NOW ANY society in which most of the people
are poor is always in danger of having its political authority corrupted and
dominated by the rich minority.
In the Philippines, the real power lay back of the shifting factions, in the
hands of a few rich families strong enough to bend Government to their will.
This oligarchy intervened in government to preserve the political privileges of
its wealth, and to protect its right of property.
This intervention of wealth in politics unavoidably produced corruption. And when this practice seeped through the whole of society itself, the result was moral degeneration. So the Philippine political culture equated freedom with self-aggrandizement, and the politics of participation, so essential in a democracy, with the pursuit of privilege.
Oligarchic “values” permeated society all the more easily because the rich controlled the press and radio-TV. The press particularly became the weapon of a special class rather than a public forum. The newspapers would noisily and endlessly comment on the side issues of our society, but not on the basic ones: for example, the question of private property.
The oligarchic propaganda was that somehow, with the election of “good men” – good men who please the oligarchs – mass poverty would come to an end. The search for “better men in politics” and not institutional change; a “higher political morality,” and not the restructuring of society – this was the oligarch’s ready answer to the question of change. Revolution from the Center, 1978
This intervention of wealth in politics unavoidably produced corruption. And when this practice seeped through the whole of society itself, the result was moral degeneration. So the Philippine political culture equated freedom with self-aggrandizement, and the politics of participation, so essential in a democracy, with the pursuit of privilege.
Oligarchic “values” permeated society all the more easily because the rich controlled the press and radio-TV. The press particularly became the weapon of a special class rather than a public forum. The newspapers would noisily and endlessly comment on the side issues of our society, but not on the basic ones: for example, the question of private property.
The oligarchic propaganda was that somehow, with the election of “good men” – good men who please the oligarchs – mass poverty would come to an end. The search for “better men in politics” and not institutional change; a “higher political morality,” and not the restructuring of society – this was the oligarch’s ready answer to the question of change. Revolution from the Center, 1978
MORE OFTEN the politician neither legislates nor administers so much as
he intervenes and mediates. He achieves a personalized relationship with his
constituents as individual persons, more anxious about doing things for each of
them rather than for all of them. A bridge, a school, or a rural development
project, although important, is not enough. Has he been approachable? Has he
managed to place a son in a Manila office? Where was he when a fire broke out
or a typhoon came? How personally generous has he been with the needs of
certain influential leaders? If he fails in these personalist tests, he fails
as a politician.
Are the people to blame for this state of affairs? Hardly, for
conditions are such that the majority depend on the government. But are the politicians, who are
simply responding to the situation as they see it? I would say Yes. Within the
undeniably practical limits of political survival, politicians can and should
try out some innovations that will transform the political culture from being
populist, personalist and individualist to being more nationalist,
institutional and socialist, in the strict meaning of being more conscious
about the needs of society and the national community…
One reason for the pervasiveness of corruption is that in being part of
the system, everyone it touches seems to benefit…The corrupt politician who is
at the same time accessible to his constituents has more chances of staying in
power than an honest one “who has not done anything.” He probably takes his
legislative or executive work more seriously, concentrating on collective goals
to the detriment of political “fence mending,” but he is more often judged by
the populist, personalist and individualist standards of the political culture.
A true politician should be able to lead his constituency in a
precarious present toward an uncertain future, but he dare not initiate or
innovate unless he can be sure it will not cost his position.
It is easy to condemn him for lack of moral courage, but what good is a
businessman without a business, a politician without policy? “I must see where
my people are going so that I may lead them,” an Athenian politician was
supposed to have said. There are certain conditions, however, in which this
attitude cannot be a useful principle of democratic leadership. Today’s
Revolution: Democracy, 1971
* *
* *
CONTINUING RELEVANCE of
things written over a generation ago – from media monopoly to patronage
politics – reflecting the constancy and consistency in the praxis of Philippine
politics. Aye, in the rut the nation has consigned itself, getting deeper at
each change of administration.
Can’t blame some succumbing
to nostalgic sentimentalism: “Marcos,
now more than ever!”
No comments:
Post a Comment