my proposed paradigm, but which definitely requires the “bracketing or suspending” of historical, cultural, political, legal, religious, and social biases and prejudices of the negotiators on both sides.

I realize that “bracketing or suspending” one’s biases and prejudices are unconventional to those who are addicted to traditional and conventional mood and mode of rational thinking. “Bracketing” is unconventional and non-emotional mood and mode of rational thinking. By “bracketing or suspending” their biases and prejudices, the protagonists in the peace process allow their minds to open to many possible and positive things; but an open-mind approach is difficult to people whose mind-set remains conventional and traditional.

Starting Point of the Proposed Paradigm in the Peace Process

The negotiators should proceed in the context of proposed paradigm with the presupposition that the human persons should be in a position to live in order make a “history of war and peace”. But, before making such a history and before every thing else, life involves food, clothing, and shelter. These are the physiological needs of man which he must satisfy before satisfying his higher needs, because his needs are arranged naturally in a hierarchical order. The physiological needs are the most potent of human needs. Unless these potent needs are truly satisfied, man would not proceed to his higher needs. And these potent needs might explain the Moros’ desires to reclaim their ancestral domain in Mindanao where they envision themselves cultivating their lands for food, clothing, and shelter which are essential to their self-survival as people in an environment of relative peace and harmony. The thorny issue on ancestral domain should be taken as a phenomenon of their self-preservation as a people.

Laws of Dialectic in the Peace Process

We can actually observe and verify that in the whole of reality, there are contrary beings, which for being so exclude each other; yet they are inseparable as they are opposed to each other, and despite their mutual opposition they mutually inter-penetrate each other. This is the law of opposite. We encounter its phenomena among the protagonists of the peace process in the Mindanao conflict at every order and level; for examples, in the debates over a manner of settlement of peace, there are proponents and opponents; and in the battle between the MILF Forces and the Military Forces of the Government, there are victory and defeat. The contrary elements appear to exclude each other, but paradoxically, only from their conflict that their mutual development and progress are born. The development and progress of peace and victory in the process have no full meaning except in relation to their respective opposites, and vice-versa.

Moreover, we can actually observe and verify the progress and development of war toward its negation. There is no battle of war that ends all battles of war. One battle of war moves on toward its negation, just to begin a new battle of war. And the war moves on endlessly. This is the law of negation. But the negation of one battle of war is not annihilation of war, but it is such that it conserves all that it is of the positive and progressive in the preceding battles of war. Consider, for example, the “deadly instrument of war” as peace instrument being used toward its own negation - the weapons of medieval war consisting of deadly bows and arrows and bolos of indigenous Filipinos versus the deadly one-shot guns and one-shot canons of the Spanish invaders in 1521 are negated by the manufacture of the deadlier weapons of the MILF against the deadlier weapons of the Government Military Forces in the sophisticated wars prevailing in our contemporary society. Each war creates more deadly weapons than in the previous wars. New weapon of war as instrument of peace negate the old weapons, in terms of intensity and extent of damages to life and property, and the war moves on endlessly.

Finally, we can observe and verify the phenomenon of the law of transformation in society. Quality is an internal determination of a being which makes it what it is in a particular order of things. On the other hand, quantity is a determination extrinsic to the being. We can actually observe and verify that a quantitative and continuous development in reality terminates frequently by producing entirely new forms. Every being has a measurement; if that measurement augments quantitatively, it can exceed its limit of measurement, and then the living being ceases to be what it is and begins to be something else. For example, the transformation of fertilized human egg: when it augments until a certain limit, it is transformed into a human embryo; when this augments until a certain limit, it is transformed into a human fetus; when this augments until a certain limit, it is transformed into a human baby, and so forth and so on. Identity-wise, it is existentially the same being but essentially different being. The human baby is qualitatively a different being at its previous stages of quantitative developments; the human being had been transformed one stage to another stage of development. This phenomenon explains the necessity of revolution – the overthrow of the existing order. The law of transformation explains the need to do a paradigm shift because of the increasing volume of damages to lives and properties in the Mindanao conflict.

The laws of dialectic are universal; they have been studied scientifically and found to be true. These laws explain the various phenomena of the underpinning dialectic attendant to the peace process of the Mindanao conflict. We might say that these laws are superior to the Philippine Constitution, because this merely embodies the phenomenon of conflict expressed in the collective desire of all Filipinos to live in peace and harmony among themselves.

Conclusion

The task of professional philosophers beyond the classroom in the pursuit of a
lasting though seasonal peace should be to educate the protagonists and all concerned in the pursuit of peace and its process, in order to arrive at an enlightened choice when confronted by the moral dialectic of good and evil. There is moral dialectic of good, and one should be educated to choose the better over the good; and to choose the best over the better, because by nature we seek the best. There is likewise the moral dialectic of evil, and one should be educated to choose the lesser evil over evil; and to choose the least evil over the lesser evil, because by nature we always seek the least evil. Both modes of dialectic would bring the peace protagonists and all concerned to a seasonally lasting peace in the conflict areas of Mindanao. Toward this end, the philosophers should consider to carry out the following recommendations at different venues beyond the classroom:

• Adoption of a new mode of rational thinking from a dual point of view – (a) the existentialist point of view which refers to a mode of rational thinking that stresses the self-determination of the Moros in their homeland and their responsibility arising from their acts of self-determination., and (b) the materialist point of view which refers to a mode of rational thinking in the context of hierarchical needs and wants of people within the context of self-determination and responsibility toward their emancipation from social and political alienation in their homeland. The materialist perspective is one where the spiritual values are grounded in the material needs of man, being a substantial unity of material body and spiritual soul.

• Conduct of social action within the paradigm of “a time of war, and a time of pace”, where war is the drive and forces to maintain a stable and lasting peace, and peace is the drive and force to put war always in check.

• View all forms of conflict as temporal and seasonal phenomena of the inherent dialectic in human nature.

Beings like ideas do not make sense

2011-10-26T19:42:00.001-07:00

By Armando Parantar
University of the Immaculate Conception

I have long contemplated on what to share in this gathering; the thoughts of astounding thinkers have enticed me to begin and proceed through others which have similar tenets and end with a grand finale most probably in the vein of Hegel. At one point I have resolved to stay suspended as if on air; I have no intention to stay on the grounds of any one philosopher if ever I may be found to sound like or echo the ideas of the likes of Heidegger. I don’t intend to speak for anyone of them. Why? I see them as (with respect to a few who have tried it) inutile and just as regular as you and me. At one time, I read about the paradox of modern life stating how human living has stretched the disparity between what should be and what is. I had once that thought that this only applied in politics and the secular and material lifestyles, but now I see that this also bodes true of Philosophy. We have a myriad of philosophical treatises and dissertations, theses in masters’ degrees, and countless term papers and reflections in many courses; libraries are in dire need of extensions to welcome newer books, or old books are burnt to create vacant shelves for newer ones, and more keep on coming.

We have too many intellectual giants in the classrooms with their mumbo-jumbo or simple prattle, but how many of us have actually gone out where these intellectualizations should lead us into? That is, into where we can make the fish, plant, or eke out a living on his own capacity or, for a start while he cannot, extend our extras to fill-in his emptiness.

I think that if beings hold on to what they are, the world always continues to suffer separation and division with which greed and hatred keep themselves well. The term being include ideas in its definition that are different from each other, and as long as they are beings keeping themselves as such in the mind or convictions of the owners, there shall always be clashing and bumping with one another. If they remain as they are, their makers will ever stand in arrogance and claim security wiyh how they think and live even if they are wrong. Or even if we say that they are logically or scholarly correct, the very simple question is ‘SO WHAT?’ If the clash between Parminedes and Hiraclitus, Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas and Heidegger, or Heidegger against Marx or Levinas or Habermas, Rawls and Nozick, or Sen and Nausbam and so on gets to be resolved with one as declared more sensible and splendid over the other, ‘SO WHAT?’ Can I have a plate of rice for my neighbor by that resolution? Ideas, I say should all melt into life itself; if not, we only perpetual the selfish maneuvers of money-makers as we consciously or unconsciously join them in writing and speaking just for money for our very own pockets.

My proposition is this: ideas don’t make any sense if they remained as they are without them incarnating into human possibilities.

We have a distinct separation between the lines of what we know to be fantastic and that which we call realistic. We define the realistic things as the concepts which we know to be attainable or the ideas which we know is possible in the easiest or most executable manner. Fantasy on the other hand is oftentimes relegated to things which are simply conceptual, or things which we desire but we know to be unattainable. However, what we fail to realize is that many of the ideas which we know to be attainable and possible have been conceived while they were still mere dreams. Knowing this, aren’t the lines of fantasy and reality therefore blurred?

The challenge for us individuals is to take ideas and bring them outside of the drawing board and into life. But we sadly remain stuck with mere conceptualization and planning, and what’s more, we even have the audacity to question every action and motive under guise of investigation. Whether this is stalling or true intellectual inquiry, it altogether results in inaction, and further chances are wasted inn endless and pointless intellectual discussions.

We ask, ‘how can we apply our philosophies outside the confines of education facilities?’, in the hopes that we can quell the growing tide of apathy and social decay that eats at the very fabric of our nation; but the application itself, though often discussed, is only rarely (if ever) executed. Social problems like housing, food for the needy, free medicines, education, and even the outreach of religion is discussed endlessly, but only rarely do we ever see anything being done about the problems themselves---and as we talk aimlessly, they worsen day by day. If we do not convert our ideas to actions, if they remain in the conceptual stage, there the endless discussions and surveys and moralizations of our philosophers will be nothing more than a pathetic farce.

We are a highly religious and strongly morally inclined country, but for our holier-than-thou attitude we sure do possess great amounts of hubris. It seems as though the majority of us find it perfectly laudible to preach about goodness, compassion, humility, et cetera ad nauseam, so long as they don’t have to get their hands dirty. While there are exceptions, the aforementioned traits are often what the majority of our leaders reflect – and we even decry the very corruption and decadence which is the hallmark of their hypocrisy. We have churches which teach us about humility, living simply, and living striving for Christ-likeness, but for all its philosophizing, these very same churches can’t even do anything to provide shelter for street children who sleep in front of their steps. This is living proof of inaction. So long as our ideas remain in the conceptual stage, every endeavor that we try to achieve will be pointless – pointless because we’re not even trying! We’re just talking, discussing, arguing, --- but to what end?

Rather than act like sophists or Pharisees of old, why don’t we follow the example of Christ and do more than just talk? Christ taught and influenced others not merely through words, but through actions. It was his reaching out to the masses which had the most impact, and that, alongside his teachings, made him the iconic and powerfully resonant figure that he remains to be up to this day. Acting out the goodness which we have within us may be hard, but nothing in this world is worthwhile without some blood, sweat, and tears. Instead of discussing philosophical minutiae, or prostrating ourselves on our knees waiting for miracles to happen, why don’t we be the miracle? If we want progress, if we desire change, let’s stop talking---we’ve talked for long enough. Let’s begin acting, it’s about time we started, and we have a lot of ground to cover behind us and before us. It is about time that we step outside of our campuses and our share of bread to the palms of those who cannot bake one, sit with them and discuss how they in their circumstances can possibly learn how, and hopefully as we walk their path they’ll be back to share by that time their own loaves of bread with perhaps some fish. Then being cmes into unison, owners and ideas alike, into what Gautama taught as the absolute oneness of the Kingdom of God (for Christians), or simply the Nothing of Heidegger from which all being flow and originate. Beings should flow and not restrain themselves.

The Moral Phenomenon of Dialectic in Contemporary Filipino Society (PART II)

2011-10-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

Dr. Romulo G.Bautista
Ethical Development Strategies Phil. Inc.

The Ethical Code of Morality for the Filipino in the 21st Century

Moral Philosophy is not monolithic, which means that there is no unquestioned and established ethical code of morality for every one to follow, because there is a subtle distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Both “ethical” and “moral” are similar in meaning in that both have to do with the difference between right and wrong, in which case both can be used interchangeably. But they are dissimilar in that ethical tends to refer to a system or theory or code of judging rightness or wrongness, whereas moral tends to refer to more concrete choices and issues that arouse strong feelings:, in which case “ethical “ and “moral” should not be used inter-changeably. The behavior of unscrupulous student who cheats during exams would be unethical for it violates the school code against cheating; but a military officer who orders the mass killings of innocent people, such as the Maguindanao massacre, would be called immoral because his behavior violates morality.

Today, nearly every aspect of our personal and social existence as Filipino has become increasingly complicated by science and technology amidst the increasingly humanistic, naturalistic, and materialistic socio-economic and political environments of Filipino society. The line between “moral” and “ethical” is growing very thin. It grows even thinner, excessively thin in fact, if not totally erased, thus what is moral is ethical and what is ethical is moral. Ethical codes are no more than the expression of the best moral practice of the times. When times change, ethical code must change with them. Nevertheless, I believe in fundamental moralities – do good and avoid evil – which remain fixed and permanent simply because they are inclinations inherent in our human nature. .I might add that our opposite inclinations are the reason for its being of freedom. Let the ethical code change with the times so that our best moral practice would always jibe with the times, meaning, the basic morality is ‘never out of fashion’. The fashion changes seasonally, but the basic moralities inherent in our nature remain unchanged.
What is my Moral Backbone?

Let me say that the moral backbone I represent is that of reshaped philosophic mind of the 21st century. My reshaped philosophic mind follows the two paradigm shifts or two major shifts in world outlook brought about by two scientists: the first major shift by Isaac Newton toward start of 17th century and the second by Albert Einstein in the 20th century. My philosophic mind is the child of the confluence of existential philosophy (or simply existentialism) and contemporary science and technology.

I do not confuse “moral” with “ethical”. My reshaped philosophic mind bears the subtle distinction between them, thus my proposition is - What is ‘moral’ is always ethical, but what is ethical is not always moral”. The proposition signifies the dialectic between “ethical” and “moral” where good and evil are dialectically measured by an ethical standard. Thus we might existentially say that it is right to do good some of the time; it is right to do good most of the time; and it is not right to do good all the time, in contrast to Plato’s ideal that it is right to do good all the time, and wrong to do some of the time and most of the time.

Plurality of Ethical Codes of Morality

Traditional Filipinos have adopted many Western religious doctrines as their ethical code of morality However; many of those doctrines were formulated during the pre-scientific period. How are religion and morality related?

1. Secular Morality – Briefly, Morality is based on reason alone, without any reference to religious ideas. If its values are the same as a particular religion, that is seen as purely coincidental. Morality is freedom of choice and responsibility. Responsible moral choice depends on freedom and the ability to choose rationally. Such is the character of the pro-choice advocacy among some of the very liberal supporters of the RH Bill.

2, Religious Morality – Briefly, Morality is based on direct dependence upon religious belief, or upon a set of values given by religion. Such is the character of the pro-life advocacy among conservative and orthodox supporters of the Catholic Church on the RH bill.

3. Quasi- Secular/Quasi- religious Morality (briefly, quasi-morality) – This is the middle ground or a “hybrid” morality between the secular and the religious morality, and which emerged from the confluence of religion with contemporary science and technology. Some of its followers are inclined more toward the left-of center, and others are inclined more toward the right-of-center. This is the middle-ground of moderately liberal supporters of the RH Bill.

Over the past decades, the Catholic Church’s authority and influence over the younger Generations XYZ, and the Generation Alpha which is more techno-savvy than Generation Z, are weakened and continue to decline. Pope Benedict XVI himself has lamented openly this phenomenon when he canonized the first saint of Brazil. To him, the only true Christian religion is the Catholic religion. He observed that Catholic values are converging with Protestant values because many Catholics are leaving the Church to join the Protestant Churches. Young Catholic adults today are most likely to use contraceptive, thus reducing fertility rate. They value autonomy more and obedience less. On the other hand, they continue to retain many of the traditional patterns of their ancestors – high marriage rates, high family stability, and low separation and divorce rates. On the other hand, they have become more individualistic, more future-oriented and less bound by neighborhood and extended family. They are now better educated than their parents or grandparents, and much better educated than their family histories would lead you to predict.

The ethics of quasi-religious/quasi-secular morality is the ethics of the reshaped philosophic mind, and it embodies, among others, the following social gospels:

• Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sect;

• Participate in organized religion, but be a friendly dissident inside;

• Settle yourself in traditional moral practice, but champion piece-meal modernization; and

• Submit to the wisdom of the ages, but keep one eye open.

Filipino Cultural Values as Ethical Standard

Existentially, we never act in a vacuum but always in a given situation which affects our choices, decisions, and execution of our human acts. We could never act beyond our existential situations, which are of two kinds – (a) our intrinsic situation which is our inherent inclination toward good and bad, and (b) our extrinsic situation, such as but not limited to, our education and our cultural values and practices. We could never transcend existentially either situation.

I should say that Filipinos’ cultural values constitute the “soul” of the Filipinized Western religious morality. Filipinos generally and traditionally follow the Western religious morality, which might explain why they are high in their moral standard but low in their moral performance. This phenomenon can be explained by the dialectic between their negative and their positive cultural practices. Those opposing practices are grounded in cultural values, such as, “close family ties and extended family ties” which tend to make their members responsible for one another, which thus results into negative effects, such as but not limited to, “nepotism” and “godfather system of hiring”, both of which favor personal interests over public interests. These values are some of the roots of moral corruption in the public as well as in the private sectors of Filipino society. Other popular phenomena of negative practices are “lack of discipline” which manifests themselves in “palusot”, “Filipino Time”, “Ningas Cogon”, and “manana habit”; Fatalism and Superstition which appear in their ‘bahala na’ and ‘bahala na ang Diyos’ attitude; Selfish Attitude which manifests in their ‘crab mentality’, ‘kanya-kanya attitude’ and ‘inggit’; Apathy, Show-Off or “Pakitang-Tao’ and Amor Propio or Self-Esteem.

Moral Education of Filipinos beyond the Classroom

The primary activity of philosopher is to understand the most general principles or causes of things and ideas that lie behind the various aspects of life. He is primarily a generalist, and secondarily a specialist.

An educator is always a teacher, but a teacher is not always an educator. My concern is the philosopher’s activity as moral educator beyond the classroom. Beyond the classroom, the philosopher’s activity is more of a generalist than a specialist.

Induction and instruction are the two interdependent methods of moral education beyond the classroom. By induction, I mean a guided and developing experience of membership of a group, for example, induction into the family. Induction into the family means, ideally, that a child is dependably cared for, firmly controlled when necessary, weaned at the right times physically and mentally, enabled to become competent and competitive, and thus self-dependent, dependable, and cooperative. It means exposure to the ideas and ideals, the traditions and ways, the standards and values of the particular family.

The first simple but all-important point in respect to instruction is to base it on dependable knowledge. Instruction is blended with induction in guided group experience, and both are dependent upon spontaneous activities and responses normal to the child at a given age. Basic knowledge underlies all instruction, but some forms of instruction also require special skills.

Without induction, which is moral experience, there is no moral education, and without instruction which leads to the conscious possession and evaluation of moral experience, there is no moral education. Moral experience and reflection upon it is an encounter with reality and a projection of ideals. Beyond the classroom, there is a wilderness. It is the task of philosopher as moral educator to transform this wilderness into a garden, where the pupil must be enabled to see the actual in the light of better and worse possibilities and to want to enlist on the side of the better.

Given the inductive and instructive methods of moral education within a wide
range of existing Filipino moral and ethical values and practices, two questions are hereby asked -

(1) What can the Filipino philosophers beyond the classroom do to educate their fellow Filipinos in order to empower them to retain some moral backbone despite the opposing moral values and practices in increasingly materialistic society?

(2) Given the plurality of contemporary ethical codes, which one is most the appropriate to measure, definitively the rightness and wrongness of moral acts of Filipinos in the 21st century?

Conclusion

Before attempting to answer those questions, let me say that our philosophizing may not be able to tell us that something is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, but it will certainly clarify the grounds upon which we will make our answer and our decision to commit ourselves to some thing or some one whom we believe in. Our commitment is our belief in something or in someone even in the absence of evidence, as in the case of our religious faith. Our psychological commitment becomes our ethical and moral way of practical life.

Our commitment is what makes us a truly moral person. Our commitment is a never-ending phenomenon of our inherent dialectic, but what matters is how we manage to moderate our evil inclination on the side of the better and to measure our moral behavior according to our ethical code.

The Moral Phenomenon of Dialectic in Contemporary Filipino Society (PART I)

2011-10-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

Dr. Romulo G.Bautista
Ethical Development Strategies Phil. Inc.

Horrible Moral Phenomena in Contemporary Filipino Society

I have this text about a foreign investor who complains, saying that “I really have difficulty doing business here. Every one from Customs, BIR, Congressman, Governor, Mayor, Barangay, LTO, Register of Deeds and others,, always ask for a FEE. You should change your country’s name to ‘FEE-lippines, and call yourselves ‘FEE-lipinos’ and your president ‘FEE-noy’”. Now, “Fee” is the euphemism for Bribery. Bribery is the moral phenomenon of the dialectic between bribe-giver and bribe-taker. The text projects the impression that bribery is the ethical and moral norm of doing business in the Philippines. Alas! our nation has earned the perception that it is one of the top-most corrupt nations in Asia and in the world, where “private interests” normally prevails over “public interests”.

Apart from bribery, there are too many other horrible phenomena of moral corruption going on that it is psychologically understandable that a kind of moral disillusionment has set in, particularly among the younger Filipino Generations in our increasingly humanistic and materialistic society. Nevertheless, I hope to retain some moral backbone in spite of all the moral developments that make one skeptical, if not completely disheartened. I am aware of the two moral hemispheres of dialectic, namely, private life which is the realm of personal choice and public affairs which is the realm of social obligation. The two moral hemispheres are, however, inter-dependent, for we cannot live outside a society and our society stands to benefit by giving us independence. The simplest model for this is provided by traffic on the highway. The highway is a public means to our private ends. There is a network of public roads and an official highway code which enable us to make our journeys for any purposes whenever and wherever we like.

The Underpinning Dialectic of Moral Phenomena

Morality presupposes freedom. And freedom presupposes the natural dialectic between two opposite moral realities. I believe that moral corruption in contemporary society is a phenomenon of the underpinning dialectic between the opposing inclinations of our free-will toward good and toward evil – that these opposing natural inclinations are inherent in us. I refer to these opposite inclinations as the under-pinning dialectic of moral phenomena in our society. Without our inherent natural dialectic, we are not free. Said differently, what is moral is always natural, but what is natural is not necessarily moral. We are not free to escape from our opposing inclinations, but we are inherently free to moderate them.

God: The Author and Origin of Dialectic

The Genesis of the Old Testament narrates that in the beginning “darkness was over the surface of the deep; and God said “Let there be light” and there was light. He saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from darkness. He called the light “day” and the darkness he called “night”. In other words, God is the author and origin of natural dialectic such that the opposites, such as light and darkness, naturally complement each other.

God’s first ethical command to Adam and Eve in Paradise - “Thou hall not eat the fruit of knowledge, or else you will die” – presupposed freedom and triggered the first moral dialectic which is to obey freely and to disobey freely. And they freely chose to disobey. In our time, the term “FEE-lipino” suggests that we, as a people, have lost our collective exercise of free will in choosing public interests over private interest. But in reality, it is still within our collective moral power to choose the common good for as long as the dialectic lasts.

In the whole of our human reality, there are opposite beings, which for being so exclude each other. The Ecclesiastes enumerates several instances of dialectic, such as but not limited to, life and death of our human existence. The Ecclesiastes declared the existential fact that “there is time to be born and a time to die”. The conjunctive “and” between birth and death signifies that they are inseparable from each other, because they complement each other to give full meaning to our human existence. Let me give another example - the mutually exclusive yet inseparable and complementary terms - male and female. The term “female” embodies the inseparable dialectic between male and female. The term female embodies in itself male, she embodies he, madam embodies Adam, mother embodies he, and menstruation embodies men. Adam and Eve, representing male and female respectively, constituted the first dialectic of the human race.

It is impossible to eliminate our bad inclination, but it is possible to regulate and minimize it. To paraphrase the Ecclesiastes, there is a season and a reason for everything that happens under the sun; thus there is a season and a reason to do good and a season and a reason to do evil. In other words, moral phenomenon is a seasonal and rational phenomenon. And, we could do nothing to stop the seasonal and rational change of phenomenon, but we can act reasonably upon the natural source of moral phenomenon within us, which is the dialectic toward the good and the bad. By controlling and moderating our inherent dialectic, we change accordingly its moral phenomenon. We know the difference between good and evil, though, at times, we choose evil. Should we choose the dialectic of good, then we should choose the better over the good; and the best over the better, because by nature we always seek the best. On the other hand, should we choose the dialectic of evil, then we should choose the lesser evil over the evil, and the least evil over the lesser evil, because by nature we always seek the least evil. Either way, we reduce the evil phenomenon of dialectic, and accordingly, we keep a happy balance between good and evil. But, Alas! This is easier said than done! Why so? I shall explain shortly.

“Ideological Arms” of Moral Change beyond the Classroom

Karl Marx affirmed philosophically the reality of dialectic in Nature, and shared his own insights of dialectic which might help us to understand and appreciate the dialectic of moral change. He said and I quote: - “The philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point is, to change it.” He spoke of what philosophers should do beyond the classroom. He was not contented with philosophers who merely explained the world differently in the classroom; he would want them to unite theory with practical and revolutionary action beyond the classroom, where such unity might serve them as their “ideological arms” for moral transformation in the real world, which is in accord with his three laws of dialectic as inherent in the nature of all realities, to wit: (a) the law of contraries; (b) the law of negation; and (c) the law of transformation. These laws have been proven to be scientifically true. The incumbent Pope Benedict XVI himself made a left-handed tribute to the success of Marx’s ideological arms during the canonization of the first Brazilian saint, when he publicly lamented and blamed Marx for the continuing decline of Church’s authority and influence in Brazil, across South America and in many non-Marxist countries around the world. Why does Marx have a great impact and influence upon the hearts and minds of people, even among the non-Marxists? It is axiomatic that. In any ideological war, the superior ideology always wins. The ideological war is a dialectical war of winning the hearts and minds of people. For all you know, you might be a Marxist without a member of the Marxist movement. This is precisely what Liberation Theology among Catholic priests in Brazil stands for.

Unity of Abstract Knowledge and Practical Action beyond the Classroom

“The Communist Manifesto”, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1849, outlines a “modus operandi of ideological arm” for moral transformation of people around the world. The Manifesto opens with a declaration that “a specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism (to be precise the Marxist Communism). All the powers of old Europe have entered into holy alliance to exorcise this specter”. Today, the specter of Marx’s influence and impact are not only felt in so-called Marxist countries, but also in non-Marxist countries, like Brazil and the Philippines. The Manifesto ends with an invitation exhorting “all working men of the world, unite!” The assembly-mode of production of trans-national or borderless economy and the out-sourcing of labor are living proofs today that “working men of the world have indeed united”. The mobile phone, for instance, is a product of assembly production – different parts are made in different parts of the world but assembled in one part of the world. Marx called on workers as doers or action men “to unify abstract knowledge and concrete action beyond the classroom in the world. The unity is consistent with the Marxist theory in Scientific Socialism where theoretical philosophy is in confluence with science and technology. The scientific and technological mode of production has changed radically many existing moral values and practices of contemporary men.

“Ako ang Simula ng Pagbabago” Filipino Movement

Marx’s dialectical unity of theory and action which begins with the self is a good model for our national movement for moral change dubbed as “Ako ang simula ng pagbabago”. We should first change the situation of the moral dialectic within our own reality as free and responsible human beings, before we can effect a moral change in others.. Let us first become ourselves “the change that we want others to be”. “Ako” and “Sila” constitute the two poles of the moral dialectic in our society.

Reproductive Health and Human Poverty

2011-09-05T19:02:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc

The Reproductive Health Bill pending in Congress is a grand experiment. And rightly so, if it succeeds into becoming a law, it is doomed to fail. This bill, which borders on state perfectionism, discriminates against the poor. While some accuse the Catholic Church of dictating upon the people what their conscience should tell them, it is actually the RH Bill that violates the basic humanity of the poor. Simply put, the RH Bill reduces the poor to rodents.

When Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner experimented on rodents and offered a theory for human behavior, there emerged some light for the actual creation of an ideal society where people can be designed to do what is only desirable. This micro world would be created by means of setting specific rules. The rules would govern how men and women are to act with the objective of establishing a world that is almost perfect. The promise comes from the fact that society can be organized in a particular way if we discover the laws that govern human behavior. For Skinner, human freedom is simply the ignorance of the laws of human nature. If human action is controlled to the satisfaction of all, then people can find happiness.

The basic requirement for this theory to work is by virtue of organizing societies into small or micro worlds. Controlling people requires that we limit their number. Otherwise, society would be chaotic. The RH Bill depends on this argument. With less people, we solve the problem of poverty. With more people, we need more in terms of resource. We are a very poor country, following this argument, because there are too many people. Our policy makers simply think that we lack the needed resources to support a growing population. They think that economic development rests on reducing the number of people. This is totally untrue. The great John Maynard Keynes once said that “economic development is the possibility of development”. Economic development makes improving human lives possible, but as Des Gasper notes, it is one that is not guaranteed. Good GNP and GDP numbers do not necessarily mean people have happy lives. Development is not about income. The RH Bill understands this. It explains, for instance, that “development is a multi-faceted process that calls for the coordination and integration of policies, plans, programs and projects that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized”. But here’s the problem. While it purports to improve the well-being of the poor, it violates their dignity. Why?

The reason is that there is a hidden agenda and a manifest bias in the RH Bill. It is biased against the poor. The bill is created using the lens of the middle-class. The basic idea is that the poor are the ones who don’t plan their family. The poor is targeted because they are considered as the root of our poverty. Never mind if God or his representative on earth says “blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of God”. Their elected representatives in Congress will decide for them, not God. The poor, anyway, this RH Bill implies, do not control their destiny.

But this RH Bill is fundamentally wrong because it wrongly targets the poor as the root cause of poverty. For instance, the RH Bill indicates, as a guiding principle that “the limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless”. What is the meaning of this? The RH Bill tells people that if you are poor, you cannot have many children. To do so would mean that you are irrational, irresponsible and stupid. The idea simply is that because you are poor, then necessarily, you do not have enough income to send your children to school. If your children are uneducated, they will not be able to get jobs. For instance, what is desirable for any economy, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz would argue, is for it to achieve or come close to full employment. The government feels inutile in realizing this because hundreds of thousands graduate each year with no real prospect for a job. Again, the root cause of poverty, our elected representatives in Congress say, is the number of poor people around. Needless to say, the RH bill blames the victim it is supposed to help. Needless to say, this RH Bill is simply discriminatory.

The RH Bill is discriminatory because it violates our basic nature as a rational being, free to conceive of the good. While its proponents parade it as one that promotes choice, it actually undermines human autonomy. This bill can be likened to the rules Skinner has prescribed in Walden’s world. The RH Bill suggests that the poor “multiply like rats” so we have to control them. The middle class believes that they are carrying the economic burden of having to provide for the poor in terms of provisions for basic human survival. The middle class believes that they are the ones working hard to make this country grow. They pay taxes and they believe that these taxes go down the drain because the poor get their share in terms of useless dole-outs.

But the poor are not animals. Even if our religious beliefs and convictions are set aside, there remains something most fundamental here. It is the dignity of each human being. The human person possesses the capacity to calculate the good and it is within his right to enjoy this good. If humans were not free, as in Walden’s world, then his life can be designed to fit whatever the designer intends. But this is not the case. A pre-determined existence is without value. It is not a real life. Real life economics tells us that people have the capacity to choose. The meaning of life comes from what we actually do in life. The problem, however, is that the poor do not have real choices, to begin with.

Poverty is not about the number of people. People are poor because they lack opportunities to have a life that is well-lived. The issue then is to find out who has taken away from the poor the good life that they are entitled to. I would like to argue that there are at least three huge factors as to why the Philippines fail to thrive and escape the dungeons of poverty. First, our economy is oligarchic. Second, politically, many government institutions are irreparably corrupt. Third, a poor child, as soon as he or she is born, suffers from a prejudice – you are poor, you have no chance in life.

The first idea points to the fact that the cronyism during the Marcos regime has badly damaged the Philippine economy. The playing field is not fair. The Marcos dictatorship simply killed economic competition. Marcos put the Philippine economy in the hands of his chosen few. These people bastardized and brutally murdered Philippine growth prospects. But while Marcos is long gone, the same pattern still persists. The Philippine economy rests on the performance of its big corporations. As such, the future of our people depends on the decisions of big bosses who have no qualms as to how their decisions might affect the very poor. They finance campaigns and so they determine the policies.

The second idea reveals an unarguable reality. The problem of poverty is not about people. The problem of poverty is due to the fact that some people fail to do their moral responsibility. Public officials are accountable to the people because the people put them in their position. It is a position that they are not supposed to enjoy. But their brilliant mind has taught how to use power to their advantage. Politics is about power. But when power is used to take advantage of one’s position, then it becomes a moral hazard. Now, why blame the poor for their miseries? As Fr. Albert Alejo, SJ, notes, corruption kills people. If precious government resource is invested in the education of our children and the health care of mothers and their children, and not on condoms and IUDs, then the next generation can responsibly make right decisions in life. But it is wrong to put the blame on the poor right now because in the first place, nobody wants to be poor. However, 24 million Filipinos who live on less than two dollars a day do not have a choice.

The third idea manifests an eternal truth. Human beings possess inalienable rights. He or she cannot just be pushed around like a rag. The RH Bill guarantees that people, as a matter of human right, “should be afforded free and full access to relevant, adequate and correct information on reproductive health and human sexuality”, but are poor people really that ignorant? Poor people, who are most affected by state policies, do not have an opportunity to say no. The poor do not have a voice. Reproductive health advocates accuse the Catholic Church of muddling the issue, of interference and moralizing. But what is wrong with that? If a good priest says nothing about this issue, who else will? Adam Smith measures human freedom in terms of a man’s “capacity to appear in public without shame”. But the poor cannot appear in public because the social sphere requires him to wear branded jeans and shirts.

The basic idea therefore is that the RH Bill is never a solution to the problem of poverty. It will not make our lives any better. The reason is that it views poverty in very narrow way. It does not understand human poverty. It presupposes that if the government will be able to provide for the basic needs of people, then the problem is solved. The problem really lies in the fundamental disregard of human freedom. Valuing the freedoms of people means that our limited state resource should be channeled to education, universal health care, and peace building. Only then can people make informed choices.

THE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS IN THE GPH-MILF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

2011-09-04T23:35:00.000-07:00

By Jamil Matalam, MA

The peace talks concerning the insurgency problem in Mindanao always had the character of a negotiation. It is a matter of offer on the one side, a counter-offer on the other, and then impasse and then armed encounters. This has always been its character and will always be because the parties to the negotiations have their own non-negotiable matters to bring into the negotiations, those that cannot be compromised. No doubt it is doomed to failure, if the goal is peace; for peace, and the current events surrounding the issue tells us so, is not a matter of negotiations. Peace is about the truth and is real; it is not a matter of compromise or simply a result of agreement. Peace is not a matter of give and take but the truth.

The way the GPH and the MILF are handling the peace in Mindanao, and it is sad that they are the only ones who does so, assumes that peace is matter of cessation of hostilities and economic opportunities. The MILF would agree to drop its claim for independence and the GPH would agree to give greater leeway for an autonomous government with other conditions, like disarmament. If they both do this then there will be cessation of hostilities and then economic development would set in, and then everybody will be happy; otherwise there shall be hostilities and poverty. I do not doubt that this is a good formula, that indeed if both parties agree to the offers then there will be no more hostilities and economic development will exist. But I doubt if such a formula would find application with the Mindanao problem.

The recent event that has unfolded tells us that such formula finds no good application, e.g. the breakaway of the group of Amir Umbra Kato from the MILF. It just ultimately ends with hostilities and misery. Why is this so? Precisely because the real issues are those that cannot be subject to compromise; the Philippine Constitution and its claim over the Moro lands, on the one hand, and the separate nationhood of the Moros, on the other. What therefore must be discussed is the truth of these matters, i.e. the claim over the “Independence” of the Moros from the Filipinos. They should be brought out to the open for discourses in the public and scrutiny, rather than be kept out of talks.

I do not claim whatsoever that the negotiations between the GPH and MILF is not good or worthless, on the contrary it is of great importance and consequence. It has saved and will save many lives. But the problem really is that the issue with the peace in Mindanao is beyond political-legal, or governmental, actions; no doubt what is asked is beyond them, thus to ask this from them is also too much. It must be sought from other influential social institutions in the Philippine society, e.g., the universities and the modern social media.

If it is about the Independence of the Moros then it is largely within the domain of the social sciences and social actions. The task really is to unveil the falsehoods that have surrounded the issues and to bring forth the truth of the matter. What is greatly required therefore is to bring the matter about the Independence of the Moros into scientific or academic discourses, teach the young about the genesis and the truth about them, and end the propagandistic approaches to the history and identity of Moros and the bigotry that has oppressed it. This matter is demanded primarily from those who claim that they are Moros; that is, that they are the ones to really have to work for peace in their homelands.

Political Reform and Human Development

2011-08-16T19:00:00.000-07:00

By Christopher Ryan Maboloc

Why is the political party system in the Philippines weak? Why is it that the most Filipinos do not find these political parties instrumental to their well-being? What is the relation between political reform and human development? Why have we not created, for decades now, a mature democracy?

My argument is that while our democratic rights and entitlements are important, it matters how we are able to fully use them, and how we use them depends on our sense of self-worth. The basic point is that to make democracy work, it must be stressed that democratic procedures alone do not guarantee the creation of a just or well-ordered society. The Party Reform Bill now pending in Congress is a crucial step, but first, the electorate needs to understand what it means to be in a functioning democracy. Political parties in the Philippines don’t mean anything to most Filipinos because as voters we are more concerned about personalities during elections rather than party programs. To most parties, you have to be makamasa in order to get votes.

Reforming the Party System

The Party Reform Bill rests on two crucial provisions – election campaign financing and punishing political turn-coats. First, campaign financing helps principled young men and women who otherwise do not have the resources to unite themselves and venture into politics. It ensures that the state equitably gives equal chances in terms of realizing the political visions of all citizens. While it can be argued that precious state funds should be spent on more urgent concerns, financing political parties needs to be considered since political institutions are basically the engines of social growth. Obviously, many of our intelligent young men and women do not join politics since it is like committing suicide if you lack the machinery and resources.

Secondly, political turn-coats poison democracy. While it can be said that political turn-coats are men and women who have no clear principles, it must be noted that many candidates in Philippine elections receive little or no financial support from their parties during campaigns. They therefore use personal money or solicit money from spurious sources in order to finance their campaign. The obvious fact is that it is not possible to win without funds, for you need resources for the logistics of a good campaign. Thus, some politicians switch parties in order to take advantage of the resources of the party. The candidate sacrifices his principles in favor of financial support. It may not guarantee his winning the elections. But if he wins, he will think that he owes his victory to his new party or sponsors. When Albert Einstein said that “politics is temporary; a mathematical equation is for eternity”, Einstein seems to be suggesting that nothing is permanent in politics since politicians do not live forever. But the point here is that while people are easily weakened by external factors like money and prestige, public service should be governed by strong ethical principles. Ultimately, the goal for any political organization is to win in order to implement one’s vision and programs. But this must never be at the expense of ethical principles.

Political reform is badly needed in the country because most politicians are indebted to their rich benefactors. Politicians rely on their money in order to win during elections. As such, politicians fail to promote and protect the agenda of the poor and disadvantaged. If power is that which matters in the political apparatus, then it is essential that such power must not to fall in the hands of political financiers who seek to control government decisions and appointments. The influence of powerful and moneyed persons who dictate the goals of our political parties is bad for democracy. This is because the choice of right principles is affected by the self-serving motives and interests of a powerful few. This clearly undermines the poor and uneducated, those with mental disabilities, and women who are marginalized. There is political exclusion because the poor have no voice in our political institutions. For instance, the party list system is a sham. Real democracy is not manifest when party list representatives are those who belong to the elite.

President Manuel L. Quezon once said that “my loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins”. But it must be understood that a political party is meant to serve the interest of the country. Politicians are supposed to serve the interest of the public. Political parties, as a requirement of social justice, must ensure that each Filipino is given his or her due as a citizen of this country. If democracy can have any meaning at all, it must work for the greater good of ordinary people. The rule of law is meant to protect the weak and innocent. Just economic policies must benefit the poor and vulnerable. In a democracy, people are above all other values. The speech of former President Fidel V. Ramos at the Australian National University, as quoted by Sen, clarifies this: “Under dictatorial rule, people need not think – need not choose – need not make up their minds or give their consent. All they need to do is to follow. The political challenge for people around the world today is not just to replace authoritarian regimes by democratic ones and beyond this, it is to make democracy work for ordinary people”.

Howard Handelman, a sociologist, notes that “full liberal democracy requires not only freely contested elections but also respect for civil liberties”. This means that under the rule of law, there exists the constitutional essential of “respect for due process”. This is necessary to protect people from political persecution and from the abuses of those who are in power. The apparent moral incompetence of many of our leaders makes them vulnerable to greed and selfishness. Dynasties reflect this as a matter of fact. In this regard, political power becomes the domain and playground of the chosen few, who disadvantage the poor and vulnerable no end. “Fair elections” are not really fair because the playing ground is not level.

Realizing Human Development

Realizing the vision of human development is only possible under a mature and fully functioning democracy. Democracy therefore requires, fundamentally and as matter of principle, the basic respect for the dignity of the human person, which means respecting the voice of an ordinary voter. Far beyond politics, there exists an individual who dreams, desires, and hopes. What we owe to each other is self-respect. Self-worth is the ultimate basis for a life that is well-lived. If one does not see the meaning of one’s life, then one cannot have a life that is worth living. Thus, the basic structure must work, according to Dr. Gaston Ortigas, for the “whole person” and for “all persons”.

The “dynamic interplay of people participation, empowerment and moral governance” or in the words of Dr. Ortigas, the “democratization of development”, happens only when people come to realize the moral ends and real value of just political institutions. Political maturity requires that a voter does not only go to his precinct to exercise a right but that more importantly, he understands that his vote means something for he stands to benefit from the government he elects. Depth in terms of a person’s political maturity matters in the kind of institutions people come to establish. People need to understand issues and evaluate their judgments in terms of how these may affect their lives. Self-reflection is crucial in confronting the complications of modern socio-political existence for the individual to realize his social and political goals.

The Party Reform Bill is about people choosing a future in which they have a stake. The weakness of our institutions manifests our very weakness as a people. Institutional decisions and strategic directions are based on the choices made by the individuals to whom we entrust political power. As such, it matters how we as a people choose our leaders and those who formulate policies that affect us. Voters must be empowered to exercise their political will in electing good and competent leaders. Political parties are the building blocks of a functioning democracy. As such, political parties must manifest, secure, and work fully to actualize the hopes and aspirations of a free people. Until then, human development remains a dream.

Pork Barrel, Philippine Politics and the Economy

2011-07-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

By Adrian M. Tamayo

Pork barrel defined

Pork barrel has its origin in the American history. Prior to the civil war, the slaves in the Southern part of America were traditionally provided salted pork as a gift to enjoy on holiday. The slaves would run into frantic for the barrel . Kawanaka cited Evans that the onrush of the legislators to get a subsidy was evocative of the stampede of the slave of the pre American Civil war. Pork barrel formally defined as the appropriations of public funds for projects that do not serve the interests of any large portion of the country’s citizenry but are nevertheless vigorous promoted by a small group of legislators because they will pump outside taxpayers’ money and resources into the local districts these legislators represent ; an effective legislation and use of pork barrel results into the legislator being re-elected. As defined by a Civil Society group in the Philippines, PDAF Watch, “pork barrel funds are those allocated to politicians such as congresspersons and senators, to be used, based on their decision, to fund programs or projects in their districts ”.

Keeping the pork thin or thick?

In a position paper of Nograles and Lagman to decry the scrapping of PDAF , it was brought into the fore the origin of the pork barrel and how was it used in the Philippine fiscal activity. It described the American colonial accent with the keeping of central leadership of the ruling party with the pork barrel as spoiling incentives for the legislators. Towing the line would mean an increased access to the fund without contest of use or misuse during the martial law era. This offensive taking of the government fund by the legislators resulted into a mechanism after the famous EDSA of the 8th Congress that will ensure fund will make the “unequal equal” by setting up parameters, equal apportionments, built-in accountability and transparency (Nograles and Lagman). However, the current system provided a system where funds are included in the general appropriations act (GAA) but as an independent item without mention of definite project. Also, the GAA includes items where each legislator is given a definite monetary value which is reflective of the projects that can be made out from the amount. Kawanaka described the system vividly in lieu of the appropriation and the legislators’ control of the fund as:

“….legislators have been given items, namely the Priority Development Fund Assistance Program (PDAF) and the budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways. While an appropriation act is prepared in congress, no specific projects need be listed, since these lump – sum allocations. A legislator is given a free-hand to identify her pet projects, programs within budget, and requests the concerned departments to implement them, after a general appropriation act has been promulgated”.

The above statement signifies the space accorded to the legislator to determine the socially acceptable project in order to indicate “bringing the pork” to the level of the constituents as demands are effectively meet by the legislators. Such provision of the public good will be in competition with the executive branch with its implementing agency working along the line of a systematic and sustainable development.

As it was noxiously termed, pork barrel was changed into an innocuous Countrywide Development Fund in 1990 where which the intention is to fast-track development. However, it evolved itself in 2000 into an even milder which up to present holds it name, the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) .

The Philippine Constitution describes the separation of the powers between the Legislative and the Executive departments with the former having the “power of the purse” and appropriation while the latter has the power to implement or veto the Congress’ resolution. With the Executive department directly engaged in the operation of the government being apprised by the bureaucratic office of every agency down –the-line – up, the Executive holds a better vantage than the Legislative department on the priority needs of the whole nation, thus information of the important projects, programs which can significantly re-structure the economic status of the poorest of the poor. This will therefore place the Legislative department in a comparable insufficient situation for project or program implementation. But with the intention of the separation of powers, the check-and-balance mechanism will indicate the need for the later to determine the priority needs of the whole nation thus allocation of fund, the monitoring and monitoring of the same being the representative of the general public.

Such mechanism will ensure that the resource allocation is a constitutional public spending and ‘taking out of the purse’ mean thickening of the pork of the legislators.

Types of Pork barrel

Kawanaka (2007) described two types of pork barrel. The first type refers to the pork-barrel that focuses on the discretion of the national leaders. This emphasizes the “tow the line” principle as it highlights the control of the leader over the members of the legislative. The second looks at the characteristics of the legislators. This means that the legislators’ stay in congress, position in the legislative branch, and expertise are factors that settle distribution of the fund.

The first type tells that the legislators who are members of the ruling party are given share of the government share in abundance as a mode of tapping the shoulder for supporting the priority programs, initiatives and development projects of the Executive department. The second type will stress the discriminating aspect of seniority, positions in the committee to distribute the fund. The Speaker of the House, the House leaders will have a greater piece of the pork.

The Pork barrel and its many influences

In Philippine politics, the manifest of legislated pork barrel includes construction of waiting shed, single school room construction/re-painting of schoolrooms , road pavement, local health spending, training centers, purchase of chairs,tables, computers, scholarships, construction of overpass, livelihood programs and many other geographic-specific projects which would benefit a constituency – residents of the political districts.

Of equally interesting case is the pork barrel’s legislation practices of the senators who are elected nationally. In order to avail of the rent-seeking benefits, these politicians will spend on a specifically –defined geographic district that can assure of high voter’s turn-out. Normally, these are political districts found in highly – urbanized cities/provinces with dense population catering into immediate remedies done through legislative spending. Pork – barrel is the misuse of the people’s money for the purpose of gaining political advantage over a location-oriented accruing of benefits using a national budget.

The pork – barrel legislation will cut expected efficiency of public finance. Rossi and Inman (1998) described pork barrel as having a ‘distributive’ nature of public goods citing Lowi with benefits concentrated within an identifiable constituent group using general taxation of government borrowing . This would mean, the whole society will pay for the project which full benefit accruing to a small portion of the public. Allowing the legislators to fund the local projects using a nationally – legislated resource using the national governments revenue will further thin out the slices of the pie thus pressing the depressing conditions of the not politically aligned constituency even more poor.

The Rossi and Inman paper theorized that if the demands of the constituents were echoed by the elected representatives, and that, it leaves no spillover effects to non-constituents will result into inefficiency of public spending on the distributive goods, with the elected officials crying for an increased budget for the constituency’s needs while the constituents share of paying in the form of tax declines. This is attributable to the non-zero elasticity of demand. This will lead into “Harberger triangle ” which is an indication of the problematic political economy, and a consequent reduction in the benefit of the public spending.

The planned expenditure of the government will be hampered as a result of the PDAF as the government’s limited resources were used to fund locally-beneficial programs, leaving national agencies deficit of budget of its carefully planned spending using the most appropriate formula to address systematic perils of the society like hunger, criminality and the chronic poverty and hunger. Also, it is hard to dissociate the impressions of corruption in the dealings of infrastructure projects which leads into usurping the DPWH with its notorious tag as the most corrupt agency, scholarship programs with DEPED officials’ dirty hands and many other agencies. Proven or not, the impressions of the public remained glaringly suspicious.

As earlier stated, the fund is a lump-sum allocation of the appropriations act, but with the full discretion of the legislator on the amount, is an inviting scene for corruption. Parreno(1998) described in a report for the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism on the rates that a Congressman will be receiving as a cuts, kickbacks, commissions, rebates and discounts are robbery done on the very poor. The report mentioned that the contractors have to provide 30-50% discount or rebates to a legislator for granting the contract. This will lead into reducing by 20% the cement on a road project making it substandard – the poor thus paying the high cost.

On the one hand, the PDAF is a representation of an effective leadership of a people’s representative. If the districts’ needs for bridges, roads, bridges are meet due to the PDAF or initiative of the Congressman. If the social benefit is higher on the benefit of congressional project such as providing scholarship to students for training or formal education belonging to a poor family but wanted to learn, the social and personal benefit will be higher than the social cost as these individuals will contribute productively in the society – thus, reducing the risk of potential criminals and society’s menace.

Also, the PDAF brings the government into the small units in the community who were away from the short but caring arms of the State. The PDAF supports the small important projects that will directly enjoyed by the district constituents hence, providing an opportunity for democratic and productive practices towards economic development.

In Conclusion

The Pork barrel, PDAF or CDF in any of its moniker has its Janus face indicating its sullen past and its likely future.

1. It had perennially showed that it will undermine the whole framework of the organization, fund and budget, and operation in favor to a small and geographically determined beneficiary.
2. When the benefit is large and the obligation of the constituents is small, there is the tendency to demand for an increasing pork value. Pork barrel promotes inefficiency of public spending resulting to a loss in the welfare of the greater number of people, that is the marginal national benefit (benefit of carrying the national plan) against marginal local benefit (political district project).
3. Looking at pork barrel as a reward for support of the ruling party’s priority agenda, of the attribute of the legislator may result to corrupt the officials of its slightest padding of budget into the most horrendous misuse of public funds.
4. PDAF projects effectively and efficiently addresses the needs of the “political constituents” as opposed to the national agenda.
5. The misuse of the fund will be reduced when the mechanism of transparency and accountability will be put in place and appropriately implemented.
6. Pork barrel remained an American model which cannot be transplanted into the political system of the Philippines as this will only cause the “on-rush” of the politicians to get a share of the pork leaving the poor Juan crumbs for his family, and the generations to come beholden to the vicious cycle of poor getting poorer and the politicians getting richer.

UNDEMOCRACY IN THE ARMM AND THE GREATEST GOOD OF THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE ARMM ELECTIONS

2011-06-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

By Jamil Matalam

Today, 30 June 2011, the President of the Philippines signed the bill synchronizing the ARMM elections with that of the National Elections, i.e. postponing the August 2011 ARMM elections. From the reading of the President’s speech in signing the bill it would give us the impression that the primary intention for the bill is to pave way for reforms in the ARMM. I think reforming the ARMM is good and is a must. I take issue, however, with how the President, by passing, mentions how the undemocratic practice is happening in the region. He says:

“Kung ang makikita po natin tuwing eleksyon ay ganito: mga botanteng dinidiktahan kung sino ang isusulat sa balota, may demokrasya kaya ba? Mga estudyanteng napipilitang upuan ang mga balota upang protektahan ang mga boto habang pinapaligiran ng mga armadong tauhan ng mga politiko, may demokrasya ba? Mga gurong akap-akap ang mga balot box, nangangatog dahil sa pagbabanta sa kanilang mga buhay, may demokrasya ba?”(http://www.gov.ph/2011/06/30/president-aquino-speech-signing-bill-synchronizing-armm-elections-with-national-and-local-elections-june-30-2011/)

I think that to an extent there is factual truth to this statement, though I do not take out the possibility of exaggeration as this would definitely be not a personal knowledge on the part of the President: I do not think however that this is how undemocratic practice is happening in the ARMM. The President in the same speech, however, alluded to it, but actually missed the point when he said, in two paragraphs:

“Balikan din po natin ang ilang tagpo noong 2007 elections. Nang inihayag ang resulta ng halalan sa Maguindanao, ang lumabas: 12-0. Lahat po ng pambatong Senador ni Ginang Arroyo, panalo. Papaano po kaya nangyari ito? Sa isip ko, ganoon na lang kaya kalaki ang fans club ng koponang Arroyo sa ARMM?
Hindi naman po siguro posible na kapag ibang partido ang ibinoto mo, biglang nawawalan ng tinta ang gamit mong pluma. O baka naman ang kanilang mga balota, tinangay lamang ng hangin. Hanggang ngayon po, isang napakalaking palaisipan pa rin ang mga ganitong tagpo.”

For an ARMM politician this occurrence is no riddle, as he would like to humorously point out. These were done not by dictating voters what to write, nor through surrounding or threatening teachers and students with private armies. They are done more clandestinely, by local politicians and their relatives, and the local COMELEC, the night before the elections until the day of counting the votes. Undemocracy is done mostly, at least in Maguindanao, not really by threats but by not allowing the voters to vote, who do not really care about it, but by contracting those who holds the electoral machineries. Voters are not dictated or bought either; local politicians are given huge sums of money by candidates to ensure victory. In the last elections a local mayor would have received a total of 8 million from the candidates for the office of the governor alone.

Another cause of undemocracy in the region is the AFP. For instance, they have sold to the Ampatuans, thousands of high-powered guns, for which used is to kill insurgents who are residents of the ARMM, and the November 23 2009 incident. This practice has given local politician great power to perpetrate them in office and advance their whims as it would give them the power to kill anyone who opposes them. If the National Government and the AFP is true in advancing democracy why has this been allowed? The President, I think, missed this cause of undemocracy in his speech, giving us the impression that the National Government and its military arm as being faultless in the troubles happening in the ARMM, they have played a great part in these troubles.

The greatest good, therefore, that the postponement of the ARMM elections would bring is that it would lessen or deny the harvest of those who holds the electoral machineries by August. But whether it would bring, what the President refers to as democracy, though unclear in its meaning, is doubtful. Simply reforming the ARMM would definitely not bring it, but a total reform of the entire government and its military component, and change in how the Muslims of the south and their history is perceived (much of the attempt in reforming the ARMM is still grounded on the impressions and misconceptions perpetrated by the colonizers of the Islands, i.e. that they are dumb, politically immature, do not have any know how and must be taught the concepts of justice; a matter so unfair to them). But perhaps the postponement may be a start.

IDEAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY, POVERTY AND HAPPINESS

2011-04-05T19:19:00.001-07:00

By Jamil Matalam

The ideal of a civil society—a society of rational exchanges of thoughts about social welfare and a government under the rule of law— is thought by many to have much of its origins in the Western civilization. It presupposes two intrinsically related things: “free citizens”, those that are not in bondage of slavery; and a democratic regime. They have to be citizens because the idea of a right is involved, i.e., as a member of the society they have loyalty and have concern about the life of the community and society. They have to be free because they do not represent the interests of their “masters” but the welfare of all, a sense of neutrality and retreat. There has to be a democratic regime in order for a social structure that allows exchanges of thoughts about pertinent social matters are instituted and established. The presence of these things gives way to the establishment of rational political exchanges in a society. Without a sense of freedom, a citizen is not capable of rational deliberation because they are under the grips of the interest of their masters, knowingly or unknowingly; their acts and motives are suspect. Hence, they are incapable of viewing the matter rationally for their lack of autonomy; they do not speak for themselves but for someone else. Without a democratic regime, there would be no fora and social structures for rational exchanges of ideas. The civil society is a free, democratic and rational society.

In an impoverish society there could be no ideal of civil society because poverty is unfreedom. Poverty lay not only in our lack of capabilities but also in our being an easy prey to the wills and interests of the powers that be; to be under the sway of things. It is the lack of real autonomous actions that really makes a person poor. For instance, I may be capable of casting my vote in an election and even provide a justification for it, but it does not follow that I did the same in freedom. In doing it I may have acted in behalf of a principal, known or unknown to me, instead of my own interest or of all; I simply advance the interest of a master. It is this idea of poverty as unfreedom—slavery—that militates against the ideal of a civil society. This is because rational actions can be done only through an autonomous act. It cannot be done under the sway of a master. In a rational deliberation a person confronts his/her very own self before pursuing an action; the autonomous self has to first make its inclination. A poor person is just incapable of such autonomy because poverty grips him and refuses him reason. It tells him to succumb or perish. A poor person, a slave, is driven by appetitive and irrational impulses by the fact of his being poor. He thus become an easy prey for those who are greedy and has malicious intents; and when he has been gripped by it its shackles are difficult to remove. If rational and free actions are rare even in affluent societies, then they are difficult, if not impossible, in an impoverish society. The roots of poverty, deep it may have burrowed, must be uprooted.

The ideal of civil society, if it is to be composed by free citizens, is more characterized by “happiness” rather than affluency. The two are not synonymous or intrinsically related. Affluency is a material and technological condition whereas happiness is a state of being or personhood. In an affluent society, for instance, masters and slave still exists as in the case of an impoverish society. Affluency therefore does not guarantee rational and free actions, our happiness; at most it could only provide the material condition for happiness. A free citizen is a happy person because he is an autonomous self, and thus capable of rational deliberation. They are the ideal or happiness (eudaimonia) of the human person. Many has commented on ancient Greek theory of happiness as the achievement rational being, our true self as distinguished from other beings, the definition of humanity, but have taken slightly the clue that this was meant to be as autonomy. Our happiness, the aim or end of our human being or life, the philosophical life as the ancients call it, is autonomy. This was also what the ancient Chinese Sage alluded to when he wanted to each a man how to catch a fish rather than give him, he wanted that man autonomy. Our every human endeavours and efforts must be directed in the achievement of this aim. We must not lose sight of our aims for human autonomy or happiness; everything else is but means to this end.

The task therefore of those who would like to build the civil society, the very definition of human society, is the development and promotion of human autonomy. Human development, if it aims at our happiness, must work towards the achievement of our autonomous self and not be limited with the goal of an affluent society, lest we falter on our true ends and may be taken by the seeming from the true. But the task is no easy one; freedom requires great efforts and pains, especially considering that we now live in a different world from the ancients. With this, the question of human autonomy or freedom also had taken a new philosophical plane and requires renewed philosophical quests and debates. Philosophy therefore must assert anew its role and involvement in the efforts of human development.

The Weakening Exercise of Academic Freedom in the University

2011-03-03T18:56:00.000-08:00

Dr. Romulo Bautista
DEVSTRAT Consultant

The questions I raise are how to liberate the individuals from the pressures of an organizational university and how to provide some measure of participatory democracy within such organization. These questions are basic for humanistic ethics that claim to be responsive to human needs.

This essay seeks the ground of the ‘rejection of the value of academic freedom’ in those universities. It proceeds from the premise that the university is an organization, and as such, it has “organization personality”, in other word, an “organiza-lity” (a synergy of “organization” and “personality”).

The university has become an independent entity with “personality” of its own. Organization has no real entity; it is a mental fiction. But, the university is regarded as having its own entity by those who come in contact with it and as being endowed with special characteristics over and beyond the individuals who compose it. In the eyes of those who deal with institution, this is a distinct body with a history and identity, prerogatives and rights. “Organization” is another name for institution, social group, or corporations; and the suffix “ality” is appended to designate the emergence of “organizality” in the eyes of those who deal with is as distinct body with a history and identity, prerogatives and rights. There are now a great number of such organizations. The trend toward growth and concentration of power is very real in the university organization.

In a sense organization is one of the basic keys to human progress. It is founded on the discovery that specialization and division of labor is the key to productivity and efficiency. The point is that organizational revolution seems to be an essential part of the technological revolution in contemporary time.

There appears to be a prevailing organizality syndrome in the universities referred to by the above-mentioned email sender, where there is a growing disregard of the value of academic and the weakening its exercise.

Organizations have a primary purpose or set of purposes which they attempt to fulfill (profit, education, salvation), though these goals may change through time. Also, organizations develop administrative structures. There are hierarchical systems of powers by which decisions are made and resources are allocated. Concomitant with the different roles and functions within the structure, different duties and responsibilities develop.

But oligarchic rule tends to prevail in most of our organizations. The principle of succession is frequently by co=option; that is, leaders are designated by an organizational elite and leadership generally is reward to those who appeal to the inner circle. Increasingly, there is a rise of the administrators and managers and a decline of the professionals. “Legitimacy” of rule is based upon acceptance, which is very often defined by loyalty to the organization, rather than by skill or knowledge.

Now, organizations develop subtle sets of latent functions over and beyond their primary manifest functions. They become concerned of the employees’ outside “moral conduct”. The organization requires the individual employees’ conformity to the organizality.

There develops within the organizality a psychological climate, a set of values, and a normative code. There is a displacement of values away from the intrinsic qualities of work to its by-products of income, security, prestige, and leisure. The “logic” of the organization is essentially conservative. Thus, there is standardization and consistency of behavior. Increasingly there is a tendency for the individual responsibility to give way to corporate responsibility, and the individual denies he is responsible for what the corporation does.

It is the dilemma of those who want to exercise academic freedom within the organizality of the universities that interests this essay. Nevertheless, many believers in academic freedom are reactionary in regard to their role within the organization. All too few have the courage or honesty to stand up against their own organizality when they think that it is wrong.

How can we pursue participatory democracy in the university which guarantees the free exercise of academic freedom?

But, first, what is academic freedom all about? Fr. Michael Moga, S.J. shares his thoughts on the subject as it relates to an academic professor. He says that “academic freedom is the right of an academic professor (1) to choose what he or she will study and examine, (2) to develop his or her own interpretation of this topic, and (3) to proclaim and publish that study and that interpretation”. This essayist fully agrees with him. His view, however, touches only one estate of the university organization.

Let us consider his thoughts within the organizational structure of the university. The most crucial problem that we face is the need to democratize the organization of private university by widespread participation in its workings at various levels.

There are various types of governments within university organizations. There is (1) rule by a hereditary family monarch, (2) tyranny of an autocrat or czar. (3) rule by closed oligarchic elite (the dominant mode in corporate organization), or (4) rule by democracy. This essay is about democratic process at all levels in the decision-making within the organization of the university. What is needed is decentralization of the university organizational structure so that decisions are also made at the lower rungs of the scale. Above all, what is needed is the principle of dissent and the right of opposition within the organization itself. The point is, a professor has a right to continue to be part of the university organization to which he devotes portion of his time and energy even if he dissents from or disobeys its policy directives.

It must be noted, however, that participatory democracy, though a general principle which guides or directs policy and action of the university, must be applied in concrete contexts if it is to take on meaning and force. There are numerous complexities which emerge when one attempts to do so. In other words, the levels of participation of individuals and the roles that they play in the organization of the university must be viewed in differential and prudential terms, always related to the functions and purposes of the university. For instance, participation of faculty and students has its limitations. Limitations are necessary to avoid confusion.

A PHILOSOPHY OF PROTEST

2011-03-03T18:46:00.000-08:00

Dr. Romulo Bautista
DEVSTRAT Consultant

Humankind’s essential nature entails its relation to God, the infinite. Its existential condition is a consequence of its alienation from God. This is why it is not of any help to lose oneself in a crowd or collectivity of whatever nature. Being in a crowd unmakes one’s nature as an individual by diluting the self; it renders the individual irresponsible.

From the standpoint of Christian faith, being immersed in a crowd appears as an attempt upon the person’s part to derive some meaning for his existence. But this is a wrong attempt for “to relate oneself to God is a far higher thing than to be related” to any other thing, whether a person, a race, or even church. Until one does actualize one’s essential self in God, one’s life is full of anxiety. One’s anxiety is caused by one’s awareness of a deep alienation of one’s existential from one’s essential self.

The great problem for Kierkegaard is to relate God’s is-ness to human existence, and this he tries to solve by appealing to Incarnation (his concept of Incarnation is a secularization of Christianity whereby he attempts to give a human face to a faceless, abstract God). Christ’s person is the existent outgrowth of God who is. By what is admittedly a mysterious process the abstract God enters a concrete existent. We must appeal on this faith and faith alone, for clearly it cannot be like the process whereby one existent is related to another; it involves a passage from one realm to another which is not accessible to the human mind.

Theistic existentialism and atheistic existentialism are opposites, yet they are inseparable and give mutual meaning to each other. In effect they complement each other in their protest which seeks to rescue the existing concrete individuals from total dehumanization and annihilation which are being caused by the following factor, such as traditional abstract thinking. This unilateral thinking is one that we existentialists are in protest against.

Traditional abstract thinking, particularly against the speculative idealism of Plato and Hegel, who ignore the individual person in favor of the “world of ideas” or “universal ago”. Traditional philosophy gives a “system of ideas” which fails to describe and diagnose the concrete human situation and the problems of concrete human existence.

The emphasis on abstract reason, on abstract nature, on mankind, makes the traditional, abstract philosophy or idealism too academic, too superficial, and too distant from the concrete human life.

Impersonal nature of modern industrial age and industrial society which reduce man to a mere object or tool to be used. Also, the worship of science and technology which interpret man in terms of physical and mechanical processes.

As a whole, totalitarian forces, be they be political or religious, which attempt to crush or submerge the individual in collective mass.

The Weakening Exercise of Academic Freedom in the University

2011-03-03T18:38:00.000-08:00

Dr. Romulo Bautista
Ethical Development Strategies Philippines, inc.

The questions I raise are how to liberate the individuals from the pressures of an organizational university and how to provide some measure of participatory democracy within such organization. These questions are basic for humanistic ethics that claim to be responsive to human needs.

This essay seeks the ground of the ‘rejection of the value of academic freedom’ in those universities. It proceeds from the premise that the university is an organization, and as such, it has “organization personality”, in other word, an “organiza-lity” (a synergy of “organization” and “personality”). The university has become an independent entity with “personality” of its own. Organization has no real entity; it is a mental fiction. But, the university is regarded as having its own entity by those who come in contact with it and as being endowed with special characteristics over and beyond the individuals who compose it. In the eyes of those who deal with institution, this is a distinct body with a history and identity, prerogatives and rights. “Organization” is another name for institution, social group, or corporations; and the suffix “ality” is appended to designate the emergence of “organizality” in the eyes of those who deal with is as distinct body with a history and identity, prerogatives and rights. There are now a great number of such organizations. The trend toward growth and concentration of power is very real in the university organization.

In a sense organization is one of the basic keys to human progress. It is founded on the discovery that specialization and division of labor is the key to productivity and efficiency. The point is that organizational revolution seems to be an essential part of the technological revolution in contemporary time.

There appears to be a prevailing organizality syndrome in the universities referred to by the above-mentioned email sender, where there is a growing disregard of the value of academic and the weakening its exercise.

There are certain general characteristics which contemporary organizations manifest and which are observable in the universities referred to by my email sender:

1. Organizations have a primary purpose or set of purposes which they attempt to fulfill (profit, education, salvation), though these goals may change through time.

2. Organizations develop administrative structures. There are hierarchical systems of powers by which decisions are made and resources are allocated. Concomitant with the different roles and functions within the structure, different duties and responsibilities develop.

3. Oligarchic rule tends to prevail in most of our organizations. The principle of succession is frequently by co=option; that is, leaders are designated by an organizational elite and leadership generally is reward to those who appeal to the inner circle. Increasingly, there is a rise of the administrators and managers and a decline of the professionals. “Legitimacy” of rule is based upon acceptance, which is very often defined by loyalty to the organization, rather than by skill or knowledge.

4. Organizations develop subtle sets of latent functions over and beyond their primary manifest functions. They become concerned of the employees’ outside “moral conduct”. The organization requires the individual employees’ conformity to the organizality.

5. There develops within the organizality a psychological climate, a set of values, and a normative code. There is a displacement of values away from the intrinsic qualities of work to its by-products of income, security, prestige, and leisure. The “logic” of the organization is essentially conservative. Thus, there is standardization and consistency of behavior. Increasingly there is a tendency for the individual responsibility to give way to corporate responsibility, and the individual denies he is responsible for what the corporation does.

It is the dilemma of those who want to exercise academic freedom within the organizality of the universities that interests this essay. Nevertheless, many believers in academic freedom are reactionary in regard to their role within the organization. All too few have the courage or honesty to stand up against their own organizality when they think that it is wrong.

How can we pursue participatory democracy in the university which guarantees the free exercise of academic freedom?

Let us consider the organizational structure of the university. The most crucial problem that we face is the need to democratize the organization of private university by widespread participation in its workings at various levels.

There are various types of governments within university organizations. There is (1) rule by a hereditary family monarch, (2) tyranny of an autocrat or czar. (3) rule by closed oligarchic elite (the dominant mode in corporate organization), or (4) rule by democracy. This essay is about democratic process at all levels in the decision-making within the organization of the university. What is needed is decentralization of the university organizational structure so that decisions are also made at the lower rungs of the scale. Above all, what is needed is the principle of dissent and the right of opposition within the organization itself. The point is, a professor has a right to continue to be part of the university organization to which he devotes portion of his time and energy even if he dissents from or disobeys its policy directives.

It must be noted, however, that participatory democracy, though a general principle which guides or directs policy and action of the university, must be applied in concrete contexts if it is to take on meaning and force. There are numerous complexities which emerge when one attempts to do so. In other words, the levels of participation of individuals and the roles that they play in the organization of the university must be viewed in differential and prudential terms, always related to the functions and purposes of the university. For instance, participation of faculty and students has its limitations. Limitations are necessary to avoid confusion.

Housing, Real State Market and Philippine Economy

2011-03-03T18:29:00.000-08:00

Adrian Tamayo
University of Mindanao

Introduction

The real estate market remained a narrow focus of analysis in the broad field of economics. However, with the growing population and limits of geography, urban economics was developed along with it is the new field we now call as real estate economics. In some literatures, real estate economics and housing economics were indistinguishable as brought by the dictates of their time. Nowadays, real estate means a lot of things. In fact, the young real estate sector is 2 percent of the country’s GDP.

There seemed to be evidence of the skewed development of real estate industry in the Philippines which is urban-centered. This is expected as indicated by strong rural-urban migration happening in the country. This development depicts the demand structure for housing. The bureaucratic bottlenecks, land-ownership of the foreigners, property rights issue are peculiar characteristic of this market. However, there is an observed increase in the number of home ownership of poor and non-poor, Davao City, in particular reflected a 33 percent probability of owning a house than renting.

A probe into the real estate

Real Estate economics is the application of the economic concepts and theories on real estate market in order to explain, evaluate, forecast the patterns of prices, building, production and the consumption of it. A sub-topic of this approach by which focuses narrowly on the residential estate markets is known as the housing economics. Contemporary economic analysis of the housing market evolved into classifying the commodity as bundles of attribute, as a product that is heterogeneously composed. Over some time, housing market only considers housing product as homogenous commodity, that is the structure in itself and the buyers only seek out for it primarily for its price attribute. The basis of this economic theory is due to the long–run equilibrium solution which indicates that overtime, all housing inputs (size, complementary renovations) are all variable (changeable) except the accessibility (Kain and Quigley, 1975)

On the contrary, the heterogeneity and the non-standardized valuation of the real estate lead into the trouble of pricing real capital assets such as the standard market value for single–family homes, apartments, and office buildings (Englund et al., 1999) this is a fact in the United States that these variations lead to distort the cost of programs for the public in order to promote home possession which bears impact on the cost of living index due to the composite transfer payments of project of the government [Englund citing Quigley(1995)]. Alternatively, the buyers of the real estate may likewise postpone its investment in order to acquire exact information on the market price of the real estate.

Some parametric models were developed to predict the relationship between housing investments and housing prices and the expected return on investment. This is a particular interest to us because when the buyers (owners/renters or renters) consider the variability of the market, asset values might be altered causing a bubble value otherwise crashing it. Along this line, Kain and Quigley developed a “hedonic” regression model in order to predict the price of the house as determined by its characteristics. As such, valuing the asset in the market is determined other than keeping it arbitrarily as burdened by its unique quality. The model employed the physical attributes of the structure such as age of the structure, year built, number of rooms, etc; this is in addition to the geographical location, and the neighborhood amenities, and some measure of time .

The stochastic analysis made in the real estate market in the United States indicate that the period of construction follow a significant effect on the selling price of the asset, however, it was noted that there occurred no significant variation in the selling price of the asset that were sold twice or three times, also, the size of the lot influences the market price but not with the interior size of the house, and that the market value of the assets are auto-serially correlated which means that the current selling price of the real estate is systematically influenced by the most previous market value of it. With the introduction of the housing financing, the variability of the price of the real estate is moderated through mortgage. Warnock and Warnock (2007) emphasized with the supplement of a study of 17 countries that mortgage finance is a critical factor in generating housing demand, as well as it functionally influence the housing market supply.

Real Estate Market and Other Sectors of the Economy

An ordinary sized family will have the spending for housing eating up a greater piece of the income pie, and in fact considered as the most important asset (Warnock and Warnock, 2007). The family will spend considerably for a healthy and secure place for a home for the family to live decently and comfortably. A dynamic and active housing market reflects a vibrant economy because of its causal consequence into the other sectors of the society aside from the housing sector itself. Health of the citizens and the control of diseases can be improved by a functioning and responsive real estate market.

A dependable housing market can stimulate growth of the economy as well as cohort measure of the vigor of an economy as a result of the process of exchange in the market, the jobs that were generated, and the added value of the assets, and the strengthening of the social ties and social cohesion that it could facilitate as a result of the aesthetic effect of a decent, comfortable property delivered on the time when price premium is high for the seller and the utility is best for the buyer through a responsible facilitation of the banks and brokers and other intermediaries.

On Human Rights Culture (PART II)

2011-02-08T18:37:00.001-08:00

Mr. Joefer Maninang
Ateneo de Davao University

Rorty’s pragmatic stance on human rights, on the other hand, conceives the human being as “a centreless web of historically conditioned beliefs and desires” and from this conception we follow Rorty’s assumption of the existence of the human rights culture. Historically conditioned by the Holocaust, the human rights culture expresses the common ‘beliefs and desires’ of some of us which is basically the respect for human rights. But beside this culture are other cultures that have their own beliefs and desires that do not respect human rights. People who belong in these cultures are the human rights violators. For Rorty, violators have to be integrated in the human rights culture and the efficient way to do it is through sentimentalism.

The human rights culture occupies the ‘mainstream’ of our society. It separates some of us, as humans, from non-respecting ‘minority’ cultures. Membership in the mainstream culture generally requires respect for human rights while the features of minority cultures which pertain to illegal groups or associations speak for its members. For instance, the Davao Death Squad has the following features of its members, perpetrators, rebel returnees, former target victims, etc. So those responsible for the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or genocide in Rwanda , the recent Maguindanao massacre in the Philippines, and many more emerging ones possess distinct features which echo their membership in non-respecting cultures. This then leads us to imagine not just the obvious divide between the violators and their victims but also between some of us, members of the human rights culture, and the violators themselves.

Rorty says there are “three main ways in which we paradigmatic humans distinguish ourselves from borderline cases” . Two of these allegations namely: (1) invoking the ‘human-animal distinction’ and (2) the ‘distinction between adults and children’ pertain to the separation or divide between the perpetrators and their victims in human rights violations and the divide between the perpetrators and some of us, who are members of the human rights culture. This can be analyzed through the Davao Death Squad as a historically contingent fact.

The human-animal distinction closely applies to some of us who are members of the human rights culture and the death squad perpetrators. This distinction happens when we hesitate to do something to help save the victims. It happens when we paradigmatically deny our involvement in the quarrel between animals. We judge the perpetrators animals because they do not know that it is irrationally wrong to kill. In this way, we are no different from the foundationalists and moral philosophers who judge humans animals because they do not know that they can know. The victims are animals as they are judged by their perpetrators. We discriminate the perpetrators who also discriminate their victims as well. This manner of discriminating the perpetrators only reveals that our judgment on them makes us animals like them. In other words, our moral conscience is as weak as the perpetrators’ judgment on their victims as animals. For Rorty, this form of weakness must be addressed. To address it is not to let the perpetrators know that it is morally demanded by their rationality to realize they did wrong. This is the work of the foundationalists which aggravates rather than mitigates. Instead, to begin with is to have a little more of our patience and understanding towards the perpetrators and trust that they can change. This means to open our eyes about the reality of the killings. This is when our sympathy is manipulated by the reality itself. This in a way means being taught by the killings. Recognizing this manipulation as the ‘moment of truth’ is an important step in realizing sentimentalism to really reach the victims.

The second way of discriminating others which is invoking the ‘distinction between adults and children’ implies the human-animal distinction. In the case of the perpetrators and their victims, the victims were paradigmatically labeled ‘children’ before they were actually killed by their perpetrators not because they are literally children but because they are animals. Meaning to say, these children are those “ignorant and superstitious people…[who can] attain true humanity only if raised up by proper education [and] if they seem incapable of absorbing such education, that shows they are not really the same kind of being as…educable people be” . Uneducable people are not human. This distinction in concrete terms is depicted by the situation when the Calinan Police precinct policeman warned Adon through his mother saying that unless her son changed his behavior something may happen to him. Suppose this certain policeman is the principal perpetrator who conspired with the ‘hitman’, we can consider him as the perpetrator whose way of educating is through a warning. Since Adon was killed, we can say that he was distinguished first by his perpetrator as uneducable- an animal, not human. This is the mentality of the perpetrators calling us to change. To change this is to sympathize with the perpetrators. Being protectors of the victims’ rights, this change of perspective is just what is needed if not, the only thing that is needed. The moment of truth is therefore the ‘moment of sympathy’.

The hope of democracy is to achieve a better future-“more freedom, more growth, more empathy, and more solidarity” , “a planetary community”. So the ‘paradigmatic distinctions’ discussed above which threatens our human rights culture threatens our democratic society. Nevertheless, this culture has found a cure from dying in sentimentalism. Sentimentalism is the practical way of factoring in more and more people whom we find trouble tolerating due to their differences. These people pertain to the perpetrators in the death squad killings who label their victims animals and to us who are suppose to be promoters of human rights yet do nothing except labeling the perpetrators animals. Sentimentalism treats these cultural distinctions as violations with the human rights culture as its background.

On Human Rights Culture (PART I)

2011-02-08T18:34:00.000-08:00

Mr. Joefer Maninang
Ateneo de Davao University

In his celebrated essay Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality American philosopher Richard Mckay Rorty (1931-2007) uses a pragmatic approach to the subject of human rights. He claims that what really make people respect or deny human rights are their life circumstances . In attempting to elucidate this claim, I wish to accomplish three (3) things in this article: firstly, I will present a hopefully fair Rortian conception of human rights to introduce the culture of impunity as our indifferent, apathetic, and passive sort of response to the culture of the death squad. Secondly, I will try to demonstrate sentimentalism through the definite meaning of sympathy vis-à-vis security or the life circumstances which make us respect or deny human rights. Thirdly and finally, I will conclude by stressing sentimentalism as the practical or perhaps the only way of addressing the problem of human rights violations.

We open this human rights talk with Rorty proposing, “[w]e see our task as a matter of making our own culture-the human rights culture-more self-conscious and more powerful” by manipulating sentiments . This implies that the weaknesses of our human rights culture such as the prevalence of human rights violations or “cultural distinctions” can be addressed through sentimental education or sentimentalism. While sentimentalism is the necessary way of expanding the respect for human rights, it is also the starting point of achieving humanity’s hope of a better future. Sentimentalism simply teaches us to tell sad and touching stories of human rights violations to others in such a way that we imagine ourselves “in the shoes of the despised and oppressed” , the ‘despised and oppressed’ being deprived of security and sympathy. Sentimentalism is the Rortian mechanism to strengthen our human rights culture. But before this, we are faced with a curious question. How did human rights emerge as a culture of our own?

As the Argentinian jurist-philosopher Eduardo Rabossi states that the human rights culture is “a new, welcome fact of the post-Holocaust world” , we remember how the Holocaust as a historically contingent fact had triggered the coming of the human rights culture. The Holocaust can be considered as the worst period in history. The cultural ‘act of the Holocaust’ epitomized those acts that were dark, cruel and sad experiences, human rights violations. If only mankind can save himself from the factories of death, the gas chambers, and the crematorium in the Auschwitz concentration camps then I believe he would not hesitate to do so. What happened in Germany was an irrevocable reality. The Holocaust was the worst mistake that mankind did to himself. But this reality had triggered mankind to admit his responsibility. It was the ultimate human atrocity that should never happen again. The Holocaust therefore was a historically contingent fact of the world, a cultural fact that was the momentous turning point of mankind to change himself.

Indeed, the human rights culture is a new, welcome fact of the post-Holocaust world. It is the positive by-product of mankind’s moment of self-transformation during his finest hour in the Holocaust. Rorty justifies this idea of self-transformation when he employs Darwin in positing that human beings are “the flexible, protean, self-shaping, animals” which means that they are those living entities that can make themselves into whatever they are clever and courageous enough to imagine themselves becoming. Human beings are exceptionally talented animals, animals clever enough to take charge of their own future evolution . In this sense, the human rights culture is a positive reflection of mankind’s awareness of himself. This awareness constituted the denial of ‘who he was’, the cultural act of the Holocaust being who he was, and at the same time the affirmation of ‘who he is’, a human being worthy of his life as his fundamental from which all of his other rights are derived simply because he is human. The human rights culture represents the human being’s assertion of his dignity as a person. Rorty elaborates this Darwinian conception of the human being, “to say that we are clever animals is not to say something philosophical and pessimistic but something political and hopeful ”.

The human rights culture as the moral conscience of our political society characterizes the hope of democracy. This culture in other words can be argued as the fountainhead from which the ‘legitimacy’ of modern (liberal) democracy springs. It has even been institutionalized in many nation-states such as the Americas and European countries in the west, some Arab nations in the Middle East, and some southeastern countries like Thailand and the Philippines. These countries have incorporated ‘a set of human rights’ in their own respective laws. These laws speak for the human rights culture. All the more, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which has been in existence for more than half a century since the most unforgettable crime committed against humanity during the Second World War-the Holocaust-loudly speaks for it. The human rights culture is a social product and a new human image, a political development, our globally-celebrated democratic achievement.

Education as Life-long Process of Human Liberation and Development

2011-02-07T21:14:00.000-08:00

By Romulo Bautista, Ph.D
Ethical Development Strategies Philippines, Inc.

The pre-school education of the child is a process which naturally starts with his parents at home, and by his parents’ choice, his education may be continued and enhanced in a day care school.

There are several propositions as to when the child’s pre- school education should begin and as to when it should end. These propositions are from the extreme to the moderate, which might be summed up in three propositions: (1) “pre-education begins at conception and ends at resurrection (2) “pre-education begins at the womb and ends at the tomb; and from (3) “pre-education begins at the cradle and ends at the grave” Note that the three propositions suggest that the pre-school education of the child should start at the earliest time possible, even before his birth, and should continue during his lifetime, even beyond his life time. In brief, the propositions suggest their grave concern for the role of education in the life of the human being.

With what does the child’s pre-education begin? One existing assumption that is widely accepted is that “a child is born with an empty mind” (a mind that is ‘tabula rasa’ or ‘blank board’). Pre-education begins with the child’s empty mind. At this stage, child’s mind is delicately malleable; thus the child needs a teacher as educator to mold his malleable mind. His parents undertake the initial and delicate task to educe the potentials of his very tender mind. To pre-educate, in brief, is to mold the mind of the child.

But, what is the end of the child’s pre-education? The end that is also widely accepted is that his pre-education is eventually for “complete living”. But, “complete living” is pursued hierarchically. Thus, specific goals of complete living could be identified within the hierarchy of human needs and wants. Accordingly, the first specific goal of education is self-preservation, the satisfaction of physiological needs and wants; the second is satisfaction of security needs and wants; the third is the satisfaction love needs and wants; the forth, the satisfaction of esteem needs and wants; and finally, the satisfaction of self-actualization or the ‘total human liberation and development’ of the pupil.

Self-actualization, however, is not absolute but relative. Whoever is absolutely self-actualized or self-fulfilled with what he does, has reached his culminating point – he will progress no more. Man’s destiny in life is not to be dissatisfied but forever unsatisfied. Therefore, one’s pursuit of total human liberation and development is not achievable in his lifetime. This may suggest the speculation that education goes beyond this life, that there is still human life after human life.

Assuming that the starting point of child’s pre-education is the “child’ empty mind” and its end is “the child’s eventual complete living”: What should be the task of the Barangay Day Care teacher as educator? The first task should be “to replace the child’s empty mind with an open one.” The critical role of the teacher as educator is to teach and educate the child to keep his mind discriminately open to various, and even opposing, ideas, values, and practices which he had learned from his elders. The negative and positive values and/or practices of his society would affect his actual choices and decisions in the pursuit of complete living.

Explained differently, “education is an activity or endeavor in which the more mature (e.g. teacher as educator) in society deals with the less mature (child), in order to achieve greater maturity in them and contribute thereby to the improvement of human life”.

Outside the home, the day care center is an informal institution where the pre-school children should be taught and educated “to learn to unlearn” and/or “to unlearn to learn” their values and practices learned and/or acquired at home or elsewhere. From the realistic point of view, education is an on-going process where the child ‘is what he is not, and he is not what he is”. Identity-wise, “who the child is” is permanent. The identity of the child at one year old remains the same identity even in his older years, “I was that child”. Personality-wise, “what the child is” at three years old is distinct from “what he is” at 20 years later, though his identity remains the same.

Education has no bearing to the identity of the pupil, but to his personality. “Personality” comes from the merging of “person”“quality”, where “person” means “per se ens” in Latin, meaning “being in itself, thus existing permanently by itself” and “quality” which modifies the person, thus it cannot exist by itself independent of the person, hence, transitory. Personality-wise, education is a life-time process of liberating and developing the child from “what he is” to “what he is not”, and from “what he is not” to “what he is”. The child’s transformation involves his “learning and unlearning” and activities. Here the teacher/educator plays a very crucial role.

PART II: Terrorism: A Semantic of Reality?

2011-02-02T18:56:00.000-08:00

Adrian Tamayo
University of Mindanao

Clash of Culture as war against terrorism?

The 9/11 entered into the history of mankind as the worst butchery ever aside from the world wars. In response, the Bush administration declared the war against terrorism. But what this declaration connotes is more than imagining the tanks rolling out of the arsenals, this should highlight who are the targets. The war against terrorism is fight against the spreading of the plague of the barbarians who are opposing civilization itself” . The target of this war against will be those depraved who opposed civilization. Huntington supposed that the source of conflict cannot be ideologic neither economic, he said that “ the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural” as power and control now rests in the nation states and that conflicts will be among these different nations with different cultures – thus Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”.

It was said that a civilization is the highest grouping of people having the same culture and cultural level which strikes the difference of one group of people from another, civilization is a primary source of pride and identity. The civilizations can be as large as China or can also be small, it may also be composed of various nations and can be subdivided into small civilizations – Islam can be subdivided to Arab, Turkic and Malay while the Western Civilization can be categorized broadly to European and North American (Huntington, 1993). As mentioned that there were 21 civilizations according to history study of Arnold Tonybee but it was stressed that due to blending, overlapping and merging of these various civilizations, eight sustained – Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and a hopeful African civilization. These civilizations are likely to be in conflict because of the six reasons as enumerated by Huntington as: (1) differences in civilizations are real; (2) the world is getting smaller through ease of mobility and communication; (3) modernization and social changes which sensationalizes the North-South relationship, or the rich country - poor country relationship; (4) the civilization consciousness and the role of the West; (5) cultural characteristics are considered to be mutable and can be resolved; (6) economic regionalism is apparent. Cromsky added the seventh most logical reason – the role of the United States is increasingly observable in the domestic affairs of the many nations which caused economic and political instability in countries like Palestine, Lebanon, Algeria, South Africa, Nicaragua, Afghanistan.

The mode of intervention was to quell down the enemies through “ wrecking the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves,” thus forcing the people themselves to rise in revolt against their own government and in the end leaving the economy in great havoc with many basic infrastructure destroyed and population annihilated. The proxy war or the minimal conflict employs the use of brute force to the inhabitants to agitate the natives against their own government. These perpetrators of proxy wars have the sophisticated logistical and intelligence support through the CIA.
While the Bush Administration was quick to declare war on terror, other countries supported the policy even more eager. These countries on the other hand, have a history of their own account of atrocities: Russia against Chechnya; China is involved in the violence against the Muslim secessionist in Western China; Turkey is killing the Kurds in the Southeastern Turkey; Indonesia against Ache; Algeria which is domestically terrorizing its people - Cromsky described the coalition against terrorism as the leading terrorists States in the world which is led by the worst terrorist state – US.

The Rise of the Perpetrators

It was said that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) organized the terrorists of the world. These individuals were coming from across the globe – Pakistan, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and China, with the sole purpose to pester the Russians in the 1980’s. These individuals were referred to as the Mojaheddin. It was in the format of mercenary army to cause the biggest trouble to the Russian army conquering Afghanistan. It is understandable that the Afghans should defend themselves against the Russians but with the US intervening in the affairs through the Mojaheddin was beyond the call. As the Russians were withdrawing and the Russo-Afghan war coming to an end, the terrorists forces of the CIA pursued their own agenda with the first act of aggression being observed when they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt. Note Sadat was one of the most supportive of the creation of the Mojaheddin in the Afghanistan. When the Russians withdraw completely in 1989, the terror attacks were since then found in other countries such as Chech-nya, Western China, Bosnia, Kashmir, South East Asia, North Africa resonating the same agenda. As evident in the words of Bin Laden and other known terrorists that their objective is to stop the infidels, “clash of civilization” thesis - a conflict between the Western and the Islamic civilizations. The enemy is the corrupt and brutal regime of the Arab world and their aim is to defend the proper Islamist governments and defend Muslims against the infidels. With the US establishing a permanent military base in Saudi Arabia after responding to the call of King Fahd for military support against Iraq, the act was considered as act of aggression against the Muslim World as it is a home to holy places to Islam. It was also deemed that the United States continuously halting the development of the many countries, in addition to its policies to Iraq, and its support to the Israeli army’s harsh and brutal occupation of the Gaza and part of Palestine.

On the other hand, the breeding of the terrorist was hard to penetrate. The terrorist convention of activities developed into a new method of organizing called as the leaderless resistance . It takes in the assumption that the person can most truly trust in a small, unorganized group characterized by affinity – thus also called as affinity groups or decentralized networks.

The Rise of Islamic Militancy

The Islamic fundamentalism had been using the suhra in order to justify their course of violence in the pre-text of self-defense or a response to an imminent threat. However, it was found that more often, the militancy does not associate with Islam and its teachings. According to Vertigans (2009) that the militant groups such as Hizb ul – Mujahidin in Kashmir, Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Lashkar Jihad in Indonesia, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Arakan Rohingya Nationalist Organization in Myammar and the Southeast Asian Jemaah Islamiyah are tending away from the Islamic way of life.

When this militancy started? Vertigans (2009) subscribed to the “clash of civilization” thesis of Huntington(1993) in describing the declaration of Bin Laden in 1998 with its “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Holy Places” enjoining all Muslims to kill Americans anywhere in the world. Accordingly, the objective is to expel Americans from Saudi Arabia . With this declaration, the hidebound and nation-bounded war against threat to Islam was concentrated and supported with a fatwa or a religious edict, a united opposition for militancy against the United States started. Thus the clash spread from Palestine, to Iraq, Kenya, Tanzania, Chechnya, Indonesia, Kashmir and in 2001 the world witnessed that the threat was already brought into the territory of the United States .

These until

As civilizations clash, the victims are primarily the defenseless children and women who by thousands are deprived of food, shelter and safety. The children and women are living the day in fear, trouble and uncertainty of life. The figures and horrible deaths by no means were used as statements of objective by the terrorists themselves. But all of these will persist when civilizations continue to point their differences as source of conflict and not potential co-existence; the roads, villages, towns will remain dark, dangerous and deserted. Fear shall be the language of the land. Until culprits of carnage were not put to trial and face justice, horizontal violence is potent aiming at innocent civilians in the name of revenge. Until when people learn to forgive and reconcile, recognize and respect common differences as platform for dialogue, recognize individual dignity and equal rights , then terrorism will threaten humanity with its compelling force.

The development of the principle of Centrist Democracy fits perfectly in the desire to bring peace among warring nations, among civilizations. The trialogue of the centrist democracy of human dignity, subsidiarity and social market economy all hail praise for the supremacy of the welfare of the individual as opposed to the welding of powers in the center. Can the Centrist Democracy fit into the big picture? Or narrowly asked can each one contribute towards a just and lasting peace in accordance with the principles of dignity and respect for life without the compulsion and force?

PART I: Terrorism: A Semantic of Reality?

2011-02-02T18:53:00.000-08:00

Adrian M. Tamayo
University of Mindanao

The origin of International Terrorism

Terrorism is as old as history. It was used in order to justify the aim of a political and economic ends. It implements the most horrendous acts in the minimal number and resonating it in the mind and psychology of the people, making them not safe in their homes – thus terror. The presence can be traced into the long order of historical remnants. Associated with terrorism are the assassins who are feared individuals who carry death orders for a payment. However, the origin of the word is highly associated with a Muslim sect during the 8th to 14th who were feared because of their fierce killing using a dagger which carnage carried even during the day.

The members were noticeably chewing hashish that’s why they are called as hashashin . Another term that is closely related with the terrorism is zealot which is a Jewish sect in the first century which group was opposed to Roman Empire’s presence in Israel.

The most popular in the annals of recorded history is the “Reign of Terror” of the French Revolution where killing was rampant and were carried against the opposition to newly established setup of French democracy. Huntington (1993) described the period as war of people which established the State-led conflict where people participated in the war not due for a king’s or princes’ whims but on the general perception, belief, rights and honor of the people.

Terrorism defined

According to Chomsky (2001) as quoting the US Army Manual that “terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear”. The French Revolution was so horrendously carried by executing death orders to individuals known to oppose the newly installed democracy. Sloan (2006) described it as rather having tinge of emotions, accordingly, “someone’s terrorist is somebody else’s freedom fighter”. Chomsky on the other hand satirically described that the act of terror is itself acceptable when it is carried by a strong state against people beyond national boarders in order to curtail threat of democracy or to establish a so-called “humanitarian regime”.

Notably, Nicaragua filed for unjustifiable “use of force” of the United States against the local Nicaraguans at the World Court and at the UN Security Council, the Reagan desisted the decision of the Court that Nicaragua must be compensated and must receive reparation due to the US intervention in the internal affairs, but the United States desisted the World Courts decision and also vetoed the decision of the UN Security Council.

The brute force used by the Reagan Administration against Nicaraguans, using the US – sponsored - terrorists targeting the “soft targets” or undefended civilians led into what Chomsky’s description of terrorism as “United in Joy” quoting the Wall Street Journal describing the outcome of thousands of citizens impoverished and other thousands deaths.

“Unjustified use of force”, “brute force” defines terrorism describing the small, uncoordinated networks of disgruntled individuals acting against the strong State. While if it is carried by a strong powerful state employing the same act of terror against a weak nation, then it is “United in Joy”.

Noam Chomsky described evolution of the act of aggression against US and the corresponding retaliation of the World Power against these aggressive acts as result of its military interventions in the many nations of the world. In the dawn of history the US used the most atrocious acts over two hundred of years, killing most of the inhabitants in Mexico, the Caribbean, and in Central America it sent soldiers to cross the high seas to conquer Hawaii and Philippines, killing many Filipinos during the Filipino – American war. The notorious “Jake Smith” converted Samar into militarized zone, literally making the place a “ghost town” that even an astray dog seen walking will be shoot.

The United States policy is to always bring war in another countries’ soil. It sent soldiers to Europe during the D-Day, sent armies Pacific and to Philippines. It interfered in the affairs of Vietnam, Korea, South Africa, China, and supported mercenaries in Algeria on the virtue of the Washington Policy of curtailing the proliferation of the communism in the world. But in all of implementing this Truman doctrine to cut the tentacles of communism in anywhere it spread, it always comes with killing. This was politically stated in support of freedom as “the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures”. The fighting was always somewhere else, it was others who were getting slaughtered. As Cromsky emphasized, the carnage will always be not in the soils of the US, not in the national territory .

Corruption, Citizenship and Market Economy

2011-02-01T00:03:00.000-08:00

Prof. Adrian M. Tamayo
University of Mindanao

Corruption in the Government

The government employs the biggest number of workers with 1.5 million employees in the judiciary, legislative and executive branches (Carlos et al., 2010 ). A very large bureaucracy will lead to temptations of corruption as opportunities abound and risk is very low. The country is losing tens of billions of pesos every year to corruption with such an amount enough to build the needed school buildings and hospitals, or for providing services or even to raise salaries of the government workers. The pervert situation of income portfolio of the economy since the Marcos era viciously balloons the national debt, with latest estimates amounting to Php5.063 trillion in 2010 while the annual budget for the said period is Php1.514 trillion, or a requirement of Php 30 to pay a P1 debt.

The corruption in the Philippines is carried through various means and innovativeness. But the Philippine Center on Transnational Crimes as mentioned by Dr. Carlos enumerated the common forms of corruption such as tax evasion, ghosts projects and payrolls, evasion of public bidding in public contracts, sub-contracting, nepotism and favoritism, extortion or giving of protection money, and bribery.

The brazenness of the individuals engaged in the feisty robbery of the peoples’ money is a result of a benefit and opportunity extremely surpassed the risk of being caught or penalized by it. There remained courage in number. The corruptors are many; they thrive in potentials possible of milking. And every time greasing the wheel is done, this translates money spilled, and credibility eroded.

Social Market Economy as Mechanism to Eliminate Corruption

Central to the principle of social market economy is the dignity of human person, and that, the competition in the market must ensure the protection and enhancement of the full potential of the human person.

Social market economy facilitates a mechanism to combine the principle of freedom in the market place with social balance. A nation that aims for social balance allows individuals in the society to exercise property rights in order to achieve maximum utility of benefits in the pursuit of fulfillment of dignity as human persons. In this light, the exchange that occurs in the market must be based on mutual trust and benefits that is equitable to all. Feasibility of reconciling market dynamics with social justice implanted on profit motives within ethical spheres of moral fairness will secure that the exchange is based on sentiment of closeness and certainty.. This is a market framework founded on the principle of ethical education to pro-create a system that will directly address poverty, property rights and entitlement and equity.

Citizenship and Corruption

The effects of corruption cannot just be downgraded into lost of millions from an effective spending. Corruption is very much depraving that it creates social dislocation as being resultant of distorted economic growth, deepening poverty and severe income inequality. Corruption will also destroy the political credibility and will demoralize the bureaucracy which will lead to threats to public order, impunity of criminals and perils to the safety of a common citizen of the state. One must understand that the threat never recognizes age bracket, educational attainment, sex and gender orientation, status in the society. The menace of corruption will sweep us all and debase us to stinky and ruined future where the greater majority is ever–hounded by fear, insecurity, dismal condition, and the potential perpetuation of such over generations to come; while a small and handful number of individuals who broker power, grease the system, pay carnage to protect their interests, and weld insults to the State and its laws. This is a situation where all our future are doomed, a clear and vivid arena of the dogs and sordid competition to gain market power. If we allow the mongrels to continue today, in ten years, what can we call ourselves then, corruptizens?

On Universal Primary Education in the Philippines

2011-01-26T22:25:00.000-08:00

By Romulo Bautista, Ph.D
Devstrat Consultant

Given the premise that the child of pre-school age has the basic right to “quality education” as tool toward his eventual “total human liberation and development” which is his insurance to self-preservation, the fundamental questions are raised “Where does education begin and where does it end?”

There are several answers to both questions, from the extreme to the moderate which might be summed up in three propositions: (1) “from conception to the resurrection”; (2) “from womb to tomb”; and from (3) “from cradle to grave”. Note, however, that the three propositions practically suggest that education begins at home, but speculatively suggest distinct destination points.

It is a widely accepted assumption derived from those propositions that “a child is born with an empty mind” (or mind that is ‘tabula rasa’ or ‘blank board’). The child’s mind is delicately malleable; thus it needs teachers/educators to mold it. The concept of “tabula rasa” is, therefore, considered the starting point of education.

Given life’s journey, what is education for? Education is for the pursuit of “complete living”. But, “complete living” is pursued hierarchically. Thus, specific goals of complete living could be identified within the hierarchy of human needs and wants. Accordingly, the first specific goal of education is self-preservation, the satisfaction of physiological needs and wants; the second is satisfaction of security needs and wants; the third is the satisfaction love needs and wants; the forth, the satisfaction of esteem needs and wants; and finally, the self-actualization or the ‘total human liberation and development’ of the pupil in his mature years.

Given the starting point and goal of education, the educational goal of the Barangay Day Care Program should be “to replace the child’s empty mind with an open one.” The child should be taught and be educated to keep his mind discriminately open to various, and even opposing, ideas, values, and practices of the elders. The negative and positive values and/or practices of his society would affect his actual choices and decisions in the pursuit of complete living.

Explained differently, “education is an activity or endeavor in which the more mature in society deals with the less mature, in order to achieve greater maturity in them and contribute thereby to the improvement of human life”.

Outside the home, the day care center is an informal institution where the pre-school children should be taught and educated “to learn to unlearn” and/or “to unlearn to learn” their values and practices learned and/or acquired at home or elsewhere. From the realistic point of view, education is an on-going process where the child ‘is what he is not, and he is not what he is”. Identity-wise, “who the child is” is permanent. The identity of the child at one year old remains the same identity even in his older years, “I was that child”. Personality-wise, “what the child is” at three year old is distinct from “what he is” at 20 years later, though his identity remains the same (“identity” is from Latin roots, idem (same) entitas (entity) or id-entitas meaning, “same entity”).

Personality-wise, education is a life-time process of liberating and developing the child from “what he is” to “what he is not”, and from “what he is not” to “what he is”. The transformation involves the “learning and unlearning” activities of the child. Here the teacher/educator plays a crucial role.

The day care program is a supervised daytime care for pre-school children usually at a center outside the home. And precisely because it is a supervised institution, it is expected that it should provide the children of pre-school age with a “quality education” that is consistent with the systems of learning mandated by Article XIV of the Constitution.

The advent of mass media

2011-01-05T20:53:00.000-08:00

Mr. Joefer Maninang
Ateneo de Davao University

The advent of mass media, the rapid development of the means of communication coupled with the advances of information technology, led to the growing awareness of its message, the reality of human struggle and suffering. It began a cultural transformation of the society as people identity themselves towards this alienating reality. It has converted many a people’s stance from being passive into being responsive citizens of the world towards this reality. It unifies men beyond borders.

In other words, mass media has become a tool in showing us a painting of the objective reality of human struggle and suffering, the universal human condition. It has even changed the blind attitude of its audience to a critical one towards art as it employs various art forms including that of the visual and literary kinds which to a greater degree delivers the message. Mass media then evolves as complex art form as it brings people and art together in one piece. It contains all there is in society addressing the whole mankind of its message.

Mass media as a product of the capitalist enterprise has turned over itself to the judgment of every individual modern man as it triggers him to be conscious of his objective existence in society thereby emerging as being conscious of his alienation that he may find. This consciousness is the starting point for man to take into effect his response to the awareness of the social reality that he gains from mass media coupled with the development of information technology.

From here, we can infer that Marx is correct in saying that the Bourgeois or capitalist society is the thesis which is needed in the realization of the historical process as it yields the tools necessary for the realization of the Communist state as the Proletariat emancipates itself after becoming conscious of its alienation. In other words, the capitalist society has produced mass media as a tool in the process of mediation or enlightening every individual in order that he may realize his historical existence, the totality of his position in history.

Though this is possible, along with Lukacs, mass media is prone to false consciousness as it exhibits deception in itself as the society is permeated by the commodity-structure with the capitalist laws permeating within.

Man is situated within the influence of mass media which is a consequence of capitalism. Mass media has given man a wider access to the world with just a push of a button. The radio, television, high-end means of communication, the internet, advertising flicks and many more are all around him, influencing him directly or indirectly in many aspects, may it be politically or economically, socially or aesthetically. In a world overrun by mass media, everything is mixed. Even the capitalist is blind of what it conceals, that is, what Lukacs posits to be the reality of the human condition, the reality of human suffering.

Man is disposed to see this reality as it directly faces him. Mass media is an art since it has brought all there is in society and many forms of art has painted this social reality and thanks for it have slowly or gradually revealed this really real. Capitalism has paved the way for the appreciation of any form of art as popularized by it through mass media.

Mass media may serve as a means for man to be conscious of the content or perspective of the human struggles of real people in their own individual alienations implored in various art forms by the artists within the presence and the utilization of mass media as this epoch according to the realists should be an appreciation of the objective content of any art form as a response to the question of ideology.

The Phenomenon of Climate Change

2011-01-03T21:45:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Romulo Bautista
Chief Consultant,
Ethical Development Strategies Philippines, Inc.

Climate change has become a global concern because of its threat to the very existence of humankind.

The threat comes from global warming caused by gas emissions that originate from the burning of fossil fuels in many highly industrialized countries, notably the so-called Group of 7 led by USA and the so-called BRIC Group (Brazil, Russia, India & China); as well as from other forms of environmental destruction (e.g. rampant deforestation) due to lack of stricter environmental standards and/or lack of firmer enforcement of stricter environmental standards in poor countries of the third world.

For instance, the lack of stricter environmental standards compounded by lack of stricter enforcement was evident in the Philippines during Typhoon Ondoy and Typhoon Pedring that caused massive damage to properties and massive loss of human lives. After those disastrous and catastrophic typhoons, climate change is now a growing national concern in the Philippines.

Phenomena of Climate Change

Climate change has two phenomena. For lack of adequate descriptions, one phenomenon might be described as “natural and constructive”, which is intrinsic in the nature of existing realities and is regulated by the laws of nature. The other phenomenon might be described as “man-caused and destructive”, which is extrinsic to the nature of realities and is regulated by ethical laws legislated by man.

The Kyoto Protocol on “Man-Made” Climate Change

In 1997, industrialized countries agreed on the Kyoto Protocol, which
includes provisions that curtail the use of energy in rich countries and demand stricter environmental standards, requiring all industrialized countries to abide by it, the moral and ethical argument being that the burden lies with them in all these years of economic industrial expansions. The industrialized countries, except for the USA, signed the said Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol, in effect, provides the international ethical standard on climate change, as it acknowledges and affirms the harmful effects of industrialization to the environment, and that no amount of economic wealth creation can ever morally justify the dangers from “destructive man-made” climate change.

The sad reality is that the “man-caused” climate change affects alike the industrialized rich countries and the poor countries in the third world, such as the Philippines. The Philippine experience from rampant disregard of stricter environmental standards that resulted into massive disasters and catastrophes upon thousands of Filipinos during Typhoon Ondoy and Typhoon Pedring, makes it imperative for government and all concerned to set up stricter environmental standard.

Impacts of “Man-made” Climate Change

The “man-caused” climate change is already transforming life on
Mother Earth. Around the world, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising. If we do not act now, the “man-caused” climate change will permanently alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival.

Depending on where we live now on earth, the following are some of the most noted dangerous consequences of “man-caused” climate change:

• Higher temperatures
• Changing landscapes
• Wildlife at risk
• Rising seas
• Increased risk of drought, fire and floods
• Stronger storms and increased storm damages
• More heat-related illness and diseases
• Economic losses

The above consequences of “man-made” climate change are increasingly noted and experienced in Davao City and elsewhere in the Mindanao Area, but especially in the Luzon Area of the Philippines

According to the world-wide research studies of The Nature Conservancy, “there are 3 billion people who live in poverty around the world that will be hardest hit by climate change. The poor are more dependent on natural resources and have less of an ability to adapt to a changing climate. Diseases, declining crop yields and natural disasters are just a few of the impacts of climate change that could devastate the world’s most vulnerable communities. The world poorest are also the least responsible to climate change.”

WE CANNOT LIVE FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS

2011-01-03T00:30:00.000-08:00

A Discourse on the Limitations of Economics

by Adrian Tamayo
University of Mindanao

Introduction

For many years, economists were happy with the state of economic affairs in almost all of the economies of the world. Having said so, the economic fundamentals and the market dynamics are all in their proper places after surviving the perils of the 1930’s. The basis of theory, the economic thinkers thought of having ably addressed the problems. According to Blanchard, “the state of macro is good.” The battles of yesteryear, he said, were over, and there had been a “broad convergence of vision.”

This was also supported by Robert Lucas who confirmed that “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved,” thus the Great Moderation in economic performance over the previous two decades, which he attributed in part to improved economic policy making. The confidence on economic theories was so high that governments and monetary funds allow policy prescriptions in the context of the assumptions of economic principles.

But with the recurrence of the crisis, the current crisis that had wrecked havoc on the economies of the world is of course an economic concern. With the collapse of the business districts an big investments houses, why economics wasn’t able to see the signs? This lead into debate whether economics is a science that has the coherence and explanatory power to explain(Wilber and Jameson) the historical evolution of growth paths of the countries.

This discourse paper will shed light on how economics address the development and societal evolutions over time. Discourses are funneled towards understanding the concept of development and in the context of economic theories.

The Evolution of Development Thought in Economics

Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom, hence development. In every society the pursuit of freedom to choose and determinism become the core of government concerns. On the one hand, determinism cannot be dissociated with the ability to acquire the more fundamental and basic requirement of providing what the people in the society needs.

Development scientists were anxious of the use of the orthodox policy tools in acquiring the so called fundamental needs towards the objective growth. The orthodoxy of economics occur when the growth equation is simply a matter of adding of development indicator figures in the context of laissez faire. On the one hand, the new economists were more concerned on the equity issue on the distribution of the benefits of growth. While political economists are more concerned with nature of the process by which the economic growth is achieved.

More on comparing, the classical economists view the people’s values as means. That is, if the values of people become stumbling block to achieve development, people must change their values. It is a necessity that the old values must be abandoned if the set of values come as a contribution to the slow growth of the economy. This implicitly means allowing the dynamics of the players of the economy to operate on their own. That is, the market will achieve its full potential when it is left on its own. In the words of Krugman, he said, ” During the golden years, financial economists came to believe that markets were inherently stable — indeed, that stocks and other assets were always priced just right”, that a problem will be addressed if the economy will acquire surplus.

Surplus occurs when the gains of trade are greater than the cost of trade, that is, if I sell two cows and receive the money, the money should be much so as to ensure to purchase an mpre than equivalent amount when it is used to purchase a commodity. The economic surplus is viewed as an external factor by political economist. Who determines the surplus will provide a description of the kind of development that is to occur in the economy, if the rich aristocrat will control the economic surplus, then the nature of development is skewed to the few. If the middle class will gain control of the surplus, the kind of development will benefit a comparably greater in number, but if the surplus in the economy is controlled by foreign country, then development stagnates.

In the conduct of affairs of an individual in the economy, the only interest that is bearing to the players will be on the gains of their trade. This simply means that the state of affair is undoubtedly be reflective of the real event when there is the economic freedom. As stated vividly by Stuart Mill, he said,” the sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose, for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant,… the only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society is that which concern others. On that part that which merely concerns himself, his independence, his right , is absolute. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

Meanwhile, political economist’s goal is to enhance what people value (Wilber and Jameson) as a measure of development. Fajardo exacts that development is not only with the material wealth accumulation, it also comes with giving importance to what the people believe in as a society. Thus in simple term, it is liberation. It means the people are liberated from oppressive and exploitative relationship that beset the persons’ ability to meet his requirement for a modest living. Development is a process of allowing people to be free from the bondage and control of other people.

IT AIN’T EASY TO KILL A KING

2010-12-16T01:37:00.001-08:00

Jamil Matalam

P-Noy’s first Executive Order has no other aim but to make the former President accountable for suspected corrupt practices—the hello Garci, fertilizer scam, NBN-ZTE controversy and the Ampatuan massacre. The new administration would want us to believe that it won’t tolerate any misdeeds. It shall make things straight in the government dealings and bring to justice the oppressors. With these matters as motives, P-Noy created his first Knight—the Truth Commission—to investigate on the alleged law infractions of the former President of the past 10 years.

But 10 out of 15 Supreme Court Justices has not approved the creation of the Commission and they strike it down as unconstitutional. One Senator has commented that the Commission is a superfluity. Some have made legal or constitutional apologies for it, but of course to no avail. The Truth Commission may now face the possibility of extinction. It may end similarly to the PCCG created under the Cory administration. P-Noy’s administration may tire and later decide to drop its aggressive pursuit of bringing to justice the persons alleged to have committed corrupt practices during the previous administration. But it shouldn’t, because it ain’t easy to kill a king.

If P-Noy cannot make true his promise to investigate the past President’s alleged corrupt practices and bring her to justice, if ever found true, then we will lose hope in his administration. If we lose faith in his administration then not much could be accomplished in his administration. It won’t be able to straighten paths that we shall tread in our future. The spirit of crookedness and oppression shall remain hovering over our nation. If we lose faith now then all might be lost for his administration. But we shouldn’t, because it ain’t easy to kill a king.

If P-Noy’s administration think that they could easily bring down a king then they are greatly mistaken. A king is no fool and is not without loyal men at his service. The history of great Asian civilizations has taught us how kings and emperors surround themselves with high walls and fortresses for their protection. A mere attempt at the life of the king would be an insurmountable task. No first and even few attempts would suffice. But insurmountable it may seem, it will eventually submit to the patient, dedicated and cunning efforts of its persecutors. Hard it may be but it is no impossible task.

Human Dignity and Democracy

2010-12-13T00:09:00.000-08:00

By Ryan Maboloc

“Democratizing development”, in the mind of the late Dean Gaston Ortigas, refers to the dynamic interplay of these elements: people participation, empowerment, good governance, technology and cultural values. In short, it is all about being a nation and of possessing an identity and a vision that make each and every one of us equal under the rule of law.

A functioning democracy rests in realizing the vision of human development. Philosophically, this means that as a people and as one nation, the destiny we dream of creating for this country depends ultimately on the decisions, "the judgment calls", we make.

There is no development without a real democracy. A true democracy requires, fundamentally and as matter of principle, the basic respect for the dignity of the human person, anchored in the strong belief that a life lived in dignity is a human life lived fully and well. To be fully human, to live a fully dignified existence, means that the human person is “able to do and become”, not on the basis of what “the powers that be” decide, but on the basic principle that the choices we make are our own, free from coercion, the influence of money or the threat of violence.

Democractizing development therefore necessitates people’s participation in the democratic processes of governance, the rule of law, free and honest elections, political maturity, and for our basic institutions to fully function for the benefit of all and not just a few. The basic structure of government owes to each and every one of us that it works for the “whole person” and for “all persons”.

POOR JUSTICE

2010-11-02T19:48:00.000-07:00

Jamil Matalam, MA

The Supreme Court of the land is accused of plagiarism by the UP Law professors. It is heartbreaking that a high court, reposed with great respect and fidelity is accused of no less than cheating its way out of a problem. The worst is that this problem is not merely academic but a problem of real justice. If it be true that there was plagiarism, then we may say that the High Court cheated its way out of a problem involving justice, justice demanded by Filipino comfort women.

Reading the Vinuya, et al, v. Executive Secretary GR 162230 (April 28, 2010) case would not give an impression of plagiarism for those who are not familiar with the works of the legal luminaries, Criddle and Fox-Decent. But a great work of plagiarism is just like that. It would pass by unnoticed to a non-expert reader. Hence, only expert professors know when a student’s work is plagiarized. But the worst accusation of the law professors is concerning the misappropriation. According to the UP law professors’ letter to the Supreme Court the said legal luminaries conclude that rape and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity attained the status of jus cogens, yet in the Vinuya case the High Court decided that the comfort women issue had not attain a jus cogens status. If this be also true, then not only do we have from the High Court poor scholarly writing but also reading.

A plagiarize work is a poor work. It is the lowest level of any writing works. It merely relies on the thoughts of someone else. At most, it is simply a repetition of what has already been said by another; what is presented is merely a COPY. Therefore, a plagiarize work lacks originality, originality in thinking. It tells us that a person who plagiarizes does not really think hard about the problem, there is merely poor thinking involved in their works. Hence, a plagiarize work should be given a grade of nothing more than POOR.

More odious is the misappropriation of written works by the experts. A case of misappropriation is an act of injustice. A misappropriated work is a distortion of the said work. As such, it tries to present to us something that is not what it really is. If misappropriation is deliberate, then it is deception. If it is not, then it is another poor work. It leaves us with an impression of a poor comprehension and reading. It also suggests that the person who misappropriates lacks originality and independence in thinking. Such person, for instance, may hide under the name of the authority to be persuasive because they could not attain a persuasive thought on their own; or that they could not repudiate or critique the thoughts of an authority on their own, and hence cannot drop them as authorities and have an opinion of their own about a matter. Moreover, misappropriation is nothing more than WRONG, incorrect.

The accusation that the Supreme Court has plagiarized work and misappropriated experts in its promulgated decisions tells us how poor our justice system is. It suggests that our Justices lack originality in thinking, and thus cannot provide an original justice. It gives us doubt as to how hard our Justices think about the prayers and demands of justice of the Filipinos who knocks at the doors of their great hall. Do they really think about the justice of the cases before them? Or do they just brush it aside with POOR JUSTICE.

DE-COLONIZATION, SUBSIDIARITY AND HUMAN DIGNITY

2010-09-14T18:04:00.000-07:00

By Jamil Matalam, MA

Ryan Maboloc, in his recent political article, mentions as problems of Philippine politics the lack of human dignity in Philippine society and the lack of the principle of subsidiarity in the government. The former, he means that lack of recognition of the dignity of a fellow human person; and as a consequence the lack of care for their welfare. In lieu, he advances what he refers to as a centrist principle, whereby he means that political policies should not simply cater to the interest of the few rich, but above all everybody, especially the poor. The latter, he means the lack of recognition of the capabilities of small governmental units for chartering their welfare; a sort of autonomy. These problems tell us of the totalitarian or imperialistic tendencies of our government. Maboloc is trying to suggest that we democratize our institutions based on the said principles, together with the idea of a strong state.

At the onset, let me point out that I do not intend to make a distinction between the principle of subsidiarity and human dignity. I consider them to be quite related with one another. There is lack of subsidiarity because there is no respect for human dignity. They are both premised from indifference, a lack of confidence with fellow human persons. I leave the distinction and clear meaning of the two with Ryan Maboloc.

The lack of subsidiarity and respect for human dignity in Philippine politics also has its roots from our colonial past. Our socio-political institutions and educational system has long been suffering from our colonial heritage. The kind of political institutions that we have is modeled from our colonizers. The dominant religion is a colonial heritage. Our education takes pride in the mastery of the language of our colonizers. I do not intend here to be a wrong sort of romantic and argue that colonization is all too bad, my intention here is to show how our colonial heritage in one way or another contributed to the problems.

Our colonizers did not really care about how we as people govern our society. They were indifferent to our politics. For them our lands are simply objects to be exploited. Our lands are simply territories to be occupied and nothing more. Thus, they do not mind about how the different societies in the archipelago are governed and their differences. Worst, they destroyed it. Instead, they imposed a single structure to govern us for their own convenience. It would be easier that way for the administration of their colony. They define our geo-politics. Many of our political policies and our national political institution still adapt the same colonial definition. Politicians and political parties insist that it is unpatriotic and un-nationalistic to deviate from such national-imperialistic structure; it is un-Filipino. They even hate federalism. What then is the consequence of this for us? Simple, the dominant political parties can have their ways concerning the policies of the government. Industrialization, for instance, is monopolized by the Metro Manila, and Mindanao is left with being simply the agricultural base of the country and could not fully industrialize. Other regions cannot charter the course and progress of their lands but has to limit themselves with a national, and often Manila imperialist, programs. The budget every region get is structured in this manner. Therefore, subsidiarity would be hard and difficult.

Another great problem is the kind of educational system that we have. Our education takes pride in the fluency of our students in the languages of our colonizers. For instance, it is a mark of great education that a person is fluent in English, the language of our American colonizers. A learned person is one who could speak and write flawless English. Our education, in this case, contributes a lot in developing and maintaining an elitist society bred by colonization. For a person who could not speak good English, running for public office would be embarrassing; they would think that they are not fit for it. Worst are those who think that they are fit for public office by the simple reason that they could speak English. As a consequence, those who speak the tongue of our colonizers think of themselves as superior to those who cannot. A person who does not speak good English would seem to have no dignity. As such, they are presumed to be incapable of governing themselves and lack political wisdom. Those who speak English should be the boss, and those who cannot just follow, their opinions are of no consequence at all. If most of our political leaders are bred under the same colonial educational system that we have, it would be hard for us to adapt a principle of subsidiarity in government, for in that case there would be lack of confidence in the capabilities of those who are not well educated.

A proper de-colonial education is still an imperative in the Philippines. We have to look into the repressive dynamics of colonization that still affect the Philippine society today. Our lack of respect and confidence for our fellow Filipinos has roots in our colonial past. If we are to have a Philippine politics based on human dignity and the principle of subsidiarity we have to cleanse the Filipino psyche of the bad and repressive colonial education it has learned. We must retrieve our dignity as a people taken from us by colonization. Part of our moral education against indifference is de-colonizing the Filipino psyche.

What is wrong with Philippine politics?

2010-09-08T21:49:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc

Philippine society is ruled by political clans. While political parties present their principles in public, there is no clear direction as to how these principles are fundamentally practiced. The ultimate point there being is power. Power is above all. But this power is not meant for the common good. The reason is that many politicians hold public office based on purely material and utilitarian grounds.

Change must begin from the bottom. People need to empower themselves. This empowerment means embracing the principle of subsidiarity. Where there is a needed competence, it is not necessary to centralize. The centralization of power results to its monopolization. It borders on imperialistic tendencies. Thus, it is important that people realize what they are able to do and be.

This means that we need to prepare the youth. Education is the key. However, this will take time. As such, there must be something immediate. What can be done is to reform our electoral system. The electoral process, especially the party list system, is a sham. It is not true representation. One way of doing this, obviously, is changing the constitution. We have to empower true and principled political parties.

The basis of this is that representation must be equal. Political parties must not be controlled by landed clans or influential families. Recruitment should be based on character and competence. As such, internally, political parties can discipline its ranks. Right now, our political parties take advantage of the lack of maturity of the Filipino people. As such, during elections, the right people for the position are not elected. In the first place, the right people do not feel that they can be elected, and therefore, they opt not to join.

How do we change our basic institutions then? I think that we have to begin with the choice of the right principles. We have to anchor the design of our democratic institutions on centrist principles, i.e. human dignity, subsidiarity and the strong state. It goes without saying that the present Philippine institutions are not firmly based on any of these. First, there is no respect for human dignity. If we respect the dignity of our fellowmen, then we have to consider their interest above anything else. But more often than not, right now, the interest of the few, the rich, and those who are influential become the basis of public policies.

The big question, of course, is how? From the point of view of human dignity, we have to consider the fact that the there must an equal distribution of opportunity for public office. A poor man may not be able to run for office because he does not have the money. Poverty becomes an obstacle. And if ever a poor man gets elected, he will most likely be corrupt. Why? It is because he will be overwhelmed by the system. The way to do it then is to change the system so that it will reflect the basic respect for the dignity of persons.

Based on the principle of subsidiarity, government should begin to consider equal or regional representation. The basic point is to give to Juan what is due him. Mindanao has vast untapped resources. It should benefit from it. Manila consumes much of our government money. If there is a system that enables the equitable distribution of wealth, then there is enormous impact on people’s lives.

Subsidiarity implies that we believe in our capacities and competence. Cities and municipalities, including barangays, should enjoy autonomy and freedom in charting its destiny and the full discharge of its responsibilities in terms of fiscal management and land use and reform.

A strong state means that in times of calamities, people get the protection that the state is obliged to give. No monopoly should control the state. No interest group or party should dictate upon the state. This means that the state is governed by the values and principles of equality and social justice.

Above all, the welfare of the people should be the main motive in all state transactions. It must be willing to provide unemployment benefits to protect the public. It must invest in education and health. The preservation of the common good, in this sense, should be apparent in all state action. No single man should undermine the democratic process. Justice can only be achieved if the individual’s welfare, the basic dignity of man, is valued.

Vote for Change

2010-02-15T21:06:00.000-08:00

Manny Villar lifting the poor from the dungeons of misery and from a life less than human is not just an empty promise but a manipulative mechanism targeting the very reason why 24 million Filipinos remain poor – the poor do not understand why they are poor. They don’t see that “poverty is not the lack of income but the deprivation of basic freedoms” in creating a life that they have a “reason to value”.

Villar becoming the next President will not solve the problem of poverty. Villar runs on a platform based on that malicious promise which is akin to man landing on Mars and back inside a plastic balloon. But the poor don’t understand this. They see Dolphy and Willie and they see that life is a matter of luck. Luck brings fortune to one or two, but to lift millions from living unhappy lives, a country needs its basic structure to work for the benefit of the least advantaged.

Politics is persuasion. The biggest question that young men like us should ask ourselves right now is how to explain to the poor, in the most logical way, that nobody puts money into politics unless he is assured of profit. This is no longer a question between good and evil. The good will win in the end but the end is too far in sight. The time is now. The time is ripe. Young men and women should now go and tell the poor to vote for change. Villar is all but change.

While it is plausible to say that candidates can be beholden to those who are financing them, there is however greater evil in having one venture into the greatest fight of his life, winning the Presidency, by using his own money. Is the Presidency the greatest job available? The answer is a big no. But when one asks, is the Presidency the most lucrative job there is? In real politics, where taking advantage and exploiting the weakness of the electorates matter more than anything else in order to win, the answer is a resounding yes.

The logic is simple. Does one spend several billions of pesos to reap honor? No, you sacrifice your life for it. Men of honor do not dream of being kings. It is destiny. Why does one use his massive resources in order to be in the highest position of the land? The answer is simple. It is about power. If money is used to acquire power, then money fuels the unending desire for more.

Politics is a game among men but it is not their future that is at stake. Odysseus said, “war is young men dying and old men talking". But change is possible. It happens when people will begin to believe in themselves and not on a false claim that he is “one of us” because even from the vantage point of a post mortem dei, he is not.

On why Efren Penaflorida is a real hero

2010-02-15T21:05:00.000-08:00

Some Filipino scientists are belittling the achievement of Efren Penaflorida, the 2009 CNN Hero of the Year, because his “kariton education” is nowhere the standard of Harvard. They argue that the development of this country depends on the advancement of science and technology. There is no argument. Science is the key to economic progress. But I couldn’t see the reasons why they undermine the success story of a Good Samaritan like Efren.

Our intelligent Filipino scientists are committing a huge misjudgment here. While it is true that we need good, efficient, and sustainable institutions in order to arrest the problem of poverty, the story of Efren is the story of someone who has no other intention in the world except to help and be of service to humankind – just like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 30-37).

Poverty has been in existence for centuries. There are also poor people in the United States even though it has all the brilliant minds in Ivy League schools. John Rockefeller helped America to what it is now by providing money to lure intelligent European scientists into US universities away from the persecution of the Nazis during the first half of the century. But the basic idea here is that the poor, the poorest of the poor, the untouchables, and the downtrodden, are people that basic institutions like universities shun because they are a “nobody”.

The greatness of Efren Penaflorida does not come from his knowledge of nanotechnology, photonics, or molecular biology. But for me, he is a champion because he manifests what this world and our country certainly lacks – the love of people for their fellow human beings.

The Politics of Principles

2009-09-01T19:02:00.000-07:00

Ryan Maboloc

You don’t stop corruption by telling someone that corruption kills, just as you don’t lead a fly out of the fly-bottle by telling the fly the way out. The perennial question has been - what genetic intelligence did Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio possess to inspire the masses to rally behind their cause? In today’s Philippine society, bureaucrats and other institutional leaders complain that it would be impossible to gather people in public gatherings without some underlying incentives, whether it is money, food, or stars. I think that is to a great extent, a misunderstanding and an insult to the intelligence of our people. People come when they find prudent reasons for coming. It is not them who provide these incentives. There is no one to blame but those who promote such a culture.

But as a reply to the question, somebody can quickly point out that Filipinos then loved their country. Is this answer right? Well, ask Rolando Quintos, and he would say no, for according to him, Filipinos still love their country now. The problem, according to Quintos, is leadership. But it should be asked - what kind of leadership? Thus, in relation to my first statement - who will lead us out away from our country’s culture of corruption? Who will lead the fly out of the fly-bottle?

I am tempted to use Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Well, firstly, he solves the question of Manny Pacquiao running in office. Using Gardner’s theory, the People’s Champ, no doubt is intelligent. He possesses what is called ‘bodily-kinesthetic intelligence’. But Gardner would argue that it is a kind of intelligence not fit for problem solving for it is “less intuitive”. Hitting a wily opponent with your furious left hand is not the same as ‘understanding’ what Pareto Optimal means in economic terms.

What about our choice for President? Here, Gardner would not be necessary or his esoteric theory. Politics, it can be argued, concerns the practical, for although it makes a lot of sense to say, following John Rawls that “justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others”, politicians are human beings, whose concerns are human, although many of them may not necessarily be human. We need somebody then who believes in the ideal, but one who can make change possible, not only in our democratic systems, but in Filipinos themselves. It is like this – put some parasites in the bloodstream and you find that the human circulatory system will destroy the whole human body. What is important, in this regard, is to put someone with a sense for ‘surgical precision’, one who can objectively make judgments about cases like the ZTE, IMPSA, and the many other things that have ruined the lives of the common Filipino.

There is a fundamental wrong that we, Filipinos, have to correct before we can answer the all-important question about who it is that we ‘should elect’ as President in 2010. The fundamental wrong in our political system is that people themselves forget that they are the leaders they elect. We, as a people, have failed to look inward, thinking that the solutions to our problems exist outside. Ask a college freshman if whether or not his life will change if Manuel Villar or Mar Roxas is elected President. He would answer in the negative. Is this college freshman right? Of course not, for it matters who runs the field, the quarterback, for the President in 2010, if he or she matters at all, should see to it that the course of action taken, especially by those who are in power, are fair, meaning to say, that they are to the ‘advantage of the most disadvantaged’, otherwise, this government has no reason to exist.

We look at the government as a ‘gap-filler’, as a father-figure who will be there for us in the midst of all our problems. But the government can’t be with us all the time. It is for this reason that we have to make the proper choices as a people. If there is anything of great value on earth, upon birth, it is not the minerals or the natural things that we find around us. Rather, it is our freedom and the prudent judgment that follows the intelligent use of this freedom. Freedom is of value because we value it. It is not always there. Thus, Filipinos have to choose, if of course GMA gives us that option by putting to rest her Cha-cha dreams, and in this regard we should vote for, following a sense of moral urgency, a President who can lead us out of this miserable existence.

My point, therefore, is this. It is not about picking names now, i.e. Chiz, Bayani, Gibo, for there is nothing in a name, as Bertrand Russell reminds us. It is now time to choose which principles we are to believe. If we believe in change, then we should elect somebody who reflects what change means, not someone who says that he or she is change. Change, by the way, as Gandhi tells us, begins in you – dear reader, whether you are young or old, a captain or a corporal, a dean’s lister or a garbage collector.

The intelligence of a leader alone will not drive us out from misery. Although a battle tactician can employ his brilliant plans in order to win, even then, he has to make his men believe in a cause that is worth dying for. Thus, we need someone who can holistically bring us out from the cave of oblivion.

Is this about having someone who enforces the law? Well, laws are good, but then again, what use does a law have if people go hungry every single day. That there are laws and that these laws must be followed do not mean that in principle our schemes of social cooperation are just. There is no law more fundamental than the will of the people. If people don’t will that sidewalk vendors are demolished, then why do that? The point therefore, is that we need someone knows what justice means by heart.

Finally, I say, we should elect someone who will uphold the principles of justice, one who says that, as Rawls beautifully crafts, “justice does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many”. He is the person who values the life of each Filipino, whether you are a street vendor, a poor fisherman, a janitor, or a nobody. After all, each presidential candidate in 2010 will have to win the vote of this nobody if he or she is to become President.

Is a political consensus on genetic science possible?

2009-07-14T02:45:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc
Ateneo University

The issue of using human embryos is a highly contested political issue. Some sectors are in favor of genetic research because of its potential. The possibility of saving so many lives which could have been otherwise lost is a reasonable basis for spending human and financial resources on it.

But very deep political division occurs because of people’s moral convictions and beliefs. There are values which people are unwilling to compromise. The substance and depth of the teachings of one’s faith and religion are factors that undeniably affect how people view the matter at hand. Ultimately, some may argue that if it is God’s will that people die, then the natural course of such inevitability should proceed. But then again, it is morally valid to argue that if science can be pushed to its limits in order to find the solutions to some of our problems, then genetic research should be accorded the opportunity to prosper not just in the name of science but for the sake of those who hope to be treated by genetic medicine.

Given these vastly conflicting points of view, is it possible to arrive at a political consensus? A political consensus is a reasoned judgment. It is solely based on politically prudent decisions, for instance, human welfare. It is difficult to proceed from the point of view of one’s faith. But we can proceed from the point of view of certain non-negotiable moral values, i.e. the sanctity of human life, human dignity, and moral autonomy. For instance, given the country’s Catholic tradition, the use of any human embryo from any donor, i.e. a pregnant woman, even with her consent, is unacceptable.

But it is justifiable that scientists and researchers should be allowed to proceed with their investigations given the proper moral norms and parameters. What is necessary is to begin with politically and socially acceptable moral grounds, i.e. that no human embryo should be used in any research. The basic idea here is that rejecting genetic science outright because from the point of view of one’s faith it is akin to “playing God” is fundamentally dangerous. Given the proper moral reasons, for example, the treatment of cancers, diabetes or Parkinson’s, scientists should be allowed to look for efficient ways and means to establish their science and its practice without harming our human values. If genetic science aims at the enhancement of human welfare and ultimately, the good of human life, then it should be given the chance and resources to secure for the whole of humanity, without sacrificing human values, a better way to live.

On animal rights advocacy

2009-07-09T20:30:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc

Very recently, we have seen serious campaigns to protect endangered species. Governments and the private sector have invested millions of dollars in order to protect and preserve many of these species. The preservation and the protection of the environment is a morally valid reason for such expenditure. The death of "Sisi" is unforgivable. It speaks of the deplorable condition of animals in many Philippine zoos. If the government can't even take care of its people, what more if we talk of animals in government maintained nonhuman animal establishments.

We just have to send them back to the wild. It is a scientific fact that these species keep the balance of nature. It is also undeniable that they are a joy to watch. These are very important points. Animal rights advocacy has played a big role in helping create a social consciousness that shows sensitivity and concern for other species. But it can also be argued that animal rights advocacy also suffers from an over-emphasis. We are a third world country. The death of "Sisi" should not remind us of the suffering of animals alone. It reminds us of how inutile our basic structure is.

Now, this country, just like the rest of the world, has many serious concerns. People are hungry everywhere. The poor are becoming poorer everyday. There are not enough funds to send children to school. Ten million children die each year because there are not enough funds for vaccines. Perhaps, there is nothing so serious to argue against environmentalism. But what we can protest is the fact that some people seem to be more serious about donating money, for instance, from a global perspective, to preserve an eagle than donating money to charity in order to save the lives of street children in the Philippines and people who are in vulnerable places, i.e. Somalia, Congo or Myanmar. Are we concerned about each dying child in the war-torn lands of the Philippine South or the African continent? Perhaps, we are, but the fact of the matter is that such is not apparent in the amount of humanitarian aid rich people give to poor nations and to conflict areas. Should we be more concerned of the condition of an endangered bat than that a child on the street?

We have many problems that require concrete solutions. It is important to consider the welfare of animals, but such should not be over-emphasized. The greater task of each one of us is to see to it that people, rich and poor, both enjoy the good life. The point is this: questions of ought are unique to the human mind and world, they are meaningless as applied to nonhuman animals. In this regard, nonhuman animals can come next in terms of moral concern.

The ideal thing to do is to keep the balance. People matter just as penguins or turtles matter to us. Poor young children, however simple the kind of lives they live, also deserve just treatment from governments and their people. It is abominable why hundreds of millions of dollars can be allotted in order to preserve endangered species and yet, the vaccination of poor infants is never a priority of the first world. The balance that we can speak of is that sufficient funds should be allotted to the cause of saving street-children from illegal drugs and violence, including funds for their education and health. We need to save the street children just as we need to save whale sharks from extinction.

On Peace Building

2009-06-04T01:38:00.000-07:00

By Fernando Garingo
Mindanao State University

When an individual chooses reintegration over a simple cooperation, the autonomy implication is quite high, for it involves commitment on the parts of the individuals to pursue a meaningful meeting point to resolve peacelessness. And this commitment also absorbed responsibility to do on the part of the individuals. Why this is so? Because reintegration results into the creation of an “authoritative” framework in which decisions made by the individuals are legally and morally binding among themselves. As a consequence of this, individuals, given their freedom as capability factor are also in the position where they can affect State strategies in relation to ethnic conflict.

They can provide the necessary leadership to direct the State to formulate strategies to further the development of each individual. In other words, in the reintegration approach the target is the attitude of the State. By, for instance, embarking on a consciousness raising strategy, the individual, because of his humanness to resolve the causes of his dehumanization, may change the attitude of the “individuals who occupy offices that authorize them and them alone to make and apply decisions that are binding upon all segments of specific society” (Nordlinger 1981, p.11), and consequently either raise or lower their autonomy status.

A major potential determinant for a state’s policy is the societal input, comprising among others, public opinion, interest groups, and political parties. It is thus society, which in the last resort determines whether government can fulfill her main goal. It is important to point out, however, that societal input to government are highly biased. In its policy, the state will not simply take for granted the interests of all societal groups. Rather, I believe, it will take more into consideration the interest of those groups which are active in the reintegration issue on the basis of “intuition” and common sense.

The reintegration approach deals with both ethnic animosities and the problem of ethnic intolerance by integrating transformation of relationships into each level of peace building. The dimensions of this approach can be identified, among others as: social, economic, political, and physical transformations. An example of social and cultural transformations would be through interactive approach of sustained interethnic dialogue/ exchange for conflict transformation.

For most of us, peace seems like unattainable endeavor, and would remain something that we hope for and dream of. Little do we realize that there are concrete steps that we could take in order to achieve peace. One step starts in the classroom. Indeed, there is no better place to lay the foundation of a dream than in the minds and heart of the students inside the classroom. Teaching the students the value of reintegrating oneself to the realities of ethnic conflict by highlighting the idea of interdependence can, in a small way, as a beginning attempt, build a capability for a peaceful co-existence. Finding ways to create a constructive philosophy of life that gives life meaning is the over-aching goal of reintegration. For, in the first place, every conflict is about life, about human beings. But it is a substantial challenge to shape minds, to eradicate prejudice, to learn from history and to nurture nature - all of which lead to peaceful co-existence with our fellowmen.

IN SEARCH OF A NEW DEMOCRACY

2009-06-04T01:33:00.000-07:00

By Fernando Bergado
MA in Philosophy

If Philippine democracy has yet to mature, are we as nation capable of handling democracy? Or perhaps are we to look for another system that will work best with us Filipinos?

In the midst of President Arroyo’s wiretapped conversation with Garcilliano where she admitted in public her lapsed of judgment in talking to the Comelec official in the middle of the presidential campaign, she had blamed the system as “having degenerated to such an extent that it is very difficult to move within the system with hands totally untainted” and proposed a constitutional convention to supervise a transition from the current Manila-centered presidential system to federal republic with a parliamentary government which, according to oppositionist, is only meant to distract people’s attention from the charges against her and at the same it will only perpetuate herself in power (Steven Rogers, Philippine Democracy in Turmoil). No matter how good the intention but we cannot deny that we have leaders who will convene as “Constitutional Assembly’ ( Con Ass) who is preoccupied with power politics making people’s interest their last priority while disguising themselves as the herald champion of people’s interest. The change is undeniably necessary but how can we trust changing our constitutions to people who are only interested of protecting themselves and their interest.

No matter how many times we will be changing our form of government if we have the same faces of recycled politicians we could not master ourselves to be politically and economically ahead with our neighboring countries. Changing it into a parliamentary form of government with several self-ruled states; we are only cementing political warlords into immortality (powerful elite) because they will surely lord it over in perpetuity. Why not put our interest on how we can salvage Philippine democracy as what we have done in the original EDSA no matter how less democratic it is but it is the best way to save our democracy. There is a need for a total makeover of our political system so that genuine democracy will function. Such makeover must not be merely a facelift but something that emanate from its very core, from its citizens.

What we have are leaders who can not go beyond their personal interest and a system that is only created for the purpose of benefiting the elite.

Ultimately, ours is not a broken state that needs to be escorted and assisted through its first step towards genuine democracy. Ours is a country that stands on the verge of democratic maturity requiring that its people will have to stand up and claim what is theirs. Democracy cannot be given to Filipinos by an outsider not they have to wait for an enlightened ruler to appear and bestow a good government upon them. Filipinos will have to do it themselves and claim what belongs rightfully to them. We can do it!

Democracy, Philippine Style

2009-05-09T00:00:00.000-07:00

By Fernando Bergado
MA in Philosophy

‘I’d rather have a government run like hell by Filipinos than a government run like heaven by Americans’ (Manuel L. Quezon).

The practice of continuously switching allegiance has perpetuated the politics of survival in this country at the detriment of the ordinary people. Leaders have to enter into compromise and accommodation with various leaders such as political warlords at the local level, business elites including church leaders. This makes our political landscape captive of the interest of these actors that weakens its ability to govern effectively at the people’s expense.

What we have is a democratic system that is almost entirely built that will only benefit the landlord class. This runs contrary to the idea that landlords are supposed to dislike democracy but in the Philippines it is quite different because they loved much democracy because they have effectively controlled it. The Philippines’ house of representathieves (pardon me for the wrong spelling) for instance, has become the power-base of the old regionally based political elite, dominated by members of the traditional political clans, many of them have an absolute lock on their districts, but lack the national prominence needed to gain election to the senate, which was dominated by nationally known actors, athletes, media figures and other celebrities.

We may have a democratic government but it does not operate according to the tenets of democracy but according to self-styled democracy that is only bred in the Philippines. Among the democratic principle, for instance, ‘that members of the society have equal access to power’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) that should have been in place was actually absent. Although, non-elites were already included in the electorate process but the traditional oligarchs, the traditional political warlords have dominated the political landscape in the Philippines. To win a local election, one has to assemble a coalition of families; to win a provincial election, the important families in each town must be drawn into a wider structure and to win a national election, the most prominent aristocratic clans from each region must temporarily come together. A family’s power is not necessarily correlated with wealth instead numbers of followers matter most and the middle class and the poor are sought mainly for the votes they can deliver.
Thus, we have a democratic state that has yet to mature and unless we can move forward toward a maturing democracy this country would perennially in a vicious cycle of poor governance and poverty.

Re-integration as Capability Building for Peace

2009-05-08T23:55:00.000-07:00

By Fernando Garingo
Mindanao State University

Perhaps, in some areas of reintegration processes, the State might very well remain in the driver’s seat, i.e., security of the process; but in most cases, the State shall surrender this position to the people themselves, assisted by neutral interest groups who could work to build a trust relationship with representative of each conflicting parties, and hears what fears or concerns needed to be addressed. This is a far cry to the present process of consultation where the interests of both parties are already laid down on the negotiating table before even the consultation could start. Thus, in the process, the capabilities of the people to find, according to Sen, “alternative functioning combinations” or “the freedom to achieve various lifestyles” vis-à-vis peacefulness on their own is bypassed. Furthermore, every time a state is forced to develop a policy on a specific issue area, it is enveloped in its own shadow of the past. Decisions taken in the past are thus limiting its room to maneuver at present because a dramatic change in the policy can lead to loss of reputation, i.e., it might suddenly discover that the policy is part and parcel of a major package deal which can be very costly to untie.

Why reintegration? It means simply abandoning the traditional “to the centre” approach of integration where the individual must conform to the majority culture, as defined by the State, discarding their “freedom to achieve in general and the capabilities to function in particular” (Sen, 1985, p. 266) in order to “lead the kind of life [one has] reason to value” (Sen, 1999 p. 14). It means, further, that in abandoning the old integration practice, it gives priority to the individual as the focal center, regardless of cultural memberships, where everything is said to be gravitating towards, especially in determining his own development.

Reintegration produces inter-individual bargaining that would promote the interest of everybody since, by experience in the old integration process, they were marginalized by the makings not of their own, rather by the interests of the State and other supranational interests. Here, the individuals themselves will do the unlocking of their undevelopment and marginalization because they are the one holding their own keys to the mysteries of peacelessness in their own midst. Why should the individuals participate in the reintegration process in the first place? Taking a cue from liberal theory, the explanation is rooted in interdependence. In an interdependent set up of different individuals, every individual will find themselves constantly subjected to external pressures of different kinds, even to the extent of destroying one’s individuality or fomenting violence against everybody. The wish to avoid these externalities provides the main incentive for cooperation. Only by reintegrating themselves to one another can individuals solve their problems. Here, reintegration implies cooperation, but not vice-versa.

The Bansangmoro Struggle

2009-05-08T23:50:00.000-07:00

By Sixto Domogen
Philosophy Graduate Student

Mindanao is plagued by endless war between the insurgents and the military. This leads to the evacuation of thousands of residents, thus, stalling any economic progress in the region. This is the reason why Mindanao is highly underdeveloped and high poverty incidence is prevalent. One of the reasons of this conflict is attributed to the deep animosity between the Christian and Muslim settlers. This can be traced back to historical accounts, which shows how this conflict originated.

Various negotiations and agreements have been attempted by previous government administration. First of which is the Tripoli Agreement signed during the Marcos administration in 1976. This agreement was forged with the MNLF. However, no significant aspect of agreement was implemented during the aforementioned administration. It was only during the take over by the succeeding government administration that another peace accord was signed. This was after the dictatorial rule was overthrown in 1986. After the dictatorial rule was overthrown, the new government decided to alter key aspects of the Constitution. Together with the ratification of the new constitution, an Organic Act was also enacted. This Organic Act became the legal basis for the creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

The ARMM is a separate legislative region composed of four provinces. The constituents are asked to elect executive officials for their local government as well as representative to the national legislative body. This is, however, a far cry from the principles espoused by the Tripoli Agreement.6 The territories have a local government but the set-up is the same with other local government units occupied by Christians in other parts of the country. No separate judicial courts were created to provide venue for litigation of cases under sharl’a law. In other words, it does not really represent real autonomy (Alim 1995). The autonomy granted does not fully represent the Bangsamoro’s claim to self-government since it is still highly dependent and under the supervision of the national government. The existing government does not reflect the government based on Islamic tradition. There is no room for the Bangsamoro to govern themselves based on their way of life. Thus, it appears that the Philippine government is not really committed to protect and support the Bangsamoro’s struggle for self-determination.

The Smallness of the Filipinos is the Fountain of their Greatness

2009-03-08T22:22:00.000-07:00

By Dr. Romulo Bautista

The small Filipino is the hero of bayanikrasya toward the noble achievement of “self-reliant empowerment” that grants hope to the hopeless and helpless, and courage to the desperate and the faint-hearted.

Smallness is greatness. The smallness of the Filipino is the fountain of his greatness. The small Filipino, as it were, is Zero. At first blush, “zero” appears to be insignificant or of no value, but ironically it is zero that tremendously adds values to numbers. For example, 1 is the lowest number and will always be 1 until you add a number to it. When you add 1 to it, you get 2, but when you add 0 to 1, you get 10, 100, 1000, 1000,000, and so on. Many small Filipinos are “zeros” in terms of opportunity, but if they are provided with appropriate empowerment and opportunities, however small these may be, they could heroically transform themselves into bigger people capable of greater accomplishments.

Bayanikrasya is Humanistic

Bayanikrasya – the synergy of Bayanihan and demokrasya - is essentially humanistic, and as such, it is built upon five principles:

1. It is democratic. It aims at the fullest development of every small Filipino as human being at the grassroots.

2. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively.

3. It is ethical. It affirms the dignity of the small Filipino and his rights to the greatest possible freedom of development compatible with the rights of others.

4. It insists that personal liberty is an end that must be combined with social responsibility in order that it shall not be sacrificed to improvement of material conditions.

5. It is a way of life, aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment, thru the cultivation of ethical and creative life.

There is a need for a more active and direct involvement of the small Filipinos to organize an orderly and satisfying grassroots communities where every member finds a clear role to play for his involvement in community-building, without having to be involved in the parliament of the streets, without need to recourse to violence and revolution. This is the way of bayanikrasya for social action and social transformation of the small Filipinos. Bayanikrasya should, therefore, be institutionalized.

We do not live in a just world

2009-03-08T21:26:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc

We do not live in a just world. This, according to Thomas Nagel, is the least controversial claim one can make in political theory. No food, no toilet – nothing. The very poor, almost half of humanity, or three billion people, including twenty poor million Filipinos, live on less than two dollars a day. Another billion people, the extremely poor, live on less than one dollar a day.

According to the Human Development Report (2005), 30,000 children die each day from preventable diseases. In 2004 alone, 10.4 million children died before reaching the age of five. Why, indeed, is the human condition is so inhuman? This makes me think that perhaps the human condition, for many people, or whatever is left of it, is impossible to live.

The problem of global justice can be attributed to the fact that sovereign states first and foremost consider the welfare of their own citizens before that of other states. The goods or wealth produced in a wealthy country primarily serves the benefits or is for the advantages of its own citizens. Take, for instance, the case of the $700B bail-out of Wall Street, $2T over-all for world markets. In a very stark contrast, the WFP has been struggling to get its $2 B funding to feed millions who are in danger of dying due to starvation.

The problem of global justice can also be linked to the absence and impossibility of a world government. This means that the political conception of justice limits justice to the basic structure. Thus, the problem of global poverty is not a moral concern for rich nations. The basis of justice is the moral equality of persons. But in the global order, sovereignty implies that citizens, and not persons, are morally equal.

The right to self-determination

2008-09-22T23:54:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc

The Moro youth want self-rule. One young man told us in a recent talk. The right to self-determination, he says, is based on the historical fact that the Moro people were never defeated by the conquestadores. He asserted that they have the original claim to Mindanao – Mindanao, he said, is their ancestral land. But I told him that it always matters that any state should be sustainable – politically, economically, culturally, and socially to be able to pursue authentic autonomy.

Going to war is never a moral option. But it is fully rational for any entity with a superior firepower to engage a perceived enemy of the state. Such, however, is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because innocent lives – the poor, women and children, will suffer. Of course, the attacks against innocent civilians by some MILF commanders are a criminal offense. In this sense, the state has a duty to protect its people.

In the end, obviously, the moral option is peace – the only question is how? Democracy is a child of the enlightenment. The basic structure of government exists by virtue of human reason – men and women come into an agreement that they will be governed by “fair terms of cooperation”. If we want peace in Mindanao, I think we should be guided by the concept of moral power in politics – a “sense of justice” and a “moral conception of the good”.

The question of whether or not the Moro people should be granted autonomy is not for the Moro people to answer. Unless we can say that Manila has been fair to them in terms of the distribution of this country’s resources, I think that there is a need to rectify decades of neglect. Of course, there is a great possibility that Moro “self-rule” might fail. But it is not for us to decide. In any democracy, the liberty of people, which empowers them to conceive of the good, is a priority that can never be compromised.

Why for the Moros...

2008-08-07T00:29:00.000-07:00

By Jamil Adrian Matalam

The decades-long war in the Bangsa Moro has now reached a point that is probably near its end—thank God. The Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, it seems, would have a final peace agreement with the emergence of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). Yet many Filipino politicians, it would seem, are against it. They oppose it because it would be like surrendering Philippine sovereignty over a portion of Mindanao with the MILF or the Moros. Some of them say it is like carving out a portion of the Philippines. To this I say NONSENSE!

To carve out something presupposes a solid block. The history of the Islands does not support anyhow this illusion that the Philippine archipelago is a solid block. During the pre-Spanish colonization in the Philippines the Islands were divided among independent Barangays. During this period there is no such a thing as a Philippine nation, as we now conceive of it. Loyalty then was not to a Philippine nation but to one’s barangay. The inception of a Philippine nation began towards the 3rd century of Spanish domination in the Philippines. The common hardships and sufferings of the Indios led to a himagsikan para sa Inang Bayan—The Philippines. Even then the Inang Bayan for Bonifacio, the father of the mga anak ng bayan, was simply the Katagalugan. During these periods the Moros were then divided into different Sultanates, independent and recognized as such by the Spaniards. The American colonizers did not anyhow consider the archipelago as a solid block. They divided it into two separate administrative provinces, the Christian North and the Moro administrative province. By the inception of the Philippine Republic there is still no considering the archipelago as a solid block. By the time of Quezon to Marcos the Philippine Republic speaks of integrating the Moros into the greater Philippine nation. Thus, the Bangsa Moro has always been separate from Bansang Pilipinas. This truth has been the basis of the struggle of the two biggest Moro liberation fronts. Therefore there is no such a thing as carving out a portion of the Philippines by the Moros. Nonsense and hilarious!

Am I not here fostering separation instead of solidarity among the beautiful people of these struggling and blessed Islands? Well, explicitly no. If the history of the Philippines has to move further then it must address this great issue. In the resolution of this issue the historical truth about the Bangsa Moro must be included in the equation. It must not be covered or veiled by political nonsense blubbering by some Filipino politicians, whose grounds for their blubbering is merely the Philippine Constitution and a legal definition of a state. A dialogue on peace can never be limited by a state constitution.

I agree with retired General Esperon that the best way of solving the issue is to consult the inhabitants of the proposed BJE through a plebiscite. It is only through it that we could achieve true solidarity. The greatest historical error of the Filipinos is there failure to consult the Moros if they would like to be part of the greater Filipino nation. The Philippines, if it is to take a further step into its history as a nation, must rectify this error. Otherwise, any attempt of applying Filipino sovereignty over the Moros would be a foreign imposition over them, and for the Moros that means war.

What is bayanicracy?

2008-05-28T23:29:00.000-07:00

(Insights from Dr. Romulo Bautista)

Bayanicracy is a concept coined by Dr. Romulo Bautista which is a combination of “bayanihan” and “democracy”. He advocates for people empowerment, and such begins with the notion of helping each other in the community, thus the concept of bayanihan. He makes an analogy of community empowerment to a “walis tingting”. Alone, he says, a man may not be able to do anything. But with a community united together, people can do a lot to help themselves.

Dr. Bautista argues that such a concept can be useful in helping farmers and small fishermen. It can begin with some form of micro-lending, or what he calls “piso-piso”. With any accumulated capital, small farmers and fishermen can become entrepreneurs themselves. Before the explosion of the rice crisis, he has conceived of how farmers can form groups and become marketers of their own produce.

With the problems we have, Dr. Bautista thinks that the academe can be at the forefront of this endeavor. He suggests that teachers should begin looking beyond the classroom, and move to action by sharing ideas to the common people in order to help those who are in need. Even with the doubts and opposition of a few critics, Dr. Bautista has always been consistent and clear with his advocacy, which in the end, hopes to bring about concrete change in the lives of people by making ideas result into action.

Libertarianism Contra Liberalism

2008-05-26T13:19:00.000-07:00

by Eugim Migue
Philosophy Graduate Student

The justification for the extensive state lies in its capacity to apply “distributive justice”. But is this “justice” really just, if we take in to account a state’s neutrality over its citizens? When distributing certain goods and services to society, with some parameter in mind (income, age, gender), aimed at promoting justice, there is this the possibility that the chosen parameter or criteria for such a distribution is inappropriate if compared with the original conception what is just one has in mind, thus really unjust.

One cannot simply “correct” the previous mistake. Why? Because there is no central distribution of goods, Nozick points out. In a democratic society, no one is given central and absolute access to goods – and so if this is the case, it will be quite improbable to correct the previous erroneous distribution; and if it is improbable to correct it, since it was previously mistaken – then there is still a probable injustice (such mistake as an injustice, and assuming the current time-slice principles of justice is almost always mistaken). Further, in a free society goods and assets (which later will be included in the distributed goods) arise out of voluntary and arbitrary exchanges and actions of persons. The very notion of arbitrariness upsets the idea of distributive justice that relies on a pattern – there is no such pattern.

Now, if we reject the idea of a distributive justice, which relies on a pattern, implying that assets acquired in such scheme of distribution does not make one justly entitled to it, how should we justify holdings? What insures the just acquisition, its entitlement, of a holding – such distribution of holdings as the usual basis of a just society? What would be a more appropriate scheme for a distributive justice? One’s holdings, Nozick suggests, are justly acquired (or one is rightfully entitled it) if: (1) it is in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition; (2) it is in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer (implying that the holding transferred satisfies the previous condition); and, (3) the first and second principles are repeatedly followed.

This conception of a distributive justice is historical – whether one’s holdings are just depends upon the basis of the distribution or on the nature of the acquisition of such holdings: on what really happened, i.e. if it was in accordance with the first principle, and so on. Its counter-part, which Rawls, seems to propose is based upon some current “structure” or pattern which Nozick thinks inadequate to be the whole basis of a just method of acquisition and distribution of holdings. Again, Nozick does not think that a pattern exists by virtue of the way goods and holdings are circulated in society; it is plainly arbitrary. Rawls, on the other hand, thinks that there is a structure to which in the original position should be considered i.e., that there is a structure that illuminates this least and most advantaged, the former to be the priority. Nozick finds it relevant to ask, “How this kind of ‘structure’, or distribution did, come about?”, i.e. that there was a previous event, that there was a history, and not only the present time. A criminal, for example, is punished, or is in his current state, because of his crime – and that to settle at his current particularities e.g. his age, income, number of children, is somewhat irrelevant and ultimately unjust if we are to design a scheme to distribute goods solely on such bases.

We do not think it just if a terrorist, fallen under the category of Rawls’s “least advantaged” (as achieved through patterns and specific parameters) is to receive a substantial increase in life-prospect in society. We think it just to extinguish him from society if possible. Moreover, an entrepreneur’s, using Rawls’s example, deliberate (or non deliberate, since society and its institutions was so designed as to make it impossible) actions that could improve a working class’s position does not suffice to show that the latter really deserves or is justly entitled to an improved life-prospect (the life-prospect as a holding). This is the problem of the free-rider but the thing is that it has a historical element. The conflict between the two, I observe, lies more on the implementation (on the economic area of justice): Rawls as being current and, in a sense, unhistorical; Nozick being historical and retentive.

On Globalization

2008-05-22T12:57:00.000-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE

Should we or should we not buy foreign goods? There are many factors to consider, like any imported product should not hurt locally made ones. But first things first, being pro-Filipino does not mean that we should be an autarkic regime. Being pro-Filipino does not mean that we continue the failure of protectionist policies in the past in the spirit of nationalism!

We live in the age of globalization. We are not the only inhabitants of the planet. We have to compete. It is a matter of survival. It is one thing to protect ourselves from the forces of the global economy and another to question unjust global structures enunciated by pro-US World Bank policies. It is a matter of fact that there are WTO policies that are pro-West. It does not make sense to compete against the US in terms of farm outputs because the US subsidizes its farmers billions of dollars. But this is not the only reason why we have been underdeveloped. There is something else.

The problem is not because you are wearing shoes made in Indonesia, or that you bought cheap christmas lights from China last year or because your shampoo is really made in Thailand if you care to read the label. The fact that we lag behind in economic growth is not to be totally blamed on the power of foreign economies - rather, it is because we have not fully taken advantage of globalization from a positive end that we have not climbed "the ladder of growth". Thus, the problem lies not in the global structures of trade but in the failure of governance, in policies that have long neglected agriculture, infrastructure, education and health!

Locally, small enterpreneurs will not survive because of lack of financial support from the government. Thus, many people, especially the poor, resort to lending which charge high interests, usually at twenty percent a month. Why would small businesses resort to this? It’s because government requires a bucketful of papers before anybody is granted any loan. The sad part of it is this: recipients of government grants or small loans think that the money is a dole-out. Why? It is because of the mentality that any money from the government is their own money! “My government is corrupt so why should I return this money?”

The reality is that our government is not providing enough to care for our people for them to live a life they have reason to value. There is no such thing as farm subsidies in the past. It's only now that farmers have been given some kind of assistance, but until when, only God knows. Economics is all about incentives, even going to school too. Students study because they hope to find work after graduation. But let us consider education for a moment. Who do you think are successful and who are not? The simple math is that the measure lies in the top ten (not ten per cent) students in class. The rest of the students go nowhere and will not be able to finish college.

And the saddest part of it is that many who finish college go abroad because there is not much in our country. What do you think will happen to many of them especially those who end up as DH in Saudi Arabia? Check your International Labor Organization website and it will tell you three words – life there is “difficult, depressing, and demeaning”.

India is developing and is moving forward because of one person and that is Manmohan Singh, a real economist who studied at Oxford and Cambridge. China is reaping unprecedented growth and is catching up in 500 years of lost opportunity by opening its market to the outside world. Why did America emerge from the depression? Just three words – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In a highly competitive global world, we need some kind of balance. I argue that we compete, but that shouldn't mean we simply become a dumping ground for cheap commodities that will hurt our local industries. What that means is that we elevate our competititiveness to the next level. This should require, world class leadership and a government at par with the world's most efficient.

Charter Change?

2008-05-22T12:54:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE

The sole reason why there are politicians who want charter change is power, not public service. This idea does not fail to give the best possible hindsight as to the real motives our leaders have in changing the constitution.

Charter change is not a magic formula. Notwithstanding all the provisions in the constitution that can be altered in order to favor foreign investments and thus bring in capital into the economy, the whole storyboard regarding charter change is political – not social nor economic change.

Politics is about men in power. The present constitution prescribes a bicameral chamber, and proponents of Cha-cha argue that it slows down the process of legislation. A shift to a unicameral system will expedite the passage of laws that will benefit the people in the long run, or so they say. For instance, they accuse the Senate of spending hundreds of hours investigating anomalies and sitting on essential legislative measures. But there is something more to this common sense argument. Charter change will enable the ruling coalition to get a grip into power, and transfer the all-important ingredient of democracy – the will of the people – to the will of the majority (in the parliament).

It would be ridiculous to compare ourselves to successful unicameral governments. Ours is not a problem of structure – it is a problem of bad governance. For instance, a shift to a federal form of government is no guarantee that Mindanao shall be lifted from its war-torn history. While Metro Manila already has three light rail running and four more in the horizon, Mindanao’s dream of a railway system remains all that - a dream. While powers that be may have already decided on how they may divide the pie on the Northrail and the Southrail, Mindanao’s planned railway is all that – a plan. As to how a federal state can make sure that such a project will be implemented – only God knows how and why.

Institutions are about people. A thick book about justice, however well-argued or eloquently written, is useless if those who profess to promote and defend its maxims do not live by the principle “public service is a public trust”.

The country need not rush things nor alter its course by committing another blunder. The kind of democracy we have, however worse, will be sufficient enough to get us through until the first ballot in 2010 shall have been cast. By then, we can start dreaming again.

On the problem of overpopulation

2008-05-20T13:09:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, Sweden

Ask your favorite barber and he will say that there are too many Filipinos, that there are too many mouths to feed, that there are too many kids to send to school, that there are too many houses to build, that there are too many people to serve, and that there are just too many people for a poor country like us.

If we take a look at the world’s wealthiest nations, almost all of them do not have a problem of overpopulation – so few people and yet they have huge economies. Think, for instance, of Iceland, Norway, Sweden or Singapore. It can also be said that these societies have attained a certain kind of maturity. It is also this kind of maturity that has made the reality of God non-existent for them. Their cathedrals are huge and fascinating. But these structures are oftentimes empty.

Jeffrey Sachs considers demography as part of the reason why certain countries fail to thrive. China has a one-child policy, fearing that overpopulation will undermine its ascent to economic growth, and prospectively, its momentum. Amartya Sen believes that a country need not force upon its people the concept of family planning. In Kerala, a state in India, he says, democratic discourse has helped bring down fertility rates. The argument points to the fact that all advanced economies are into the replacement rate of fertility, one or two child per mother, whereas in poor countries like the Philippines, most mothers have four or five.

I am not against family planning. I think it is stupid to have five or six children and yet you cannot even send them all to school. The problem really is that people who are supposed to be too poor to afford a decent standard of living are the ones who have too many children.

People above the poverty threshold have long since realized that two kids are just enough. Why have so many when you cannot even buy each one a new pair of sneakers during Christmas? But of course, I have not answered my question. Is it the Catholic Church’s stance on family planning that underdeveloped 24 million Filipinos? My answer is no. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with all those babies.

The Philippines is not poor because there are too many Filipinos. We are poor, and indirectly, as a result of that an overpopulated country, because of graft and corruption. If only we have had good governance, say after the popular Pres. Ramon Magsaysay died then most poor Filipino women beginning in the fifties would have had finished college. Most of Europe attained tremendous development after World War II through the Marshall Plan. The Philippines stagnated and failed due to bad governance beginning in the early sixties. It is not the Church’s fault. It’s due to bad governance.

If it would have been the case that Filipino women consider a profession the primary option in life, they would have been more empowered to say no to their husbands. Our society is patriarchal. Women grow up thinking that men make decisions. “Women govern the house – but it is men who rule”, so they say. The Church is not the real enemy. It is partially culture.

Well, the Catholic Church tells its followers not to use condom – but the Catholic Church does not prohibit couples from making love. I don’t think people don’t use condoms or that they have too many kids because the Catholic Church is against artificial family planning. People choose and make their own lives – including the number of children they want (whether intentionally or unintentionally). The Church is not the culprit. It is the government’s failure to sustain its family planning program.

If only Filipino women had a say, they would have chosen better options or married men who are more understanding. If one lives inside a ten square meter house, there really is no escape – thus you say goodbye to a life “one has reason to value”, as Sen would say.

Mahbub Ul Haq says it well, “people are the real wealth of a nation”. Graft and corruption is the single biggest reason why the state of Philippine education is unwell, health care is almost non-existent for the poor, and real purchasing power is equal to nil. This is the reason why 24 million Filipinos live miserable lives.

Public Service

2008-05-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc

It is difficult to understand why a country of 90 million people cannot find other minds to make the governance of this country healthier. Many of our bureaucrats have not produced significant results. Of course, there are some who are good. The basic idea in public service is that any government should have bureaucrats who will serve, in the best possible way, however inimical sincere public service can be to one’s financial gain. Soon, reporters will quote from them that they serve at the “pleasure of the President”. That’s wrong – it is the Filipinos whom they should please, not the President.

But the saddest part of it is that a lot of our leaders steal money from the people. The thing is, they go abroad when they are sick. It is a wonder why our leaders don't build good hospitals for the poor in the country too, since poor people cannot afford to go abroad or the private hospitals in the country.

There are people with IQ 140 + in the academe, but of course, politics is something beyond theoretical analysis. It takes courage and a lot of will to be of real service to one’s country. Many bright boys would rather seek greener a pasture in America. Thus, the bad news is, with the way things are going, we doubt if we can ever hire bright people in the future to help the poor. Of course, the best way to entice them, I think, is the assurance that this government will do away with political accommodation and will consider seriously the principle that “public service is a public trust”. But that’s a long shot – so there you go. Ockham’s razor tells us this: New faces mean new ideas; old faces, the same old tricks – tricks that don’t work, as one failure after another of this government have shown.

Billions and billions have been squandered. Money that could have otherwise been spent for the good of the people.

The point of the matter is that our country needs sincere people to get things done. Just consider the Philippines or Nigeria, for example, as a patient inside an operating room. Ask a fifth grader and I am sure he or she will tell you that the hospital should assemble the best medical team in order to save the patient from an impending date with eternity. That is pure and simple logic. For instance, I don’t believe that changing our form of government will solve our problems. It is just like transferring the patient to another hospital. If the patient gets the same kind of doctors, then he will still have his date with eternity.

Development Economics

2008-05-15T12:58:00.000-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE

You can reason that you may not give your all when do your job – you will only work commensurate to the level of your pay, for instance as a teacher. But that is not right. You do that and you violate the dignity of your profession. You do that and you do not only short-change your students – you are actually harming their future.

But our government, with due respect, is not arming our front-liners well – our public school teachers – in the war against poverty. Now with this in mind, there is something wrong about "you know what". Doing well in one’s work is all about getting the incentives. Pay the person well and he will value work. Pay him less and he will feel that he is not being valued at all.

Jeffrey Sachs, in the book The End of Poverty, which interestingly had a foreword by the U2 front-man Bono Vox, specifically mentioned that two hundred years ago, almost all people in the world were poor, except for a few oligarchs and royalties. Well, he said what finally separated the North from the South was the Industrial Revolution, which brought vast wealth to the economy of Great Britain. There was one thing else he mentioned – Great Britain had Isaac Newton, the father of Modern Science. This says something - development in the first world needed Newton, and he too, was a teacher.

Perhaps there is really no formula. But I hope after all the ideas on how to eliminate corruption and poverty in the country shall have been discussed and debated – the people for whom these ideas should matter are still there to benefit from it. The rule of the thumb in knowing whether the Philippines is in the right path comes from Jean Jacques Rousseau – “as to wealth, no citizen should be rich enough to be able to buy another and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself”.

It makes me wonder why big corporations, which almost all carry foreign names (telling me that Pepe Diokno’s nationalism did not infect our CEOs), earn billions of pesos of profit each year while their clients, the poor Filipino, cannot even afford his staple crop. No, it is not that they (economics teachers) did not get to teach the basic principles of the course correctly – but they must have forgotten to tell our future CEOs, when they took Econ 111, that economic development should be about people. It should be obvious. Even the great John Maynard Keynes, reflecting on the effects of the Great Depression, thought of the future of his grandchildren in the title of his great work – “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”.

The dilemma on climate change

2008-05-12T13:39:00.000-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE

In 1997, industrialized countries agreed on the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at the fair distribution of responsibility for green gas emissions (burden sharing).

The earth absorbs 700 B metric ton of CO2 annually, 12B metric ton of these comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon left in the atmosphere traps UV rays, a phenomenon called greenhouse effect. With more carbon emission, the US alone accounting for 25.8%, earth temperature is expected to rise by 2.5 degrees centigrade in 2050(Wesley and Petersen 1997).

The first and the third world are both in a dilemma. If the US cuts on its carbon emission, it will lose six major industries and will be less competitive economically, including a potential economic contraction, says Sen. Tom Hagel. This is the reason why Pres. George W. Bush is opposed to signing the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, if developing countries like China and India are made to take part in the Kyoto Protocol, this will slow down their growth, thus affecting social economic reforms. This also holds true for the Philippines and other developing countries. In a highly globalized economy, what occurs far North, is felt even in the poorest home, i.e. rise in the price of consumer goods.

The world and a whole generation after us are held hostage by global politics.

The Kyoto Protocol, which includes proposals like the curtailment of energy use in rich countries and stricter environmental standards, requires all industrialized countries to abide by it, the argument being that the burden lies with them in all these years of economic and industrial expansion. Sen. Hagel said then that it would not make sense, since if China and other developing countries would not join the agreement, they would soon catch up in the amount of carbon emission.

The dilemma is clear. What is not clear is that why is the US not taking responsibility for the past? (on what is called historic pollution) Perhaps, US citizens don’t want to sacrifice for the poor? The problem is that, climate change affects poor countries more than the US, i.e. flooding in Bangladesh. Here is another glitch to the problem which means that the International Panel on Climate Change has something more to fear. A study will soon be conducted to check on the contribution of agriculture to climate change, which according to some experts, contributes more green gases than the burning of fossil fuels. For instance, the clearing of forests (our natural carbon sinks) for agricultural purposes reduces the earth's capacity to absorb carbon in the atmosphere. Compounding all this, some experts also say that the shift to bio-fuel is a threat to food security. The future is indeed bleak for all of us.

Distributive and intra-generational justice is a huge discussion. One proposal, however, to advance the case for climate change, is inter-generational justice. One argument for inter-generational justice is environmental stewardship.

We owe to the future, to the children of the future, to hand unto them an environment free from the dangers of climate change. The reason being is that past generations before us, whether knowingly or unknowingly, handed us with an earth where we have been able to live fully well. We must be, so to say, good stewards of the environment.

Of course, right now we are fully aware of the dangers of climate change - a problem that this generation has created. But do we have a duty to give to the future which will not be able to reciprocate? (Page 2007, 234) Can we afford to sacrifice the present for the future (for instance, on the impact of biofuels to food security)?

Where do we locate this responsibility? Do we owe to our ancestors the present? Or is our moral responsibility a result of the fact that we are aware of the harm we can cause by not doing something now to mitigate the impact of climate change?

But the issue remains clear - climate change is real and it affects us today. Thus, something must be done, for after all, it matters to us that we keep the earth in such a way that it remains habitable as a planet - now and beyond - for the sake of our children. The challenge remains - we need a moral, political, and practical solution to the issue of climate change.

Justice by holdings

2008-05-04T00:11:00.000-07:00

by Aimee Mesiona
Philosophy Graduate Student

Justice by holdings is a response to the concept of distributive justice. Nozick argues that “distributive” justice seems to assume that there should be some agent greater than the individuals within society that decides how primary goods should be allocated among its citizens. In a truly democratic situation, the reality is that individuals have control over varied resources, and it is through voluntary acts and exchanges of goods that new holdings arise. Every person is entitled to decide for himself which goods to keep, to acquire or to exchange. One can do whatever he or she wants to do with his or her possessions.

Nozick asserts that justice should be concerned with the acquisition of things not formerly possessed (original acquisition of holdings), how possessions can be transferred from one citizen to another (transfer of holdings), and the things that must be done to correct violations of the previous two. By the first principle, justice in acquisition, an individual is entitled to own whatever he makes or creates. He or she is also entitled to own something that has not been previously owned by anyone, as long as his act of possessing it does not leave other individuals in a worse condition than they are already in. In both cases, the properties are originally acquired. By the second principle, justice in transfer, holdings are acquired through the proper and voluntary exchange between two individuals. There should be no coercion coming from an outside entity (such as the state) that makes the individual participate in such an exchange. Therefore, it would be wrong for a government agency to force a well-off citizen to give up his resources and transfer them to less fortunate citizens for the sake of the general good of society.

By the third principle, holdings acquired through neither the principle of justice in acquisition nor the principle of justice in transfer, are not just holdings. Acts such as stealing, fraud, slavery, aggression and forms of force are examples of unjust methods of acquiring holdings. In a minimal state, it is only these crimes that the government would have the power to rectify. Nozick summarizes his principles in the following statement: From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Each individual gives only what he chooses. Each individual gets only that which he/she has made for himself/herself or that which other individuals have freely chosen to give to him/her from their own justly acquired lot.

Nozick’s Justice by Holdings differs greatly from Rawls’ principles. One clear conflict between the two is that Rawls advocates the duty of those who are better off to ensure the improvement of those who are the worst-off. Nozick disagrees that there exists such a duty; he asserts that any aid given by one individual to another should be completely voluntary. In Rawls’ theory, the state plays a major role in ensuring the proper allocation of rights, duties and social and economic goods. Nozick, on the other hand, discourages any involvement of the government except in ensuring that the voluntary acquisition and exchange of goods is in no way violated. There is to be no agency of central distribution of goods. While Rawls’ take on distributive justice may be said to be “patterned” (that is, there is an end-state in mind) in that he prescribes how social and economic inequalities should be structured, Nozick only adopts a “free market” policy governed fully by the voluntary decisions of individuals (who would take into account the benefits that he or she would get from these transactions).

The Measure of Democracy

2008-04-27T13:17:00.001-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc

World poverty, politics, and democracy are matters we discuss during dinner in our corridor. This text will be about democracy. But whether there is still hope in our land is another issue. Here, we are just reflecting on what can be done. Before anything else, let me provide some data and a little analysis. The inputs from my colleagues are religiously incorporated in the text.

In the Index of Democracy by the think-tank group, Economist Intelligence Unit, Sweden ranks number 1 while the Philippines is number 63, belonging to a group characterized as “flawed democracies”. According to Laza Kekik, director of the Economist Intelligence Unit, “there is no consensus on how to measure democracy, but we can at least agree on one main principle, that democracy is about a set of practices and principles that institutionalize and thus ultimately protect freedom” (Democracy Index 2007).

In the World Democracy Index, from a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest, the Philippines scored 5.36 for the Functioning of Government, 5.0 for Political Participation and 3.75 for Political Culture. Amazing but true, the Philippines scored 9.12 for Civil Liberties and 9.17 for its Electoral Process. Sweden scored a perfect 10 in all categories, except in Political Culture, where it scored a 9.38. The survey speaks a lot about the issues we confront now, but I wish to clarify on the seemingly perflexing scores above.

Before we raise our eyebrows on our high score for Electoral Process, it is worth noting that the Index clearly pictures the political situation in the country. The government’s neglect of agriculture, graft and corruption, inadequate provisions for health care and education, is captured by our failing grade in terms of the Functioning of Government. The reality of political dynasties, the massive vote buying during elections and the lack of critical reflection among the majority of our adult populace in choosing leaders is captured in our very low 3.75 score in Political Culture and 5.0 in Political Participation.

Our 9.17 score for the Electoral process does not mean the survey did not take note of GMA’s alleged cheating. It only speaks of the fact that we have regular elections. The 9.12 for Civil Liberties does not mean that the index is ignorant of alleged abductions and human rights violations; it only means that in the Philippines, unlike in China and in other authoritarian regimes, people still have constitutional rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Our over-all score is 6.48, and we have a better score than Indonesia which ranked 65th and Malaysia, which is ranked 81st (largely due to Mahathir’s style of governance), although it is not something we must be happy about.

What lessons do we get from this report? We argue that

One, we have a constitutional and an electoral system set in place, but our nasty political culture (i.e. patronage politics) ruins it. Cheating is not the fault of the electoral system per se, but it is the political immaturity of Filipinos which make them fall prey to a fraudulent regime. If nobody sells votes, nobody buys them.

Two, we have civil liberties, yes, but these have not translated into better governance. Civil society has done its role in being vigilant, but without the full cooperation of the majority of Filipinos, those who are in power will continue to abuse us.

What should the Philippines do about these?

The report says it all. It is not the system, but the people who are in the system. Our kind of government reflects the kind of voters we have. To change this, we have these suggestions:

First, investments in education. Yes, we have allocated around 11% for education in our national budget, but that is small compared to the 29% we allotted for debt servicing. Fact is, most of the 134.7 B education budget goes to salaries and maintenance and other operating expenses. Meaning, it is just enough to maintain the standard of education in the country. In this sense, we can’t expect any change, especially because not much is allocated for scholarships. An enlightened populace through education is our only hope for a better world.

Second, investments in the agriculture sector. In Sweden, potato is very cheap because it is their staple crop. The same should be true for rice, which is a political commodity. If we don’t invest in agriculture, there will be more poverty in the rural areas, which means that people will be more vulnerable to political patronage. My classmate here who has a degree in Political Science from Stanford was amused to hear that in the Philippines, people exchange their votes for two kilos of rice.

Third, investments in health care. In the present national budget, health gets only a little over 1%. That means we are not protecting the most precious asset we have – the life of our people. If we want our people to be critically minded, and thus, are able to choose the right leaders, they must be healthy, mens sana en corpore sano (a sound mind in a sound body).

Finally, the argument is that, in a democracy, whether it is in Sweden, the Philippines or Nigeria, it is the people that matters. The kind of society we have reflects who we are as a people. Are these new solutions? We don’t think so. But we can learn from how first world countries emerged from the dark. Sweden, for instance, is not that rich in natural resource, except iron. But they have invested a lot in their people, making education and health care a priority. A government that is corrupt and inefficient breeds all kinds of violence and crime. Hungry people act in their state of nature in order to survive. If a society shares its wealth, there would not be a need to steal nor commit crime.

We have observed, for instance, that a government that takes care of its people so that they may live a decent human life, a life where human dignity is valued, has allowed Sweden to produce intelligent young men and women who are into high end manufacturing, from cellular phones to fighter jets. Above all, we are in agreement that the Swedish love their country. Their buses arrive on time, they recycle their waste, and they have gender equality. These features alone tell us that Swedes live in a beautiful country, free and secure.

These things can be a result of the solidarity Swedes have and the belief, as Mahbub Ul Haq would say, that “people are the real wealth of a nation”. Education, in the end, is the one last hope to set our people free. Only then can our society be truly democratic. Our country (the Philippines) needs us to work together. We owe it to each other.

The other's suffering

2008-04-18T01:45:00.000-07:00

by Jamil Adrian Matalam
Ateneo de Davao University

I am no advocate of homosexuality. I even hate homosexual acts. But what I hate most are people who disregard the dignity of their fellow human beings, and are unmindful their sufferings. The doctors at the Vicente Sotto hospital, in Cebu , who operated on a suffering homosexual have no right whatsoever to that person’s suffering a laughable matter. It is good to laugh a lot in life, but I do not think it is good if the subject of our laughter is that of a person’s pain. He came there looking for help and remedy and not to be laughed at and be disgraced. What is more outrageous, as if a finishing touch, is that they uploaded it in youtube so that the rest of the world could see the operation.

Clearly, there is selfishness in these actions; they were unmindful of the suffering and embarrassment of that homosexual. If they were the ones operated upon in that case, definitely they would not make it public because it is embarrassing, therefore not a laughable matter. If only...

This is the case in our country. Many of us fail to see or are unmindful of the suffering of others. The food crisis and rampant corruption are great consequences of this indifference. If the government is truly mindful of the sufferings of the many poor Filipinos then this food crisis could have been avoided. They could have planned something to prevent it.

I mean if our government is truly thinking of how many Filipinos suffer in their lives then this government could have made policies and programs that would uplift people's lives and make their lives comfortable. Uplift their lives necessarily should include insuring that good and nutritious food are provided at the tables of every Filipino household. This government could have come up with plans to avoid such a crisis a long time ago. Any good government should know the sufferings of its people.

Because our government is seemingly unmindful of this suffering, we now have a food crisis. Our government tries to find solutions when the problem is already there; consider, i.e., the case of Carla, who hurt her children with glowing embers because they accidentally spilled one cup of uncooked rice; or a case of a mother who was deprived by a creditor of her infant child because she could not pay a debt of a meager 50,000.

The enterpreneur and the laborer

2008-04-15T11:39:00.000-07:00

by Eugim Migue
Philosophy Graduate Student

The second part of the principle of justice according to John Rawls is concerned with the distribution of income and wealth and the design of public institutions. It deals with the task of opening offices and opportunities to all social ranks and classes; though not necessarily actually giving persons all opportunities, but giving them expectations and prospects for a more advantageous and fortunate circumstance through the design of the social structure. The second principle, further, allows, and does not restrict, inequalities to happen but on the condition that “everyone benefits” to such a designed inequality.

Here, inequality does not necessarily mean injustice, or unjust. It is noteworthy that the principles are in a strictly serial order, implying that the first part of the principle (or the first division of society) does have primacy on the second principle (to the second division of society) lest we forget the absolute inviolability of a human being. If the principle does not have this serial restriction, then it will be just to, say, risk an invalid’s life for a medical experiment, the success of which “benefits everyone”, even if basic human liberties were ignored. This is the essential character of Rawls’ conception of justice as a result of the hypothetical Original Position. The reversal of the serial ordering of the two principles would result to injustice.

Now, given that (1) a liberty given to everyone benefits everyone, the removal of which an injustice; and (2) inequalities are permissible if everyone benefits, the violation of the first principle rendering it as an injustice, the resulting main idea is that “an injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all.” More, “all primary social goods are to be distributed equally unless an equal distribution would be to everyone’s advantage”. But what would be the benefit of the inequality here? How is it possible to allow inequalities and still adhering to Rawls two principles? The idea is that we allow inequality by seeing to it that we do not violate an individual’s basic liberties, and that we open greater expectations and prospects for all. An injustice is inequalities that do not promote the liberty of the individual, and do not open greater expectations and life-prospects for all. But this is better explained by Rawls’s Difference Principle.

It is quite impossible, and unnatural, that there exists no inequality, in the economic aspect, between individuals or social groups in a given society. The very admission of the idea of the existence of a structure, or social ranking, of a society admits such fact (and Rawls conception of his two principles is a result of such an assumption). But Rawls suggests, that if we wish to achieve democratic equality – as one of the primary aims of the suggested principles of justice – there has to be some justification of any existing inequalities in the society. What would be the justification? Simply stated, the resulting or current inequalities should benefit everyone and society in general. The justification of the existence of an inequality (such justification rendering it just), implying that there are these two groups – the economically advantaged and disadvantaged – lies on the capacity, or role, of the economically advantaged to open better opportunities and life-prospects for the disadvantaged; if the economically advantaged does otherwise, or is apathetic to such a demand, then society is necessarily unjust.

The structure of a society should be designed not to simply secure wealth for the wealthy (as its ultimate purpose and justification), but to put the wealthy in a position wherein it is unnatural, and impossible, for him not to open better life-prospects for the economically disadvantaged. This by no means implies that the government should coerce the wealthy to give his riches to the poor; but instead, encourages the wealthy to increase the overall pie of the society (to pursue their own interests, still retaining their liberty), but in such process actually making it impossible not to enlarge the previously smaller pie shared by the economically disadvantaged, their life-prospects.

Rawls gives an illustration of the inequality between the entrepreneurial class and the unskilled laborers class; the former as having an advantage, in terms of the economic (current assets and life-prospects), the latter worse off. This inequality is just and permissible if (1) “if the difference in expectation is favorable for the least advantaged” and (2) “lowering it [the existing inequality] would make the working class even more worse off”. Even if the entrepreneur is, initially, in advantage, in terms of life-prospects and current assets, over the unskilled worker, this advantage is to be used for the development and opening of better life-prospects for the skilled worker, thus favorable for the unskilled worker. Further, if we remove this economic inequality, say, we coerce the entrepreneur to give his assets to the unskilled worker, we are actually making the unskilled working class “even more worse off”, thus an injustice to them. “But why?,” one asks. How should this asset be managed; is the unskilled worker rightly capable of this, in terms of long-term considerations? Does the “gift” put him in a position as to open better life-prospects for others; or only for that small circle to which he belongs? If the answer is no, then that would make it unjust.

What about the entrepreneur? We are actually making him, in a sense, an unskilled laborer – now that he has nothing at his disposal to invest into a better income-generating activity; not really helping society in general, and again, unjust. The action that promotes justice in this example, according to the difference principle, is to design society in such a way that (1) it admits this inequality while (2)rendering the life-prospects of the currently disadvantage better, e.g. the entrepreneur could open new markets and industries, thus actually opening new employment and career options for the unskilled laborer – thus benefiting everyone out of this initial economic difference. The difference principle has the aim of improving society in general without infringing an individual's liberty and without neglecting a better life-prospect for him and others.

A disaster like no other

2008-04-11T23:36:00.000-07:00

by Christian Inovejas
Bukidnon State University

Remember this? It was 7:00 am, February 4, 2006 – A disaster like no other, thousands of people stampeded to get a chance to be part of the first anniversary of a popular noontime show Wowowee. When the dust finally settled, 73 lost their lives and 300 were injured. It’s heartbreaking to see people being carried in body bags considering that most of them were from the probinsya who just want to get a chance to be part of the show and hopefully win the coveted prizes.

It is easy to blame the organizer for the fiasco. Who else would take responsibility over this other than ABS CBN? It is to the credit of ABS that it was quick to respond to the situation by assuring the public that everything is being taken cared of; that all the expenses are shouldered by the network. It’s easy to discuss expenses and damages but too many lives are lost hence this incident cannot be taken lightly.

ABS can always claim that it was not responsible for the stampede; it was the people who stampeded. Reports even reached that someone shouted “bomba” and as a result people panicked, hence the resulting carnage. ABS wasn’t guilty of the carnage per se; it is guilty of negligence that eventually leads to the unfortunate incident. The fact that the incident happened is a manifestation of its low regard for the safety of the people it enticed to participate. Of course, they can always claim that no network has the intention and motivation to hurt anyone not even a dog. That Wowowee was really meant to help the poor kababayans; to make a difference in their lives. It is easy to accept this reason.

But it must be noted that ABS-CBN operates on a profit motive. That it is engaged in ratings game with other competing networks is something that cannot be denied. Networks are substantially concerned with the profitability. Programs are even tailored to compete in order to gain the widest audience possible. Audience share is the basis of popularity and eventually it is also the basis where the real profit comes in: advertising. The slack in profitability of ABS was a motive enough for them to work real hard to win back its position when it comes to advertising sales. It is with this background that Wowowee is to be understood and the guilt of ABS to be viewed. Wowowee is one of those profitable programs of ABS. It’s first anniversary promises surprises and prizes that you could only imagine. Who won’t be enticed?

A poor Juan dela Cruz, without anything to lose, and with the poor living conditions, tried his luck. He waited. He witnessed, cried, hurt and grieved all because of a show called Wowowee. ABS was quick to announce the indefinite suspension of the show. The endless apologies, the grieving and the agonizing were enough to convince us how guilty it is. Maybe what is to be suspended isn’t really the program itself but greedy profit taking that motivates TV networks to engage in cutthroat competition at the expense of the safety of participating audience.

On the other hand, what happened was symptomatic of the poverty and the feeling of helplessness so as to motivate people, in desperation, to try their luck on this stupid TV programs meant really to make them objects of ridicule and amusement by millions of televiewers. Who is to be blamed for this feeling of helplessness? Is it the people themselves? The government? Or God?

Let’s try to look at the disparity of the rich and poor. Haven’t we ever wondered why so many are poor and very few are rich; yet despite the latter’s being few, it controls most of the resources of this country. What do you call this? Benevolence? Look at the riches of the churches, look at the poverty of its members.

The Sumilao Case

2008-04-08T23:55:00.000-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE

The resolution of the Sumilao land dispute involving the farmers of Bukidnon and San Miguel Foods, Inc. is a prime example of how democracy works with the empowerment of people’s positive rights beyond the hypocritical nature of politics and the formalistic framework of legalities. It is a gesture of corporate social responsibility on the part of San Miguel Corporation, SMFI’s parent company and the commitment of the Catholic Church to the good life of the farmers, through the love and hard work of Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales and all those behind him in this case. There are many other challenges in the counrty’s agrarian reform program, but this one calls for our deep reflection before we move ahead.

The fact is without the good Cardinal, what Malacanang had offered to the farmers after their trek from Bukidnon to Manila would have been reduced into a mere piece of paper. Laws in this modern age for some become the easy alibi for those in power always forget the thought of President Ramon Magsaysay, “he who has less in life must have more in law”. Over the course of our history as a people, a people who suffers, the answer the poor often hears is that “we must let the wheels of justice grind”. Those who say this should have asked – whose justice? We must be glad that a good shepherd in Cardinal Rosales is there to guard his flock.

Let us reflect on the matter, lest we forget the good lesson it has. More than anything else, the Sumilao case highlights the role of the church in a democratic society. When Jesus said “men don’t live by bread alone”, Jesus meant that human life is something beyond the material nourishment of the human body. The standard interpretation of this is that the spirit too should be nourished. Upon deep reflection of what Jesus is really trying to say, one needs to realize that to nurture the spirit really means to take care of human life and the logic here is that a life that is well-lived is a life of virtue is a life favored by God.

But how do we take good care of human life? The Sumilao case tells us how. Land, for the farmers is life. Without their land, they have no life to live. Land gives meaning to their human existence, for in tilling the land, the farmer and the earth become one. What is the meaning of this? It means that it is in their land where their children get to play, it is where they get to gather together to cherish human relations, it is where their beloved children go to school and learn Philippine geography, and perhaps, it where they get to experience culture, not to mention the fact that it is where they gather food for the nourishment of their bodies. Thus, it is not about bread alone, but life and all of the above which serve as the ingredients to a life that is well-lived. Deny a man of his bread and he will soon resort to violence. Those who favor violence, I assume, if my logic is right, are not supposed to go to heaven. In this sense, to provide for a life well-lived here on earth also means to take care of the soul of man.

The Sumilao case is one of divine justice. SMC is the largest food corporation in Southeast Asia and accounts for 5% of the country’s GNP. No other company is more powerful. Our poor peasants only have their hopes and dreams in their armory. The pictures of a woman hugged by the good Cardinal and of children eagerly watching their parents prepare the land are pictures of freedom, of human triumph, pictures of people manifesting their humble and simple desires in life. Cardinal Rosales’ ten years of work in Bukidnon perhaps made him appreciate this fact, but of course above all, we have to thank him for his wisdom and profound knowledge of what human life is all about.

The bottom line is that the farmers have emerged triumphant. This goes to show that democracy still works. Thus, there is still hope. Freedom is won not by means of arms. It is through enlightenment, solidarity, and the faith that in the end justice will prevail.

Remembering the St. Bernard, Southern Leyte Tragedy

2008-04-01T05:13:00.000-07:00

by Christian Inovejas, MA
Bukidnon State University

Remember the St. Bernard Town, Southern Leyte Tragedy. What used to be an idyllic spot for farming and raising family, in a matter of five minutes became a hallowed ground for an approximately a thousand unsuspecting souls.

Television footages for the past days have shown how powerless man is when he stands in the way of nature. People pondered how could this happen? Why did it happen? Was it God? Was it the fault of the loggers? Was it the people living in this barangay? The endless thought provoking, cerebral exercise of finding an underlying explanation for an unfathomable mystery. This paper is not exempt to this attempt.

A look at the situation would reveal that a combination of topography and climatic conditions have contributed to the disaster. As what analysts and experts said, “it’s a disaster waiting to happen”. Indeed, it’s beyond possible human control to prevent such a natural phenomenon. We cannot prevent landslides from happening, in the same way that we cannot prevent rain from falling. Everyone knows that.

What is not commonly known is that the human disaster, as oppose to the natural disaster, could have been prevented had the power of science and technology been harnessed in assessing the safety of human communities from natural calamities. Of course, we can only blame ourselves for being poor. In fact, the least we can do is spend millions of pesos and brazenly beg for millions of dollars for the relief and retrieval operations of the victims, isn’t it ironical? We even witnessed the president mustering all the resources of the government by land, sea and air to for the recovery and rescue of the victims. Again, always the late Juan.

Our attitudes have remained infantile. We do the right thing only when bad things happen. We are not known for long term planning. We just enjoy the moment as if there is no tomorrow. It’s only when calamities strike when we realize that disasters like this could have been prevented had early detection/warning been raised and evacuations are done immediately. That this early detection/warning could have been done had the 2003 DOST geographical survey been used for the relocation of threatened communities like St. Bernard of Southern Leyte. But then again, our infantile mentality prevents us from acquiring foresight.

What, with politicians all claiming to be for the poor, clawing at each other’s throat just to grab or maintain its claim to power. The lust for power has blinded our leaders from becoming true leaders. All that they have in mind is how to grab power and how to maintain power. Is it the only way for them to serve their countrymen? Are they really sincere in serving their countrymen? Or are they merely trying to serve their own self/party interest?

The progress and development of this country does not solely depend on the economic betterment of this country. It’s main indicator lies in the change in the way we think, and the way we look at our lives as an individual and as a nation. I know it has become a cliché for most but let me state this nevertheless, change should come from ourselves. Let us grow up. We can never remain infants forever. We can never remain selfish and greedy all the time. True progress is not material; it is moral and spiritual. Economic and material is merely a product of the moral and spiritual progress. The reason why cannot progress as a nation is because we refuse to grow. No matter how we cry our hearts out; pray that heavens pour its riches on us, we remain forever poor because our being poor is because we refuse to grow up. Infants forever we become. Always happy, always poor, always playing, never is serious. Ultimately, it’s our character, stupid.

What is wrong with the Philippines?

2008-03-24T01:15:00.000-07:00

by Ryan Maboloc

Living in a poor country where hunger is the face of many people’s state of affairs, I have seen the terrible reality of human life which truly makes one doubt whether poverty can vanish from the earth. Inequality is a hard fact of life. About 25 years ago, fish was abundant in my beloved barrio, so they put a fishing port in the 90s. More than a decade has since gone by, and all the fishes have disappeared. They said the port will make the lives of people better, but after all, Fr. Pete Lamata of Davao City's Social Action Center was right in opposing the fish port. I have not understood him then. Right now I do. A hell lot of people in my barrio are still poor.

In the past few years, a great amount of wealth has been created by the Philippine economy through exports, extensive tax collection, and overseas remittances but such has not translated to the well-being of many poor Filipinos. What is wrong is not the way we practice liberal democracy, but the way we understand equality. In view of the evidence of human deprivation in our highly economized world, the sociologist Des Gasper says that the concept of equality should advance the idea that people are not just the means but more importantly, the principal ends of development. But the way we do it in country, our OFWs are our number one export product and clearly, we use them as means and its toll in families, not to mention the lonely nights of being away from your loved ones is beyond any measurement.

First and foremost, money doesn’t solve our problems. The traditional concept of well-being in welfare economics evaluates social arrangements in terms of aggregate income and wealth through indices such as the Gross National Product, the Gross Domestic Product, and per capita income. For instance, the efforts to address the demand for social equality in many of poor countries are anchored on economic growth. But is this correct?

Lowness of income of a country’s poor sector obviously indicates social inequality. Furthermore, it also suggests that families who live below a certain line experience hardships in maintaining a decent way of life or what mainstream economics calls a standard of living. Aggregation in terms of national income is seen to have a cascading effect envisioned to improve living standards. Basically put, it means that the poor are expected to take advantage from the gains due to economic growth, their welfare dependent on the amount of wealth the economy creates.

In measuring national development in terms of real numbers from a country’s economic activity policy makers assume that economic growth in terms of GNP and GDP will have a positive effect on the well-being of the poor. Des Gasper outlines this in what follows: economic production results to income which triggers consumption. Consumption satisfies personal utility which is construed as well-being (Gasper 2000, 283). Well-being is the end result of income coming from higher inputs to production in a country’s economic activity.

The process of production employs people which in turn enable them to gain something from it. Income is translated to the consumption of commodities which satisfies personal utility. The satisfaction of this advantage is construed as well-being in economic terms. Is this right? Nope, for income does not tell how well a person is. Say, a man and a pregnant woman have the same income. The pregnant woman is still at a disadvantage owing to her condition. Income, in this sense, does not give the whole picture.

In their effort to arrest the problem of poverty, in many of third world countries, governments indicate a certain cut off point called the poverty line based on income earned per household to identify the poor. Those who live below this line are considered poor. This type of measurement shows that poverty is simply the lack of income or the lack of means to pursue a certain standard of living. Low income is seen as the lack of means, (i.e., income) to achieve well-being. Government programs concentrate on reducing the number of people who fall below the poverty line.

But for Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, this is stupid because there can never be a policy to supplement the income of people who fall below the poverty line because the only information it provides is the recognition that some people are poor. In addition, Sen says that the aggregation exercise done through simple head counting pays no attention to the fact that people could be a little below the line, or a lot, and also the distribution of income among the poor may or may not be itself very unequal. Such type of measurement does not provide an adequate basis for the reasons why people are deprived of their well-being, or whether the kind of deprivation they suffer is so grave or unimaginable, say for instance the case of homeless orphans or families (i.e., in Manila, the Philippine capital, one does not only see street children but also street families). Thus, Sen says that the real extent of deprivation may be underestimated if we concentrate only on the size of incomes.

It is sad and tragic for our deeply communitarian society that our country relies on OFW remittances. Nope, this is not about brain drain. This is about the fact that our countrymen, most notably those who go to Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Middle East, become victims of abuse in these countries and our government is helpless in assisting them. Families, especially children, suffer because of this. Of course, there have been success stories. But we mustn't commit a slippery slope in this case. The end of the Japayuki phenomenon is not due to our country's concern for women's welfare. It is Japan who took the initiative. And the future generation of Filipinas are lucky to benefit from it.

Good GNP numbers through the money sent by OFWs are our government's way to obsfucate our real economic conditions. Ceteres paribus, it can be argued in the end that poverty is a result of the lack of real or substantive freedoms, not income per se. Deprivation, destitution, and oppression suggest that the inability of a people to live a meaningful life is due to the absence of their power to actualize their freedoms or capabilities towards being or doing. Thus, poverty is irreducible to income measurement. Poverty is about the lack of capacity of our people to choose the things they have reason to value.

The two Principles of Justice

2008-03-24T01:08:00.000-07:00

by Aimee Mesiona
Philosophy Graduate Student

The two principles of justice are the two fundamental philosophies that would constitute justice as fairness. According to Rawls, these are the two basic principles of a fair conception of justice that we would come up with as result of employing the veil of ignorance in the original position. These two principles should be the core rules that regulate how the basic institutional arrangements and agreements of society will distribute what he calls social primary goods, most essential of which are people’s rights, liberties, powers, opportunities, income and wealth.

The first principle, pertaining to the liberties of citizens, is the foundational rule which ideally must never be violated, not even in favor upholding the second principle. Rawls states that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others”. This means that all citizens should have equal rights. A given set of liberties and rights, such as freedom of speech, constitutional right to assembly, right to vote, right to run for office, habeas corpus and all other rights, must be distributed similarly among each and every member of society. The rights stated in the Philippine constitution are the same for each human being—man or woman, young or old, Christian or Muslim, rich or poor, Lumad or Tagalog—because he or she is inherently valuable; these rights are inviolable. In most cases, these rights and liberties of every single person should be considered absolute; however, this should not be so in a case where the exercising of one citizen’s rights results in the curtailing of another citizen’s rights.

The second principle concerns both the distribution of income and wealth as well as the accessibility of positions of authority and offices of command. It states, first, that although wealth or income level may not be the same for each person, the distribution of these must be such that only those inequalities that truly benefit everyone are permitted. As a very simple analogy, we can take the case of a construction engineer and a laborer. In any given project, realistically they cannot have the same salary because they contribute different things. However, the payroll and benefits distribution should be designed in such a way that the needs of each are completely met to the best of the business’ financial capabilities. This is just, because in reality, different people have different needs.

For example, the engineer may need more monetary compensation as incentive for being in charge of implementing and coordinating three different projects, all of which he is solely accountable for. His responsibility also includes ensuring the welfare of his laborers. In contrast, the laborer may not be given the same salary as the engineer, but because he works in more dangerous conditions, the company should give him priority in important benefits such as insurance coverage for accidents and hospitalization, which could also cover his dependents. He must be given just and prompt payment for his work in the construction site, in accordance with fair labor/wage policies. This example illustrates that there are inequalities which are permissible because, first, their existence is for the utmost benefit of all, and, second, because the existence of these inequalities is actually preferred by both parties. Thus, effectively, the wealth that every party gets is not equal in the sense that they comprise exactly the same objects, but instead what they get are “packages” that do not infringe on the labor rights of each other and are equally valuable in meeting their separate and unique needs. All parties are justly compensated.

With regards to positions of power, the second principle also states that positions of power in society must be accessible to all, that everyone must have a fair equality of opportunity. Offices of authority in society must not be limited to those who can afford to access them. Every member must be given the opportunity to obtain the skills and talents needed to qualify for such positions of authority, so that he or she can be assessed in the same manner as every other aspirant. Let us take, for instance, the position of Supreme Court Justice. If the government does not do anything, only those who have the money to go to good schools will eventually qualify for this post. Creating fair equality of opportunity in this situation entails establishing and supporting a competent public elementary and secondary school system, a very good state university, and a well-run state-funded law school, so that graduates can take the state bar exam, become lawyers, be given the opportunity to work in the government’s judicial system and do all other things that will eventually allow them to reach the said position. Opportunities should not be for sale to the highest bidder. They should be made available to all so that anyone, poor or privileged, can see in his/her future the possibility of becoming a person of authority. This may apply to other positions of power, such as a business tycoon, positions in the armed forces, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences in Ateneo, President of the Philippines, or Mayor of Davao.

The Minimal State and its Justification

2008-03-24T00:55:00.000-07:00

by Eugim Migue
Philosophy Graduate Student

Robert Nozick acknowledges the superficiality of Kant’s dictum, at least in political philosophy. For him Kant’s strict dictum, “to treat a person not simply as a means,” is quite problematic: it simply is not possible; if we religiously practice it, a gross limitation, if not the total end, to all economic and social transactions is achieved. What Nozick thinks appropriate for political philosophy as its subject, and for any state as its ultimate purpose, is to specify the ways in which using a person is permissible. But here Nozick was quick to point out that there are certain demands which are unquestionably impermissible for a state to ask of its citizens, e.g., getting some citizens to aid others, asking the rich to share his wealth, to be a “sacrificial lamb” to achieve a greater purpose, and so on. The state’s, if it is to be justified, main functions are protecting its citizens against force, theft, fraud, the enforcing of contracts, and the like – and thus only minimal in its function, and nothing more.

Why should a state, whose function is to simply “protect” citizens and enforce laws, thus minimal, be desired? Should it be blind to the pressing inequalities that exist in its society? Is such a state, at last, useless since it does not promote the over-all good? What is its ultimate justification? Suppose that a state coerces some of its citizens to be used in such a way, as to achieve a purpose supposed to benefit the “greater population”, (if we deduct the used from the total population, then the remaining is obviously greater than the used): is this justified? The answer is, for Nozick, no. For him, there simply is no “greater population”, no social entity, from the perspective of the individual, or of different individuals.

The individual is composed of preferences, interests, and aspirations; whereas the justification of the state, for the individual, is nothing but its ability to eliminate elements that obstructs the achievements and exercise of his goals and preferences. The state is for all, for the social entity; the individual is a member of this society, but the state, for the individual, primarily, is for him. If he gets coerced by the state to be a “sacrifice” i.e. was not able to take his preferred path in life, then, being a part of this social entity, he should have received the benefits of such sacrifice; but, alas, he can not enjoy it since he was the “sacrifice” – and so how absurd, thus rendering it unjustifiable, is such a state meant, or is claiming (“do this for everyone”, “you are called to do this everyone”), to be for all wherein, in fact, it is only for some. If the state is to assume a kind of basic function and nature which are minimal in its coercive apparatus and neutral among its citizens, then it is to avoid such measures and absurdity. For Rawls, only such a kind of state is justifiable.

The Call for Social Democracy

2008-03-24T00:48:00.000-07:00

By Hadji Balahadja
Faculty, Ateneo de Davao University

The NBN-ZTE controversy and the problematic testimony of "Jun" Lozada are actually the latest and relatively severe symptoms of the decay of a liberal democracy dominated by traditional politicians. They manifest the ripening of the evils of liberal democracy in a pre-existing situation of grave social inequality.

Liberal democracy, while theoretically promoting formal equality under the law, does not promote equal social power, so that the already powerful gain all the more power, because they have the economic and intellectual means and social connections to use the law to their own advantage.

Liberal democracy in the Philippines amounts to "elite politics:" the participation of and advantage to the economically wealthy and socially prominent families and individuals or their media allies.

In this dysfunctional liberal democratic dispensation, we now see laid bare before our eyes the ascendancy of arrogant and manipulative media at the service of vested interests.

We watch with horror at how prone traditional politicians are to ally with anti-democratic elements of the Marxist-Leninist extreme Left and the fascist extreme Right, for their own selfish agenda, at the cost of the lives and the bodily integrity of our soldiers, police officers, and patriotic public officials and ordinary citizens,

We grieve at the breakdown of our basic securities as a nation, i.e. defense, internal security, food, water, energy, and the environment.

We gaze with alarm at the decline in livelihood, education, health, security, peace and order, the increase of poverty in absolute terms, the sense of hopelessness of many of our people, after two People Power uprisings rendered useless by the nefarious ways of traditional politicians acting within the framework of liberal democracy.

It is indeed time for change. It is time for change to a society in which formal equality under the law is made life-giving by promotion of real equality in social power, so that all citizens can participate on equal terms in the burdens, benefits and governance of societal life.

It is time for a society with sufficient participation in if not control of governance by the majority of our nation, composed of the working masses of farmers, fisherfolk, industrial labor, small businesspersons and professionals, and ministers of the faith communities.

It is time for a society ably defended and nurtured by the pillars of democracy; democratic political and civic organizations and social movements, the Christian Churches, the Muslim community, the military, the police, academe, business, and responsible media.

It is time for a society whose leaders and citizens effectively safeguard and promote, with their lives, their honor, and their intellectual endowments and material possessions, our basic securities as a nation, i.e. defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment.

It is time for a society that clearly and militantly combats anti-democratic elements by a spirit and with measures that are committed to human rights and international humanitarian law.

It is time for a society that is able to give its youth the means to achieve a happy and prosperous future. It is time for a society that cares equally for all its members.

It is time for social democracy. It is time for social democracy in the Philippines.

ZTE and Democracy

2008-03-21T07:25:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc
Philosophy Graduate Student
Linkoping University, Sweden

From a descriptive point of view, the call for social democracy is right. There is corruption in government, bad leaders and the same genes are in power. From a prescriptive point of view, I think the solution lies somewhere else. Not in politics. Not even in changing the system of government. Democracy is only instrumental to people's freedom; it is not freedom in itself. Democracy, at best, in the way it is practiced in the Philippines, in our dear country, secures only, through mass protests, the negative rights of people, i.e. freedom from an oppressive government, freedom from corruption, freedom from violence, etc. But, at the end of the day, when JDV wakes up in the morning, when GMA reads "There's the Rub" in the Inquirer, still, they'll be sitting in their verandas, their coffee served in imported porcelain, and mind you, they won't even touch their salamis. Now, the same is true to some wanna-be-heroes, i.e., businessmen, priests, professionals, the so-called civil society. But the real issue is, if you know where and what, is the fact that the common tao will wake up thinkin' "unsa ug asa ko mangita ug pamahaw para sa akong lima ka anak?".

Now, tell me, can he look for it in the streets? Can he expect manna when the senate shall have finished investigating the ZTE or condemned the big players? Let's just say that hypothetically the First Gentleman and the former Comelec Chair are sent to prison, say for 1000 years (I know the penalty for plunder is death, but that will never happen, this is not the French Revolution; no king will ever be hanged, period.) Now, the point is, will it (the hypothetical punishment) give the common tao the answer to his question, "unsa ug asa ko mangita ug pamahaw para sa akong lima ka anak?" It is not even a million dollar question. It is not even a one dollar question. It is only a 38-peso question. He can buy a kilo of rice for P18.00, one can of Atami and two Quick Chows, and that's it. But, there is no P38.00 in the streets, not even after one reads Recah Trinidad or Quinito Henson. Fact is, Filipinos nowadays waste four hours every day watching telenovelas, and include the one hour for Wowowee, that is five hours in all, which is, almost one third of their day, and implicitly, a third of their lives. Who gets rich? You know whom, but Angel Locsin is like an anesthetic to social ills, at least for the poor, that's 30% of Filipinos. Small number? No, it's 24 million hungry souls. But going back to the anesthetic. The thing is, there's no operation (after watching Darna) to provide the final cure.

Now, there is no solution. At least, not yet. But we can begin looking at the positive freedoms of people. It can be said, for instance, that a poor person's negative rights may never have been violated. No violence. No coercion. In his plain simple life. But, as long as he or she does nothing to help himself, to actualize his or her capabilities in order to improve his or her well-being, his negative rights are equal to nil. They amount to nothing. Actually, "planting camote" has a point, though we despise the suggestion. Consider, for instance, our wasted backyards. Freedom is not only freedom from coercion, non-interference, etc. Freedom also means the expansion of human life in terms of what a person is "able to do and choose" to make that life worth living. For instance, reading is a positive freedom. In the Philippines, it is a negative one. Our students don't read when they are not coerced. Thus, even inside our classrooms, we are reinforcing coercion in society. It happens very much in the country’s hottest profession, and you know the hell why this country is in ruins.

There is a solution now

2008-03-21T07:24:00.000-07:00

By Orlando Ali M. Mandane Jr., Ph. D
Faculty, University of San Carlos

I write this article as a reply to my colleague, perhaps not only to stimulate discussion but also to help find that solution wherever it lurks. I agree with Ryan Maboloc with regards to a possible hopeless scenario: at the end of the day JDV and GMA will savor their comfortable life served in china—pun intended. And, I agree that a common tao may wake up and ask: "unsa ug asa ko mangita ug pamahaw para sa akong lima ka anak?" (Loosely: where can I find breakfast for my five kids?) I disagree to his interpretation.

True enough, a poor man’s concern is food to eat; he needs to put something on the table for his kids, for his loved ones. But there is in that search for food something that need not be said but ought to be remembered; there is in that search for food no manna from the senate can give but only evoke. And that something is the key for what we can do.

You analyse a poor man’s putting food on the table, you will find the solution to the current crisis, a solution and basis for political action. Perhaps, I can do a reality check. A kargador (baggage helper) in Carbon market, for example, may smoke to death, may drown himself in mestiza, or may enjoy the sensual pleasure of Angel Locsin’s mirage. Perhaps, he may have, what you may call, some human flaws. But when a kargador in Carbon carries goods for the sake of putting food on the table, his concern is not only the end of putting buwad (dried fish) and puso (rice) on the table; his concern is not only that he provides them but that he also procures them with dignity and truth—that he provides them with moral ascendancy, that he can look straight into the eyes of his kids and wife and assure them that no matter how materially deprived they have become—perhaps because of other’s immoderate greed—they can be proud of themselves.

You exclude this element in a kargador’s attempt at providing necessities for his family, you miss the most important element why he prefers to be a kargador than a snatcher, or a thug—or worse, a Malacanang lapdog. You ignore this moral element in a poor man’s attempt at providing “Atami” or “Quick Chow”, you take away every bit of dignity that he has. You take away this moral decency in his providing food for his family, you reduce him to a robber. You exclude this element, you take away every bit of dignity in a teacher, doctor, religious, academic, lawyer, priest, nurse, or janitor. You exclude this element, you take away everything human in him, everything Bicolano or Davaeno, and everything Filipino.

Ryan means well when he claims that no solution can be had for now. And I agree that there is no holistic solution now. But we can also offer some solutions now as a part of the search for holistic solution.

True, you ask a poor man to take part in the political action he may fear what awaits him tomorrow. But it’s no reason enough to exclude him from political action; and his inability to actively participate need not be an alibi for others to do the same.
This brings me to sowing the solution, to sowing the basis for political action. In several parts of the country now, discussions are being held among students, religious, professionals, academics, lawyers, priests, youth, etc. Everyone can participate; everyone is “free” to make this “life worth living.” We can begin by showing in these forums what a kargador has that “immoderate greed” has erased in others; we can show what a kargador has that congenital lies have blurred others credulity. There in these forums we can see the light of political action.

What he cannot do; we can do. What he does not show, we can show. We can make him an example. We can make him a model—never mind if he is not a bishop; never mind if he is not a president.

ZTE, education and action

2008-03-21T07:20:00.000-07:00

By Orlando Ali Mandane, Ph.D
Faculty, University of San Carlos

The economic facts lay bare before us the harsh reality of our social life: a great majority of the Filipinos share the same economic misery. The high economic growth rate of 7% only means for this country a number to brag, not something to be proud of. Surely, numbers are an inexact representation of our true condition. But in a way, these numbers reveal what policy makers cannot obfuscate: for millions of Filipinos, GDP growth rate does not ring a bell to them; it does not metamorphose into buwad (dried fish) or tinapa (sardines).

Do these economic indicators give us a true picture of the quality of life? The poor may be in penury but does this condition amount to excessive unhappiness? This brings me to an anecdote often used to bring a certain point:

A western man saw a fisherman lying on his hammock while luxuriating at the panoramic sea. The western man, puzzled by what the latter was doing, asked, “Why don’t you go out to the sea and catch fish?” The fisherman replied, “What for?” The western man said, “So that you can catch fish and sell them.” The fisherman asked, “And then?” The western man replied, “Well, you can have money and then enjoy life?” The fisherman retorted, “What do you think am I doing now?”

This story, often abused as a paradigmatic example, always gives the impression that the quality of life is never measured by pecuniary considerations. But when one analyzes this story in the context of a fisherman’s life, a more telling point is revealed. The fisherman is able to do so, to luxuriate in the hammock even to the point of dreaming about Marimar, because he performs his role as a provider often at dusk or dawn and seldom at daytime. He does so only if he has assured that his family is provided for even for just a day. Thus, while economic situation is not the only measure of well-being, it cannot be taken out of the equation.

Material assurance, however, cannot be the true measure of our well being. For one, I notice that those who take nursing courses in private institutions are the ones who have relatives in the US or elsewhere outside the country, and the easier visa that they can get is a nurse’s working visa. And then, there are doctors who wanted to be nurses. These examples are often a good rebuttal to pecuniary happiness. Thus, economic security cannot impress upon us as a true measure of our well-being—economic insecurity, too.

What is then wrong with our current situation? A nation that relies much on the remittances of the OFWs but does not provide livelihood which its people can rely on is doomed. When we export our own “wealth”, when we export the backbone of our nation, we are in for a whole of lot of trouble. When our government makes us believe that we can turn a blind eye on what is happening because they can produce the most promising data on the economy, our own well being is at stake. Our own freedom is on the line.

Indeed, social equality and justice is in no certain terms measured by the income of the family. While “the real extent of deprivation may be underestimated if we concentrate only on the size of incomes,” the family income as a gauge may not also overestimate our own well being. This is why I frown upon the “economic data” as a discourse that will have a final say on the true picture of our social reality. Because our officials in the government can always make us believe that the only way to live a better life is to have an education and find a job. And, there is no other way.

Unfortunately, this virulent thinking infects even the attitude of people toward education. The thinking is: learn to speak English well and work in call centers (with due respect to all call center agents); or, be a nurse and go abroad (again with due respect to all nurses). This is not to belittle what they do. In the first place, we have no way of keeping them here because the dusk or dawn is fast approaching; they, too, need to catch fish. In some ways, they have to eke out a living, or even better. My high regards are to them. But education has become an ideological tool of our government to dissuade us from complaining. Our government can always tell our people: we will create a million jobs for you.

The ZTE deal and the apparent abduction of Jun Lozada awaken us to our senses and even make us remember the “Hello Garci!’, an issue that time seems to have erased. Ironically, the ZTE deal has a component project for education, which could have been wasted had the deal pushed through. The issue has moral, social and political aspects which cannot just be set aside and laid to rest. We set this issue aside, we provide an example no generation can be proud of. We set this aside, we teach the youth to close their eyes to a wrong.

This brings me to why I would advocate bringing the youth to the streets and make them discern about the issue. Why bring them to the streets when the classrooms are ideal for discussing the issue? Again, our government—all other sectors who sing the same tune included—has the habit of asking us not to complain because the economy is promising; it can always tell us not to follow the activists of the past who are unable to finish their education. Sadly, nothing is what it seems. What economic data it can insist on, other data can reveal.

Education is our hope? Forget it. UNESCO’s world education indicator of 2006 (wei 2006) reveals that the government’s spending on educational institutions per student in tertiary level is less that $2000 compared to Malaysia’s annual expenditure $13,000 per student (adjusted to Purchasing Power Parity). In the secondary level, the spending of the Philippines follows Sri Lanka and Indonesia in the lowest spending level of $139. Worse, the age range when 90% of the population is enrolled is 8-13 years. And, the number of years of which 90% of the population is enrolled is 6 years. Far worse, only 24% of the population for the age of 17 goes to school. In addition, of all the students enrolled in the tertiary level, most of them, if statistics is anything to go by, will only be spending 1.4 years in school. And, 22% of the enrollees stayed on to have a degree.

This brings me to my point. Why bring the students to the streets and make them air their complaints to the unwilling ear? Indeed, why would I advocate the bringing of students to the streets when economic “deprivation” has done a good job of keeping them away? Obviously, the ones who stay can afford to pay for the education; they have the money. Or, their parents can still make ways to pay for their education. These are the ones who should not be insulated from these issues because in the end they will take part in the political discourse. They are the ones who should have the sense of justice and sensibility for the economically deprived because their degrees are often passports to government service or to policy making positions.

By all means, we urge them to wrestle with the thoughts of the great minds—they ought not to settle for less. We urge them to analyze the political thoughts of great minds. By all means, we let them read Rawls or Pogge. But we cannot insulate them from these issues; they too will become men or women. We can even make the street their classrooms or libraries. For when corruption creeps into the procurement process—assuming it did not yet—as in the case of Department of Education's, they will have no books to read. Not even Sartre’s or Hobbes’. But they have the wealth of social reality to interpret, even if it is found in the parliament of the street. We can push them to read in the same manner that I required my students to read texts in metaphysics no matter how difficult modality, time, and causality are. We can extend the classroom to the streets because the “possibility” of this event—this folly—is so real in the “space-time” continuum “because” of this highly educated people in government. How else can they better appreciate Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence” now that they are faced with a government laden with everything wrong. Given that they know that things will be repeated eternally, are they going to let “fraud”, “dishonesty”, and “executive privilege” be? Eternally?

Education and the reason why my is country poor

2008-03-21T07:19:00.000-07:00

Ryan Maboloc
Philosophy Graduate Student
Linkoping University, Sweden

Like many Filipinos, I also dream of a better country. Like many young Filipinos, I also wonder what the future is like for my generation. In the spectacle put forward by the ZTE scandal, there's this one question I have been grappling with - why is my country poor?

First, I think this is all about our wrong concept of democracy. I believe that democracy is meant to serve the good of the people, and it is wrong to say that people must sacrifice themselves for democracy. Democracy is not an end in itself - people are. Freedom is not an end in itself - people are. Of course, people die for freedom. But we have so long forgotten that after any freedom is won, there exists the fundamental fact that the end of freedom is the good of man.

The ZTE controversy should not be reduced to the public sphere. The ZTE issue is not only about GMA, the Senate or Jun Lozada. The real battle is more than political. It is all about us, about what makes us “really human”, and politics is but one of the many aspects that make us human. Thus, I don't find it worthwhile to send the youth to protests against the excesses of this government. That instead of doing that, it is more prudent for us to concentrate on the positive capabilities of people, most especially our students and the youth. The youth, our only hope, should not become political slaves.

We have huge economic problems. But we must not limit our horizon. There’s something greater, something more important, than political therapy. Let me just say that it is a sad thing that economics has become an abstraction, devoid of real content, ignorant of the real lives that people live. Economists have made people become sort of "invisible", to use Manfred Max-Neef's term.

Now, almost all of our students want to go abroad. But our government's reliance on OFW remittances is not a sound economic policy, and obviously, it is the big developers who are making big money out of it. It still is following the highly "economized and monetized" strategies of growth. By the way, notwithstanding all the positive economic numbers recently, the National Statistics Coordinating Board has reported that poverty has actually grown last year. Growth has not trickled down, as a matter of fact.

The basic idea is that people need to help themselves. Nobody else will. Development will never "trickle down" to the poor. We need new ideas. We need new insights about the common facts of our lives. More importantly, we need to work to enhance people’s sense of self. We need more people to do real work in all the corners of our country telling people that they need to correct their lives. But it must be done within us. Only then can we hope for a better life. In the same manner as economic policies based on numbers go into thin air, marching in the streets does the same. It is like taking antibiotics for a virus, which does not provide cure. The problem, I reiterate, is not political. It is about us, "human beings" who need to find value in life. How? The normative part is the most difficult. Change is an expensive commodity.

We should address our problems not by means of protest, but through self-criticism. It should be inward-looking, not outward looking. Fighting the "administration" or a system is really fighting nobody. It is like trying to find a piece of needle in an island and you do not even know what the needle is for. I believe that it is more important for us to consider the fact that there is something good in the small things that we do, that "small is beautiful", to make a reference to EF Schumacher, and this is possible by looking at our very lives, and see how and what "can be done" about it.

The poor have not been joining the ZTE rallies but they are not interested in the issues either. But that's not the most unfortunate thing. What is most unfortunate is that they are doing nothing. Some say it is a matter of character, of attitude. That’s a little bit correct, but as I've said, no one wants to live a miserable life. The poor can lift themselves up, but we need to give them the proper tools. Sadly, it is not in politics. I must say, there's no hope in politics, at least for now.

The poor are not ignorant of their situation. But the atmosphere of hopelessness and abject misery permeate human life in the same manner as Frodo is ruled by the power of his ring. The thing is Frodo had the determination while the poor have lost theirs. Now, the real battle, in Frodo's sense, is not against the dark lord – it actually is against himself. The same should hold true for all of us.

But it bothers me a lot that the main players in the ZTE controversy come from the country’s top Catholic Universities. Is there something wrong? Is it the comfort of air-conditioned rooms or the nice buildings of their campuses? Or maybe is it because the poor man has become invisible and has been reduced to mere abstractions or ideas in books, or has become a mere specimen in the exposure of students to poor communities? Do students see the poor beyond those vigils and truth forum? Have we asked them what they’re thinking about while they’re listening to the speeches of their “guest speakers”? Is this the reason why our country remains poor? No, maybe not. But perhaps the battles shouldn’t be done outside, but within our campuses, inside our classrooms and our libraries.

So why invest in education? Here's a short note. For instance, China is reaping so much growth because it ensured the priority of education during the 80's and 90's. Tiananmen Square is a tragic story, totally unnecessary. Students need not sacrifice their lives. So I say that here in our beloved country, students should carry books, I stand by that, not placards. It is not their war. It is our war. People need to be independent, creative and responsive to their own needs, and knowledge is the most vital part in achieving that. If people are highly independent, governments are really unnecessary. We need not spill blood for the sake of freedom.

But why are our leaders corrupt? Is it greed? What has happened to virtue ethics? Are they so cunning? Maybe, they read the wrong books! I still maintain that corruption is a product of small minds. Small minds who abuse and misuse power. But there's nothing so cunning about it. Corruption is nothing new; you do not even need a theory. He who has the power will soon become corrupt. It is for this reason that we need to empower all men, not just a few good men. The politicians we have now, so many of them in fact, are former student leaders, educated in the country's good universities. They are part of the decadent years of the 70s, fought and battled the dictatorship. Many of them now are our leaders. In the distant future, these young boys and girls we have now who are in the streets will take over. What will happen to the Philippines by then?

Perhaps, nothing is permanent. Everything is a constant flux. Therefore, we must ask whose truth we are really concerned about. Is it the truth that politicians want because they want to topple GMA? Is it the truth the civil society wants because they think there is something wrong with our system? Or is it the truth that the poor and our youth really needs in order to live a better life? We need some introspection. Our freedom from the bondage of poverty can only be realized if we fully believe in the capabilities of our people.

Politics and Applying Wittgenstein to the Philippine Context

2008-03-21T07:15:00.000-07:00

By Gleemore C. Makie
Faculty, Eastern Luzon College

The scandals, political killings, graft and corruption and moral bankruptcy of the Arroyo administration are a challenge not only to academic institutions, NGOs, churches, and civil society but also to ordinary and marginalized citizens, who are now starting to reflect and actively participate in mass protests to demand GMA’s resignation. Other than their interest to know the truth, they are primarily concerned about their future because of these controversies. The complexities of these issues are hard to solve. Doubts about our justice system and government leaders are rampant. People want the truth outside the realm of the public. They want change. Here, the ideas of Wittgenstein in his two books can be applied in the context of the above.

In the Picture Theory elicited by the Tractatus, Wittgeinstein believes that there is a universal form of language and that the essence of language is simply the facts or names and the logical combinations of objects (TLP). Nowadays, any educated people especially the lawyers, senators, media men, church leaders adhere to the same picture theory. There are three points to consider in the application of such theory. First, picturing or naming manifests a universalizing attitude among Filipino intellectuals as they deal with each other in legal discussions, argumentations, debates and decision-makings. There seems to be a boundless and unending intellectual circus or philosophical gymnastics where propositions are studied, manipulated and dissected. It is as if there is one absolute truth than can be solved or drawn from the logical manipulation of propositions. Issues are usually put into propositions to be carefully analyzed and solved or decided upon their truth value, functions and conditions. Language like “bubukol,” “tong-pats,’ and “moderate your greed” are non-sense and inadmissible in a logical form of propositions because they are ambiguous and simply connotations. They do not belong to the logically factual language.

Secondly, everything seems to be measured according to the logic of the law. Each method, thinking, utterance, rule, etc. must be in accord with the logical propositions in the Constitution or rules and regulations for them to be meaningful, credible and acceptable. Here, everybody is preoccupied with finding and defending what is and who is telling the truth in accordance with the law. The truths behind the controversies are all put or suited into to the frame of law. Thirdly, legal investigators usually ask questions with time-limit in proper courts and witnesses are asked to respond in as short as possible. They are asked to make categorically relevant statements. Other aspects of their views on events cannot be divulged unless told to do so.

But the above is a limited way of looking at things. Wittgenstein holds that there is nothing common to all language games, just as there is no common ground to all games. What unifies or makes all of them games is not some feature present in all games but a multitude of relationships that are overlapping. In the same way, the common tao has her way of interpreting or analyzing and responding to the current problems that affect her. Some people bring their voice to the streets. Others just continue their daily chores with a greater resolve to do better. Yet regardless of their differences, they both long for change, a change that can uplift their lives and dignity.

The above can be elaborated further in three points. First, everybody holds different truths to say and any truth can be manipulated. People want change, including the partiality of many of our systems, including the loopholes in our democracy. The many issues now should be understood in various contexts, connotations, game-rules and uses in order to have a better understanding and to avoid disregarding other insights, meanings, forms and limits of life or reality. Truths are located in many spaces as postmodernists put it. Any name can have many meanings in the same way as a proposition can have different uses, signs and logics. This could explain why people believe in Jun Lozada even without the judges’ confirmation on the truth value of his statements.

Secondly, regardless of status, gender, concern and culture, all Filipinos have their own unique voices and are entitled to be heard and respected. They have unique language games that have been used to analyze the issues. They should not be disregarded for the stupid reason that they are not lawyers or for the reason that they are uneducated, terrorists, communists, destabilizers, farmers, oppositions. They may misunderstand or misinterpret the discussions and inquiries about the issues because of the legal terms or propositions and logic used. Maybe, for them, the revelations of Lozada are true and have performative implications. They need to act now about corruption lest they end up deceived and disadvantaged by their corrupt leaders. They must be vigilant and start to “reflective communal action” about their own participation to any kind of anomaly. They can bring inspirations and actions that may lead either to disintegration of the useless or strengthening of efficient institutions and systems.

Thirdly, there is quite a number of Filipinos implicitly showing silence and passivity due to their frustration about the way things are normally handled in a democratic country. Silence should not be taken here as hopelessness or meaninglessness. It is not merely becoming inactive or irresponsible due to non-sense national problems. It is actually another form of a critical reaction that slowly starts from reflection and circumspection. Even the passivity and silence of some individuals can be another language game that needs to be reached also to address their concern. Silence also promotes “self-conscientization”. It is a form of denouncing the abuse of power which vigilance and critical-mindedness gradually attack or manifest.

The gradual loss of faith in many Filipinos on some leaders and also in the many systems and processes of our government institutions is not at all a hopeless case. In fact, disturbing events only urge other forms of using the truth and other truths to come out not simply by knowing their logical form. Silence can mean so many things just as despair held in silence is a strong protest for change. Moreover, it should be noted that nobody is telling the whole or exact truth, not even our justice systems and institutions, which are knowingly vulnerable to abuse and dysfunction. Lawyers are not the absolute interpreters of the law in as much as policemen are not the sole law enforcer and the judges, the final judge. People learn in their ordinary experiences that terms, definitions, status, position, wealth and power are not absolute in themselves. Justice, corruption, freedom and truth are affected by many relations and situations.

Though some Filipinos are uneducated, they do their responsibilities with faith and live with dignity and decency. Status, position and situation in our society may determine what we say but they do not necessarily hold absolute truth value. There is a multiplicity of truth that can be found in the many aspects, spaces, and events of life, in the words, sounds and meanings, in the propositions and method, and in the many logics of languages and other realities. It is not just found in joining protest but it is more of a strong conviction to start from within.

A look at the state of Philippine Education

2008-03-21T07:14:00.000-07:00

By Christian Inovejas, MA
Faculty, Bukidnon State University

Ethel used to be my student, after graduation she was lucky to have landed a job as public school teacher. Three years followed, she met Dodong, fell in love and they got married. Six years later, Maam Ethel decided to work in Hongkong as DH. She took a leave from her school and left her husband and kids for the ultimate sacrifice of working abroad for the sake of her family.

It is worth noting that someone so dedicated and so passionate about teaching would leave the country for a menial job in Hongkong. The usual explanation given by most OFWs is the pittance salary that they receive here in this country. The salary is not enough to raise a family hence, the flocking abroad for greener pastures. I know of some of my former students who are now teaching in Texas and other parts of the US. They are earning dollars; many times more than what they could earn here.

The usual government response to this phenomenon of teachers becoming OFW is indifference. It merely pays lip service to the teachers during elections and graduations; when most of these officials are invited as commencement speakers. This attitude could be attributed to the low regard that politicians have for teachers. How could they do this? Is it not that they once had teachers? Is it not that teachers taught them the many skills that they have now as government official? Have they forgotten all these?

Politicians could always use the masses as a scapegoat for their indifference; that the masses are more important, that the masses are to be given jobs, etc. One thing that they fail to notice: that their indifference has slowly denigrated the teachers to the level of penury – teachers have become part of the masses. Now all the platitudes, praises, exultations can never undo the damage that these politicians have on the lives of the teachers. If it is a crime to neglect the education of the youth, it all started with the crime of not taking care of our educators.

We often decry the poor state of education. We often question the kind of education that our children are having. We even question the kind of teachers we are producing. But we never ask ourselves the kind of investment that we put in education in general. We never ask the question as to the proper ways of taking care of the general program of education. We have left the future of this country in the hands of politicians who likes to steal, lie, plunder and what have you. We have forgotten the importance of education in making this country great. We have forgotten what our teachers taught us – that there is more to life than money, power, prestige and even wealth – that the love of country is best served by serving others. That the best way of serving others is by providing them the best education we could ever provide. Pacquiao may have made us proud to be Filipinos but boxing is not something that we can exult as the future of this nation. The real reason for us to be proud is when we see our kids educated in the ways of humanities, arts, science and technology and mathematics. It is when we put the real value of education to where our heart is that we begin to have the real pride – the pride of knowing that the future of this country is in good hands. Not everyone can be a Pacquiao and not every time that Pacquiao can win boxing matches. But you can never lose if you invest in education. Everybody wins.

I have nothing against boxing but I have everything against the prevailing neglect on education and educators. If you compromise education, you compromise the future. This is something that politicians don’t see because they are not after the real welfare of this country. They are after their own political survival. What really happens is that education becomes a product of a political competition where policies change depending on the political color of a political animal. This is not the right direction. This is not the future. This is not the best that we could offer to our kids.

All the President's men

2008-03-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc
Philosophy Graduate Student
Linkoping University, Sweden

The continuing saga of the ZTE controversy reveals something not so extra-ordinary in Philippine political culture and that is, that the lives of poor Filipinos are controlled by “a few good men”. Sad to say, but this sin against democracy is embedded in our culture, beginning in the early 19th century, with many of its victims now enshrined as national heroes, i.e. Andres Bonifacio, the GOMBURZA, Ninoy Aquino, etc. Democracy is supposed to be about “the governed governing themselves”. Alas, right now it simply is about being governed by the chosen few. There’s a boss, and he has his men. This reminds me of “The Godfather”. Michael, Vito Corleone’s son, after ascending to the throne, is keen about eliminating one savvy enemy in the business. The “family” lawyer, playing it safe, says that it would be very difficult. Michael now turns to the consigliere, who quips, “difficult, but not impossible”. Whatever the boss wishes, he gets!

Filipinos need to grow up. What is happening now is all about “the family”. Whether it’s the most powerful of all nations, the church, a city, or any decent institution - there is a small circle who decides for the governed. A former student of mine, as a feedback to the stuff I have been writing, calls them aptly, “the powers that be”. “The family” is the greatest threat to liberal equality. This is the one and single reason why the poor remains poor, the destitute remains voiceless, and the worker still suffers from a kind of confusion, “whether his life is about his career or whether his career is his life”. Because of the president’s men, he neither has one. As Thomas Nagel says, “we do not live in a just world”.

Democratic institutions seek to establish social cooperation in the name of justice. This should mean that each individual, a child, the poor, the garbage collector, the baker, the rich, and the butcher in a free society, in pursuit of a life plan must be allowed to profit from the same. The butcher and the baker remind me of Adam Smith, who argues that we deal business with these people only because we have due regard for their interest. But a government is not some form of business, nor is a church, an NGO, or a school. If we allow these institutions to become one, the result is clear. Those who are close to the big boss, they are the ones who gets the biggest slice of the pie.

I think what is happening is akin to “the structure of scientific revolutions”. An anomaly leads to a crisis, and when the crisis becomes so unbearable, the establishment, just like any brilliant theory, collapses. What has happened now is that one of the president’s men has been put on the spot and so he has no choice but to savor his moment in history, i.e., by becoming a star witness to a big corruption scandal. Of course, he will be tormented. There’s just one defense – “that he is no angel”. But who says that this is about being “angels and demons”? “If men were angels”, writes James Madison, 4th US President in the Federalist Papers, “no government would be necessary”. We need not be hypocritical. This is plain and simple politics.

Being a young man, I am still hopeful. But I don't like the idea that some people pretend to be heroes. Some of them are in the halls of the Senate, inside the church, the streets, in plush buildings. Andres Bonifacio is a hero. Ninoy Aquino is a hero. Parents who sacrifice for their children are heroes. Teachers who receive meager salaries are real heroes. None so far among these pretenders qualify in being called a hero. Being a hero means sacrificing oneself. It is not about redeeming oneself for past misdeeds. Of course, the day will come when our country shall be free. My intuition though tells me this – regimes will fall if they must, however powerful. No one, not even God’s first cousin, if he is in power and whoever he is, will live forever.

Democracy and our right to know the truth

2008-03-21T07:10:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Maboloc
Philosophy Graduate Student
Linkoping University, Sweden

One top government official complains that Jun Lozada and Jose de Venecia Jr. have been making the rounds in schools and campuses, recently in Davao City, to tell the students about the ZTE mess. He claims that it is “unfair” since the proper forum should be in court where the “accused” could find the means to defend herself against all these allegations.

We often hear government officials, school officials, etc. accused of wrongdoing, i.e. corruption, abuse, etc. that those allegations against them should be substantiated and brought to the “proper courts”, not in the streets, nor the media, not during sermons, for instance.

This issue is a big debate between two of the century’s greatest political thinkers, John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. In no uncertain terms, we need to understand the distinction between deliberative and critical democracy.

Deliberative democracy concerns what Rawls calls the “public use of reason”. It is, according to him, the “political use of reason”, and concerns the instrumentalities of governments, i.e. courts, parliaments. He claims that the political should be insulated from our comprehensive doctrines (our beliefs) because only then can citizens under a constitutional rule work for an “overlapping consensus”. Public issues and matters pertaining to the affairs of government, therefore, belong to the forums that are constitutionally established, the constitution being a product of that overlapping consensus. Thus, complaints must be filed in courts so that both parties can avail of the due process. With regard to the ZTE issue, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman, have done their constitutionally mandated tasks.

But civil society, which includes the “church, schools, the media, community organizations, and the masa”, whose culture is considered as non-public, may not be properly represented in these forums. For Habermas, the people have a right to voice out their concerns on important issues. Civil society, according to Habermas, can act as the people’s sounding board on issues in a democracy. It may not be the proper forum that the Speaker is talking about, but constitutionally, protest is a democratic right, i.e. freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc. Of course, the Ombudsman, trial courts, and the senate would require documents, evidence, etc. to prove certain allegations. But leaving everything to these venues is perilous for a democracy.

As a free people, we have a right to know the truth regarding the ZTE issue and make own judgment accordingly since it is only through this kind of vigilance that we are assured that our democratic rights are secured. Otherwise, without a critical populace, government can abuse its power.