A fellow member of the Get Real Philippines Facebook page asked an interesting question. “Do you agree that a change in self must happen first before a change in rules? Or do you believe in the reverse?†This, for me, is a thought-provoking question. Some folks, especially proponents of Charter Change (to Parliamentary form of government), seem to embrace change in the rules first. Others believe the opposite and other believe that both change ought to happen simultaneously. I gave this question some thought after considering the points of all sides. In the end, I am left to believe that while a simultaneous approach is good, it is probably unlikely that the Filipinos would be able to handle this approach.
Getting used to a new form of government takes time and intellectual maturity for such a new form of government to work. We did undergo government transformations in the past (even adopting a parliamentary form) but the people and our leaders were not intellectually mature yet. Have we really advanced since the last parliamentary form of government was established in the Philippines? I have my doubts. So I am more inclined to believe that a change in self must occur first; the people and our leaders must be intellectually and morally mature before we can adopt a new set of rules that would be beneficial and sustainable.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
The current issue on the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona seems to indicate that the majority of Filipinos really haven’t reached maturity yet. The Philippines currently has a leader who seems to have a zeal for implementing change in how government ought to run. The President, together with his allies, has been going after people in the previous administration whom they suspect to have committed injustice to the country. However, in their effort and zealotry to run after the perceived enemies of the State, rules and basic rights have been violated. It doesn’t matter if the “enemies†suffer without due process or if they get hanged through trial by publicity. Mob mentality is what the current leadership and its supporters subscribe to in the name of justice. Whether this mindset is justified or not is not what this article is about. The article is merely pointing that such a mindset is a sign of intellectual immaturity and instituting change with this current mindset through mob rule or even changing the form of government, probably won’t make a lasting difference if any.
George Orwell’s book, “Animal Farmâ€, is a good satirical fable that tells about revolutionary changes in government. In the story, we have Farmer Jones, the abusive owner, who was expelled by the exasperated farm animals. After the expulsion, the Animals ran the farm themselves and established equality for every Animal in the farm as the rule. Soon, however, the pigs (who represent the party bosses) begin to take special privileges for themselves (e.g. extra food). They enlist the farm’s dogs as enforcers to put down any dissent, and they teach the sheep (rank and file) to speak the party line on demand. At first, this is, “Four legs good, two legs bad”- animals (four legs) are good, humans (exploiters) are bad. Doesn’t this seem eerily familiar with how the Philippines works under the Yellow regime after overthrowing Ferdinand Marcos (through Edsa 1) or even after getting rid of Erap (through Edsa 2) or even Gloria (by voting for someone extremely hostile to her)? We have the Yellow leadership as represented by the pigs; the various heads of government departments as the dogs (e.g. Ombudsman, LRA, AMLC, DOJ, BIR, COA, etc.); Senate and especially Congress as the sheep.
Anyway, as time passes, the Seven Commandments (Animal Farm’s Constitution) undergoes subtle changes as the pigs rewrite it to suit their own agenda. When Boxer the horse (symbolizing blue-collar labor, the “workers,”) becomes too old to work, the pigs sell him to the horse butcher, whom they tell the other animals, is really the veterinarian. The pigs eventually learn to walk on two legs, thus imitating the animals’ original exploiters, and they teach the sheep to bleat, “Four legs good, two legs better!” The Seven Commandments become one: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The pigs rename Animal Farm the Manor Farm- its original name- and invite the neighboring human farmers, who symbolize the elite class against whom the animals revolted, to admire the results: “…the lower animals on Animal Farm did more work and received less food than any animals in the county.” As the story ends, the pigs become indistinguishable from their human visitors.
In our current government affairs, isn’t it funny how the Yellows really have become indistinguishable from the villains they are accusing of not having followed the Rule of Law?
Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said that man falls because he refuses to see his selfishness and greed. St. Augustine puts it, “Man’s innate evil is in his will, and it expresses itself in pride and in the quest for power”. It is this egocentricity and of pride which affects man’s nature. With these, man is gripped with anxiety. Neibuhr avers that society merely cumulates the egoism of individuals and transforms their individual altruism into collective egoism. For this reason, no group acts from purely unselfish or even mutual intent and politics becomes the contest for power. In this contest, a lot of the wiser politicians recognize the value of the skill of compromise.
Neibuhr says that, “The most important observable expression that human anxiety takes politically is in the will to power”. Man wants not to merely satisfy his appetites but to have prestige and social approval. The paradox, of course, is that the quest for power can’t give man the ideal he craves for. We see this dilemma in the present time in which the Yellows seek to obtain and maintain power while supposedly seeking justice and equality. But they try to achieve this through the injustice of persecution and circumvention of the law. Instead of justice and equality, we find that this causes fear (as some Senators have suggested that “President Aquino may do a Corona on usâ€), not giving justice and equality but the exact opposite.
Now I am not saying that we all should stop questioning things we feel are unjust. If we feel there is injustice, we or anyone involved in political order shouldn’t become complacent. There is much we can learn from our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal. Rizal has always opposed political, economic, social, and religious injustice. Rizal was not complacent about the presence of Spanish tyranny but he was also not under the illusion that, on the basis of an absolute principle, the ills of man and society can be cured simply through a regime change or a change in political order. The Yellows and the Yellow apologists in our midst seem to have an illusion that some political order change would cure the ills of our society. I’m afraid some of our friends who are proponents of Charter Change may be falling for the same mentality. As Reinhold Niebuhr suggested, every social program, every political policy, even the actions we take are at best a compromise and an approximation of justice. It is not a simple black or white, good and evil issue, as some people (such as the Yellows and their supporters) like to paint things as. I’m afraid that in the same token, changing the rules won’t necessarily change the men and women who would be trying to use them.
Calling a spade, a spade…
At first, it seems like a chicken and egg question, doesn’t it? But in the end, I think that strength of character will adjust to any system and make it work for the subject.
The question is, what will it take for us to become mature as a people? By what event or accomplishment would we be able to define this milestone? And how do we make sure that the lessons of this impeachment trial will not be lost upon us?
Yes, I agree. The strength of character will adjust to any system and make it work for the subject. Anyway, here is a good table showing the stages of intellectual maturity. http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/May/stages_of_intellectual_maturity.html From the looks of this table, I think the Filipinos are still very much into the “Dualism†mindset. It would take a lot of evolving to reach the “Commitment†stage. Thanks for reading, Amir!
Nice illustration! As a fresh college graduate I personally think that I still have a lot to learn through experience. I definitely agree that the commitment stage is the hardest part since I must take a stand, depending on how I evaluate the pros and cons of any solution I make up towards a problem.
Thanks for reading, az. We, as a people, still have a lot to learn.
Very interesting diagram. Even the transition from Dualism to Multiplicity alone will do wonders for the Philippines. But why stop there? Not pwede-na-iyan, but kaya-pa-iyan
Classic example of a society being an egg no matter what the nature of the system presented are the Chinese communities all over the world. Regardless of the environment or climate, their ghettoes manage to become the thriving hotbeds of entrepeneurship and commerce that they are — whether it is in Third World southeast Asian basketcases or prosperous Western socieities like the United States.
Yes, benignO. They seem to thrive anywhere they go under any system. It tells that they do take their commitments seriously.
thank you for this, i check the website wiki of animal farm 7 commandments and i was so surprised because the metaphor used is exactly the perspective of pnoy governance. i hope this will enlighten everyone, every filipino every good citizen of this republic.
You are welcome, karim. Yes, it is indeed quite interesting to note the similarities of how the Yellows work and how the pigs in the Animal Farm have operated. Thanks for reading.
In terms of system, the Philippines is a travesty of systems applied the wrong way. We tried a parliamentary system, but it wasn’t really a parliamentary system in the strict sense of the word. We have a presidential system, but it’s a travesty of a system that allows a minority president. Filipinos tend to do it wrong, whichever which way.
Yes ChinoF, it certainly looks that way. I think we need to mature intellectually and morally as a people first before we can do things right. Thanks for reading!
Our political system works fine. The problem is not in the system but in the person who runs it. The number one guy sets all the examples and marching orders for his subordinates to emulate. Is Mr. BS Aquino heading for one-man rule? Check out the commentary.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/opinion/3937-noynoys-monocracy
Yes, Der Fuhrer… I agree. We can change the system and even perhaps adopt a better system. But if the same intellectually and morally immature people run the new system, it’s not going to work. This is why I think change in self first is important. Thanks for reading!
“The only way, you can change a man; is to change the way he thinks”…this was the theory of the great Psychologist: Abraham Maslow…Carl Jung, talked also about the Collective Unconsciousness…the residual consciousness in our brains, present, even before we were born. We had been influenced by many negative factors. From Colonial Masters,to self serving religious leaders, to thieving political leaders, who took their places of the colonial masters. So, it is for us to change, before, we can have a real change in our country. First to change, are our political leaders…it’s a chicken and egg, who comes first riddle…
I agree, Hyden. But the problem is not everyone is willing to change or can handle change. This reminds me of the Allegory of the Cave. Perhaps I can expand on that in the future if and when inspiration strikes me again. Thanks for reading!
@Hyden Toro
You are correct. The “great one” has a mind problem. This is his extreme obsession to persecute his perceived enemies. His double standards in the no touch treatment of his cronies is already known. His indolent ways of managing the state reinforces his defective mind. As I said before, the worst is yet to come.
CHANGE! Let’s start by booting out CJ Corona >:D
I don’t believe simply removing an individual would make much of a difference. I think genuine change comes from within ourselves. Changing the landscape or conditions would probably be just another band-aid solution. Thanks for reading cjcoronsky.
cjcoronsky, do you really believe that removing CJ Corona will make our country a better place to live?…mababawasan ba ang mga nagugutom?…mababawasan ang mga walang trabaho?…magkakaroon ng tirahan ang mga walang tirahan?…i suggest mag isip ka naman kahit konti lang please…
Even a PNoy-appointed CJ will also have a conflict of interest.
Mag-isip naman ang iba dyan. I’m not surprised kung ipinanganak kang mangmang. Totoo iyon. 😛
Getting rid of one rat will not exterminate an entire nest of rats. Gets?
No…it will never remove the Rat population. Especially, if these Rats are wealthy, and have a private armies. Remember the Ampatuan Magguindano situation? Ruling Rat is an Oligarch and can massacre people…
Alternatively, you can’t exterminate a nest of rats without starting with one (unless you find a way to exterminate them all at the same time.)
Changing the banking practices and disclosure would be a huge starting point along with getting rid of self-serving protection laws can work it just needs to be accomplished and waaay overdue, just watching the Corona trial is proof of just how other government branches don’t work at all together and it seems so many in charge are somewhat clueless in proper procedures and lack luster appearance and performance I can really tell they are used to being head boss by appointment from another family member?and this is so wrong employee’s that fill these critical government functions should be much more dynamic with schooling that is confirmed and not also forged by the teacher with a little cash under the table the holder of office also needs to be more of an intellectual with much better debating, talking skills, and a problem solving manager.
Love the title.
It’s same as saying “Learning from pro-GMA and pro-Pnoy”
At least both camps are “defined” now. Good job!