The State of Our Nation
and Democracy in 2010:
Building “The Good Society” We Want
Ang Kahimtang sa Atong Nasod ug Demokrasya sa 2010:
Ang Pagtukod “sa Maayong Katilingban” nga Gugma Nato
Ang Kalagayan ng ating Bansa at Demokrasya sa 2010:
Ang Pagbuo ng Ninanais Nating “Magandang Lipunan”
By
Professor Jose V. Abueva
President of Kalayaan College, U.P. Professor Emeritus
of Public Administration and Political Science, and Member
of the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP)
My frustration.
Honestly, like many of you, I am frustrated that we, Filipinos,
have not achieved more political, economic and social
progress since our independence in 1946, compared to some of
our progressive neighbors in Asia that were less developed
then in one way or another. It’s been over sixty long years of
struggle with some success, reversals and continuing crises.
Lets look at our national development historically.
Filipinos –the first colonized nation in Asia to defeat a Western
colonizer (Spain in 1898), declare independence, and initiate a
constitutional democracy.
But U.S. imperialism immediately replaced the Spanish in our land.
Our patriotic forbears fought the Filipino-American War in the next
few years.
Nevertheless, a colonial policy of increasing Filipino autonomy and
democratization enabled the Filipinos to gain experience in local
government, legislation and public administration.
In 1935 the ten-year Philippine Commonwealth was
established under a U.S. law and a Philippine constitution, in
preparation for our independence in 1946.
We suffered so much under the brutal and destructive
Japanese occupation (1941-1945). We had to rehabilitate our
ravaged economy and rebuild our institutions.
Philippines—a fast-growing, developing nation and
aspiring democracy.
1.
Philippines has a population of 94 million, the Philippines is
now the world’s 12th most populous nation, although in land
area our homeland is among the smallest (in 71st place). We
have more people than Vietnam, Malaysia, and Germany,
which are larger in area.
2.
With some 10 million Filipinos abroad as permanent
residents or transient workers, we are conscious of our Global
Filipino Nation.
3.
Overseas Filipinos may now avail themselves of their rights to
dual citizenship and absentee voting and help even more in
our national development beyond their valued remittances.
4.
Mounting population pressure on our limited land, natural
resources, and development efforts congests our cities and
aggravates the degradation of the environment.
5. Drives many Filipinos to find jobs abroad at the sacrifice of
their separation from their families.
6.
Global warming and climate change trigger disastrous
calamities, and the displacement and impoverishment of our
people. Rising sea levels threaten the submersion of our coastal
settlements.
We are a Weak Nation
Failure of our leaders to unite and inspire our
diverse peoples as a nation.
Too many of them, as well as citizens, may not love
our country enough to transcend their selfish
personal and family interests when called upon to
lead, to obey the laws, elect leaders, support
change and reforms, and sacrifice to promote our
common good and national interest.
1.
These deficiencies mark us as a weak nation in
our grave problems and challenges. We
predicament when we observe the national
determination of the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans,
Vietnamese.
the face of
sense our
unity and
Taiwanese,
2.
The poverty, ignorance and apathy of some of our citizens
make them vulnerable. They sell their votes to cynical, votebuying candidates, exchanging their support and loyalty for the
political patronage and protection that leaders promise and
provide.
3.
If more citizens would be better educated and employed and
be able to escape poverty and rise to belong to the middle
class, they would become more secure and independent,
more informed about public affairs, and also more critical of
bad governance and corruption. They would demand change
and reform in our politics and government.
4.
However, we also rationalize that in a democracy
development must not infringe on our political freedom and
civil liberties as citizens, and so we minimize or ignore our
responsibilities.
5.
Every nation needs social and political trust as “social
capital.” In this regard the Filipino nation has a very
troubling deficit. Majority of the respondents in a national
survey in 2001 agreed with these test statements: (1) “Most
Filipinos do not trust each other” (57 percent) ; and (2) “Most
Filipinos would know what is for the common good but care only
for what is good for them and their family” (73 percent).
Moreover, there is social class animosity as may be shown by
the response to this test statement: “In our society, the poor
people are oppressed or exploited by the rich and powerful
people” (65 percent).
6.
We enjoy religious freedom and, basically, among
Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Filipinos of other faiths,
or nonbelievers, there is no conflict. To bind us as a nation
we can recall a shared history, our heroes of the past and the
present, and our common challenges and struggle.
7.
However, many Muslims resent their relative poverty,
exclusion and underdevelopment and the political and
cultural dominance of the Christians; thus the perennial
Moro struggle for political and cultural autonomy, if not
secession, and the Moro rebellions since the early 1970s.
Some indigenous Filipinos feel discriminated and
excluded in the nation’s development.
8.
The Maoist Communist rebellion dates back to 1968,
succeeding the Soviet-oriented Communism that began
decades earlier. The rebellion is partly ideological—based on
social inequities and injustice; and partly a livelihood, as
when rebels collect “revolutionary taxes” and protection
money. The Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization has engaged in
kidnap-for-ransom operations in Southern Mindanao.
9.
In a nation of ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity, and
social inequality, there are varying degrees of resentment
towards a highly centralized and Manila-centric
governance expressed in the term “Imperial Manila.” This
fuels the legitimate demand for regional and local autonomy
and even federalism.
10. Given the advantages of a global lingua franca and a
national language, there is a reaction to the dominance of
English and Filipino—the supposedly evolving national
language which is largely Tagalog—in our language policy
and official communication. Such structures, policies and
practices are prejudicial to the people in the outlying
provinces, and especially the poor, whose languages are not
used in official communication.
Ideas for nation-building and unity.
Focus on what may be done to strengthen a weak Filipino
nation: the people and citizenry of our nation-state called the
Republic of the Philippines.
Led by Senator Leticia R. Shahani and Dr. Patricia B.
Licuanan, The Moral Recovery Program in 1988 urged
our people to develop:
(1) a sense of patriotism and national pride, a genuine love,
appreciation and commitment to the Philippines and things
Filipino;
(2) a sense of the common good, the ability to look beyond
selfish interests, a sense of justice, and a sense of outrage at
their violation;
(3) a sense of integrity and accountability, an aversion towards
graft and corruption in society and an avoidance of the
practice in one’s daily life;
(4) the value and habits of discipline and hard work; and
(5) the value and habits of self-reflection and analysis, the
internalization of spiritual values, the emphasis on essence
rather than form.”
We have a “Soft State”
According to our Constitution: “The Philippines is a
democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from
them.” (Section 1. Article II.)
The political reality is otherwise in our oligarchic society
marked by the dominance of the rich and powerful, and
by widespread poverty, landlessness, homelessness,
insecurity, injustice, and a weakened “rule of law.”
In Gunnar Myrdal’s Asian Drama he describes “Soft States” as
having the following characteristics that seem to apply to
the Philippines to some degree (Asian Drama, 1969. pp. 66,
and 277).
• “Soft States are dominated by powerful interests that
exploit the power of the State or government to serve their
own interests rather than the interests of their citizens.
• “Policies decided on are often not enforced, if they are enacted
at all, and in that the authorities, even when framing policies are
reluctant to place obligations on people.
• “Governments require extraordinarily little of their citizens
[and] even those obligations that do exist are enforced
inadequately, if at all…..
• “There is an unwillingness among the rulers to impose
obligations on the governed and a corresponding unwillingness
on their part to obey rules laid down by democratic procedures.
Who are the exploiters of our “Soft State?”
(1) “rent-seeking” oligarchs or rich and powerful politicians
and their families who exploit the State to serve their
selfish interests; (but not all oligarchs exploit the State)
(2) “warlords” who use violence to gain and protect their
power and political position;
(3) politicians who use deceit, fraud, or buy votes to win
elections and stay in power;
(4) “rent-seeking” businessmen;
(5) “rent-seeking” public administrators;
(6) gambling lords, drug lords, and smuggling lords;
(7) tax evaders;
(8) rebels who undermine the State and business;
(9) terrorists;
(10) even poor “informal settlers,” maybe for sheer
survival as homeless, landless migrants in the cities,
and “squatter syndicates”--who use their votes to buy
the protection of politicians.
Why do we need A Strong State?
In Francisco Nemenzo’s judgment: “We need a State that is
strong to implement fundamental reforms, to break elite
resistance, and to withstand imperialist pressure.” (“Beyond
the Classroom: UP’s Responsibility in Helping Rebuild a Damaged Nation,”
U.P. Centennial Lecture, February 15, 2008.)
But that State, the Republic of the Philippines, embodies
the Filipino nation itself that should also be made strong
and united in pursuit of the common good.
The Marcos Dictatorship (1972 to 1986)
“New Democracies” compared to “Established Democracies.”
As a “New Democracy” Filipino democracy is still unconsolidated and thus reversible. We made progress in
development and democratization from 1946 to the 1960s. But
Ferdinand Marcos destroyed our fragile democracy.
By destroying our fledgling democratic institutions, Marcos
was able to extend his powers as an authoritarian president
from the maximum of 8 years to over 20 years, until he was
overthrown by the people at the EDSA Revolt in February 1986.
Our democratization suffered a traumatic reversal.
1.
He plundered the government and the economy,
2.
He enriched his family and cronies,
3.
He reversed our economic development,
4.
He corrupted politics and society, and
5.
He politicized the military as his partner in power.
Through patriotic resistance by militants and committed leaders, Ninoy Aquino’s long imprisonment and martyrdom,
Corazon Aquino’s heroic challenge to Marcos in the “snap elections,” the underground press, and spontaneous “people
power” at EDSA, we finally ended the Marcos regime and “restored our democracy” in February 1986 and under the
1987 Constitution. But despite its laudable vision of democracy and “a just and humane society” and its ideals of public
office and good governance, under this Constitution, we have not been able to reform and transform our weakened and
ineffective political institutions. Under President Aquino, the old oligarchy and traditional politicians, including those
who had collaborated with Marcos, quickly recovered their power.
Filipino Democracy an “Unconsolidated Democracy.”
To this day we have not consolidated our democracy.
“Democracy is consolidated when…a particular system of
institutions becomes the only game in town, and when
no-one can imagine acting outside the democratic
institutions” (A. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market: Political and
Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. 1991. p. 26).
We, Filipinos, soon played various games
outside a “constitutional democracy.”
1.
Rebel soldiers sought to remove President Corazon
Aquino in nine disruptive but failed coup attempts.
Causing continuing instability. In the course of his
impeachment trial, President Joseph Estrada was
removed in a “people power revolt” in 2001. President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became the target of intended
“people power” revolts, coup attempts, an aborted
rebellion, & proposed “snap elections.”
2.
Despite public outcry, various human rights are violated
with apparent impunity. Corruption and betrayal of public
office are rampant.
3.
Free, fair, peaceful, and credible elections are not
assured, after the reasonably good elections held in 1987,
1992, 1998, and 2001.
4.
The judiciary, often too slow in doing its work, is unable
to dispense justice in many instances.
5.
Rebels, warlords and private armies exist in their own
territories. The military and the police under civilian rule
do not have the monopoly of the use of armed force
expected in a democracy.
6.
Dysfunctional political parties.
7.
Dysfunctional form and structure of governance.
8.
Dysfunctional policy on foreign investments.
Filipino Democracy is at Risk
In 2005 Freedom House in New York downgraded the
ranking of the Philippines from “free” to “partly free”; and
in 2008 disqualified the country as an “electoral
democracy.”
According to Larry Diamond: “The Asian Barometer found
that the percentage of Filipinos who believe democracy is
always the best form of government dropped from 64
percent to 51 percent between 2001 and 2005.
At the same time, satisfaction with democracy fell from 54 percent to 39
percent, and the share of the Filipino population willing to reject the option of
an authoritarian ‘strong leader’ declined from 70 percent to 59 percent." (“The
Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State,” Foreign
Affairs, March-April 2008)
In the same article Diamond cites the Philippines among more
than 50 democracies that are in "democratic recession," where
democracy is "at-risk." My own observation above is that Filipino democracy
has not been consolidated since its formal restoration following the EDSA Revolt in 1986
that ended the Marcos dictatorship of over 13 years. Diamond’s theory of democratic
consolidation is relevant.
“Emerging democracies must demonstrate that they can solve their
governance problems and meet their citizens' expectations for
freedom, justice, a better life, and a fairer society. If democracies do
not more effectively contain crime and corruption, generate
economic growth, relieve economic inequality, and secure freedom
and the rule of law, people will eventually lose faith and turn to
authoritarian alternatives. Struggling democracies must be
consolidated so that all levels of society become enduringly
committed to democracy as the best form of government and to
their country's constitutional norms and constraints.” (Larry
Diamond, “The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the
Predatory State.” Foreign Affairs, March-April 2008.)
Weak Sense of Vision and Direction
Because of our collective failures, somehow many seem to
feel that as a nation we have no vision, no common purpose
and goals, and no clear direction.
This is one of the worst failures of our national leaders. As a
whole, they have not focused our sights on our authentic and
authoritative vision and goals which are clearly stated in our
1987 Constitution. And on our emerging ideals of “good
governance.”
As transactional leaders they focus on the politics of
bargaining and patronage for their short-term, personal ends.
Reaction and Hope
As a palpable reaction, we are also witnessing a crescendo
of public dissatisfaction with our traditional politics,
leadership and governance.
There is rising demand for change to “a new politics” of
integrity and nationalism, to good leadership, good
citizenship, and good governance, towards a modern
society and democracy.
Some exceptional leaders in and outside the government are demonstrating
the possibility and reality of transforming leadership based on shared ideals
and goals and rising levels of morality of leaders and their followers that
promote the common good. In this regard Antonio Meloto who heads the
popular Gawad Kalinga housing and community development movement
stands out.
But we are far from tipping point….
Sad to admit, although some of our people may be buoyed by
rising hope and self-confidence, as a nation we are still far
from reaching the tipping point for enlightened, organized and
sustained “people power” that can effect progressive change
and reform. The weight of our traditional political culture and
our dysfunctional political system are still holding us down.
The massacre in Maguindanao
of 57 unarmed people,
including women and 30 journalists, on November 23, 2009, is a tragic
indicator of the failure of our political leadership and democratic
institutions on the whole. It reminds us that there are several other places
where the rule of law does not prevail.
The Vision of “the Good Society” and the Ideal State and
Government in our 1987 Constitution
“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order
(1) “to build a just and humane society”; and
(2) “establish a government that shall embody our ideals, promote the common
good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and
our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy---under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace,
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.” (Preamble.)
(3) “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides
in the people, and all government authority emanates from them.” (Art. II.
Sec. 1)
(4) “The prime duty of the Government is to serve the people.” (Art. II. Sec.4)
(5) “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all
time be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.” (Art. XI. Sec.1)
“Good Governance”
This concept and ideal of Filipino democracy has emerged
after over 13 years of authoritarian rule under President
Ferdinand Marcos. Blending Filipino and international ideals,
we understand “good governance” as manifesting these
features:
(1)people’s participation in free and fair elections and in policy
and decision-making made possible by an open and
accessible government in a free society with vigilant,
competent and responsible media;
(2) responsiveness of the government to the needs and demands
of the people who are informed, empowered and enabled to
express their will to their political leaders and civil servants;
(3) transparency and accountability of public servants in
response to the citizens’ will and their right to know (“the truth” in
governance) as the sovereign in a democracy;
(4) honesty and fidelity of public servants and the certain
punishment of those who are abusive and corrupt;
(5) efficiency and a sense of urgency in the exercise of power and
authority to make the best use of scarce resources, including
time especially;
(6) effectiveness in providing the needed public services, solving
problems, and achieving goals, all for the common good;
(7) the protection and enhancement of human rights and the
fulfillment of social justice;
(8) achieving ecological integrity and sustainable development;
and
(9) realizing “Pamathalaan,” the indigenous Filipino vision of
governance: “dedicated to the enhancement of man’s true
spiritual and material worth”…”through leadership by example,
reasonable management, unity (pagkakaisa) between the
governors and governed, and social harmony based on love
(pagmamahalan) and compassion (pagdadamayan). (Pablo S.
Trillana III. The Loves of Rizal, 2000. p. 179.)
A Vision of an Ideal Future Philippines
For my part, since 1987, I have composed verses, a poem if you will,
regarding a vision of our future as a nation in the global community. It
is largely based on the vision of “the Good Society” and the ideal
“democracy and good government” embodied in our 1987
Constitution. But I have elaborated on them as I learn of other ideas
and ideals that Filipinos may wish to consider in thinking about the
future of our Global Filipino Nation.
Here is my contribution to the quest for an inclusive and unifying
vision of our borderless Global Filipino Nation in which every
Filipino in the Motherland and overseas would have a significant
role to play and an important stake in its fulfillment.
A Vision of Our Ideal Future:
Building ‘The Good Society’ We Want
United under God, we shall develop
citizens and leaders who love our country,
and trust and challenge one another to solve
our problems and achieve our goals.
Upholding truth, honesty
and excellence, we shall work together
for the common good of all Filipinos
at home and around the globe.
For, conscious of our roots in Asia,
we are a Global Filipino Nation committed
to the well-being, security, and advancement
of all our people—and humankind.
We want to be free and peaceful,
united in our diversities, egalitarian,
prosperous, life-sustaining
and nonkilling.
In our quest for “the Good Life”
we shall focus on the poor
and powerless, the excluded,
exploited, and oppressed.
We shall achieve our vision of
“The Good Society” through good
citizenship, leadership and governance
in inclusive democracies.
And responsive, effective and
accountable institutions that enable us
to satisfy our needs and fulfill our lives
as individuals and as a nation.
As well shall we do our share
in shaping a just, humane, and
nonkilling world, and safe,
sustainable environments.
In sum, a Global Filipino Nation
that is God-centered—whose people
love and care for one another
near and far.