“We shall defeat the enemy by wielding tools of justice, social reform and equitable governance leading to better life.” (President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III)
In his Socratic dialogue Republic, Plato philosophized that the personal experiences of individual citizens can be analogous to what the State and its players as a whole go through. His parable of the four men in a cave somewhat says that some of us decide to simply believe and deem as real whatever that is being presented unto us. Some of us dare to question the credibility or state of reality of what we see or hear but rather stick to the status quo due to comfort or the fear of the unknown. Then there are some of us who, upon reflecting on things, reject the impositions of the immediate environment yet we still get lost in transition (or translation???) either due to comfort, misguided conformity or blatant surrender. On the other hand, there are some of us who, upon reflecting on things, reject the environmentally imposed illusions, struggle in the search of more truth and meaning and eventually get out of that cave of blind submission, ignorance and damnation, among others.
Upon watching the live coverage of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III (PNoy), my mind could not help but recall that particular steam of Plato's philosophical mind. One part of my mind thought that Plato was sporting his intellectual arrogance as manifested by his rather negative description of three-fourths of the population in that parable of his. However, another part of me admired his genius for predicting a general reality among people two millenia ahead of his time.
To make Plato's point closer to the heart, we need not look far enough for the case of the Philippines is good enough an example. In one way or another, our history as a modern nation projects a picture of us embodying the Jung-ian persona of either of the four cavemen notwithstanding our own personal ideologies, values and narratives.
Let me elucidate.
The 30th of June 2010 is deemed as another milestone in the pages of Philippine modern history for it marked the swearing in of PNoy as the 15th president of the Republic. After almost a decade of having the uneasy feeling among the general public of the certainty that something wrong is going on but the public cannot pinpoint exactly which is it, it is therefore quite understandable as to why the Filipino nation stood vigilant in guarding the results of its exercise of its Constitutional freedom of suffrage during the past May 2010 elections. Corollary to that, it is of lesser wonder as to why a great percentage of the Filipino voters anticipated with expectation, if not excitement, the inaugural speech and the first and second SONA of PNoy.
1. In the eyes of skeptics and Filipinos who have resigned to the seemingly insurmountable social malady that has incessantly haunted the nation since time immemorial, the May 2010 elections and its aftermath are only but a tiny segment of a cyclic if not down-spiraling socio-econo-political pattern that this country is accursed with. The promises of change toward a better life and for no reconciliation without justice being served as uttered by PNoy are only but a rhetoric spoken yet again to appease the figurative thirst for blood (read: vengeance from past injustices and misdeeds) of the dominant majority.
2. On the other hand, there exists the fatalist minds of some of our pillars who think and profess that just as the initial euphoria of hope for a better Philippines is being felt now in PNoy's administration, it is actually nothing new for this feeling has swooped the country too during the early months of Cory Aquino's. So was it felt during the early years of Fidel Ramos'. And the early stage of Joseph Estrada's government. And even that of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's. In short, they are kind of saying that the Philippines is a doomed nation.
3. Now, we have some packs of people who dream for a better Philippines according to their own combinations of economic, political, cultural, religious and social standards or orientation. Their brilliant ideas and other steams of their minds can be summed up in two currencies: ideal and perfect. Ideal policies. Perfect states. However, there is this gaping hole in those two currencies they hold. First off, there can be NO ideal policy but only an optimum one*. Secondly, a perfect state or society is technically unattainable. The society is composed of many people with varying interests, concerns, needs and wants. The bottomline is, in the quest for ideal policies or perfect states, some of tend to go counterflow that we alienate or unite with others who are seeking for better national well-being albeit through a different avenue. Some of us see things only according to our own definition of what is black and what is white. And if in case we feel tired of our own struggle toward our desired state, heaven just knows what some of us do...or decide not to do.
4. Finally, there are some of us who, not being content with what we are seeing or hearing or experiencing, challenge or defy the status quo in our quest for better lives. Either for us as individuals and as collective citizens of one country. Or for our children and the next generation. We are aware of the obstacles, difficulties and the dangers that lie ahead but still we stick to our noble goal. If our own lives were at stake, so be it if it would mean a better chance for our children to lead a more meaningful life. A life of dignity.
In relation to this, where does each of us belong whenever we talk about national well-being? Which among the four categories do we belong to whenever we speak in terms of social awareness and responsibility, political consciousness and participation, participative governance, government policies, poverty alleviation and human and national development? Do we even care to think about it before we harshly criticize the government for perceived and felt market and government failures? Do we even know what we talk about whenever we speak words concerning the present state and possible future of our Nation?
Remembering the words of Dr. Jocelyn Cuaresma of UP-NCPAG, she said that there are many forms of government policy statements but the most overt of all is the President's SONA. I respect whatever point of view I hear or read pertaining to the current administration and its policies. But as a student of public administration, I think it is only but fair for us to do some litmus tests before we utter words of support/praise or criticism.
I am not new to listening to SONA hence my initial prediction that the PNoy's second SONA would yet again be filled with more self-righteous politicking, self-aggrandizement, half-sincere promises and other be-it-as-may campaign. However, as I watched the live coverage and read the transcript of PNoy's second SONA, I was unexpectedly overwhelmed by the kick and boost in my morale as a citizen of the Philippines. He seemed to be talking directly to me and that he sounded sincere enough with whatever report and policy statements he was uttering. The general message of his speech is very clear: a) that he means business when he has chosen to make “change” as his political slogan and platform; b) that the period of greed, mediocrity and complacency is over; c) that his administration is working to deliver whatever promises he has made so with his dream for a better Philippines; and d) that there can be no real change if not all sectors of the whole Philippine society genuinely strive for and participate in this PNoy administration-led revolution of the mind and values and practices. Not only did I feel like trusting my government once again; I also felt like bursting into tears as I endured the tug in my conscience for somewhat loosing hope for a better Philippines.
Peeking through PNoy's second SONA vis-a-vis his inauguration speech revolving on “change toward the better”, I say that his drive against rampant corruption in the government [and even in the private sector] is laudable enough. In other words, he walked his talk and people were inspired to talk because of his walk. For indeed, any government cannot perform satisfactorily in the eyes of observers and stakeholders (hence the many forms of intermingling financial, economic, political, social, security and/or psycho-emotional backlashes) if that government is tainted with doubt and scandals and controversies. The tenacity of the government (as being reported to the public by the media) in uncovering past mistakes and eventually suing allegedly erring people may qualify his administration's vow for a clean government as sincere enough. However, the efforts that he and his administration put on reviewing contracts both approved and still-to-be-approved and the implementation of the zero-based budgeting scheme in all government offices lend enough credence to the seriousness of PNoy's drive to steer the government and the country toward his perceived matuwid na landas in hopefully getting out of this very dark and slimy cave that we have found our country in. As a result thereof, PNoy, being the one occupying the highest seat of the Philippine government, has effectively waged a war against corruption in the government. I believe that he is a force to be reckoned with because he has successfully gained for himself a moral ascendancy and authority over his people. And that is no common feat among leaders...for gaining moral ascendancy and authority over one's subordinates is quite a rare occurrence in today's modern political arena. People look up to their leaders and follow after their leads almost all the time.
There are so many numbers that PNoy has mentioned in his SONA 2011. All of the statistics, the promises for more progress and the accompanying stern warnings that he mentioned only remind me of Nichollo Machiavelli's teaching that “If you cannot be loved and feared at the same time by your constituents, then better be feared than to be loved but not feared...” I somehow see a grain of truth and wisdom in these words of Machiavelli. What are positive statistics and realistic promises, indeed, if there were no threat of punishment for people who will try to tee us off to the marshlands after those tremendous efforts of the present administration to get us back to the fairway? Yes, my inner-self felt reinvigorated and proud by my President's political will and performance in his first year in office. Yes, I am clinging to this glimmer of hope for a positive revolution of the mindsets and systems not only amongst people in the bureaucracy but also among those in other sectors of our society. Yes, I believe that the masses now have a better confidence on the governmental systems, organizations and policies. That after all and despite PNoy's silence on his economic agenda for the country, there will be a genuine jump-starting not only of the Philippine politics or economics but even on our identity as a Filipino nation regardless of our religious and cultural divergences. It is not only me who is hoping for these; a 71% of legal-aged Filipinos share my hopes and trust in the government too.
In pondering over the string of various post-EDSA administrations that ran our country, Max Weber's classic work on bureaucracy teased my mind. Weber enumerated, described, praised and criticized the three sources of power of our leaders (to wit: charisma, traditional and rational-bureaucratic). He predicted too that the people would eventually tire of their leaders hence the changes of leaders from one with charisma to another privileged with very good pedigree, then to one blessed with rationality. And the circle repeats itself. Just as what the parchment curtains of our nation's post-EDSA narrative seem to portray.
Obviously, we have for a national leader somebody with a legendary pedigree. Only after his ascension to office that the Filipino nation noticed his rationality with his stubborn sense of right and wrong. And his style of running the government based on what he perceives as right or wrong makes sense. Only after he delivered his second SONA that I found him very charismatic enough I started doing away with pirated CDs and DVDs. And I felt good and more empowered. Because he empowered the people into standing for what is right. Because he has courageously pointed out to the Filipino nation another form of cancer that is seeping into the very fabric of our nationhood – that cancer of being selfish and deeply individualistic and crab-like.
Randy David, in a 2001 Philippine Daily Inquirer article pertaining to then President Joseph Estrada, has mentioned Pareto's theory that the icons or very strong preferences of people actually represent the silent personal aspirations of the same people about themselves. Following Pareto's line of thinking and given the overwhelming support (81% of total votes) that PNoy has received during the 2010 presidential election, then perhaps it is safe to conclude that a great majority of the Filipino nation has not given up on and for our country. Despite the odds, the Filipino nation has not totally sunk into the swamp of apathy and lawlessness and corruption.
We live in a democratic country wherein we have a direct say of who we want our top leaders to be. We are the ones who have the power to choose the kind of life we want for our country. Our leaders may have a direct influence over the course of our national well-being, but we as a collective citizens of this country have a voice strong enough to let our leaders know what we want them to do for us. Our responsibility for the Motherland does not end only at the precincts or in the streets or in the broad media. We also have to do our part in ensuring that the government we choose to run the country have the means to finance whatever project it deems vital toward our quest for national development. We ought to support the government in the same manner that we have to be vigilant in safeguarding our interest as a nation from them greedy and self-serving officials and business people. Let us do our own parts. We are the ones carving our own destiny.
As I ponder further on PNoy's plea for us to join him in his campaign for a better Philippines by doing away with “utak wang-wang” and individualism and other forms of social malady, my reverie goes back to Plato and his parable of the four cavemen. Then my heart silently prayed to the Almighty for Him to help us completely renew our mindsets as strive hard to inch our way toward that glimmer of light emanating outside of this cave that we are in..
________________
* It is a common belief among scholars of public administration and governance that there is no such a thing as an ideal policy. An ideal policy is said to be perfect and advantageous to all. However, policies were made because of the existence of conflicting interests among people. One policy may be of advantage to one party while being disadvantageous to the other, and vice versa. What exists, according to the scholars, is an optimum policy – a policy that may be disadvantageous to some but advantageous to the greater majority.
