The politics of farce

NUNQUAM ITERUM! So, we raise our voices hoarse at each anniversary of the declaration of martial law. Terrified, more so now at the specter of its possible resurrection in Marcos Junior. So, rightfully, should the sins of the father be visited upon the son?

Never again! So, we may equally shout at both EDSAs too. Given where it has led to – from the tragedy that was Ninoy to the farce that was Noynoy, from the joke that was Erap to the NBN-ZTE deal that was Gloria, from the butchery that was Digong to the emerging thuggery that is Sara.

Indeed, Marx, of historical entities repeating: "the first as tragedy, the second as farce.”

And the farce goes on. Just look at the buffoonery in the five-ring circus that is the Senate and the House. Which makes me think all the more of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Sr. Not so much for his tyranny, as for the breadth and depth of his keen understanding, if not mastery, of Philippine politics. Thus:

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 dares 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.

AS TRUE today as 55 years ago when penned in Today’s Revolution: Democracy.

Populist. Personalist. Individualist. Marcos Sr. distilled the essence of all that is wrong, aye, the very evil of politics in the country. Proof positive once more of the Great Ferdinand’s mastery of the political domain.

Even more – testament anew to the persistent prevalence of politics as plunder in the Philippine praxis. Indeed, Santayana, by our disremembering, we are nation deserving of our damning.