1. What governmental power was exercised above and in what way?
Among the three fundamental powers of the state, the very evident in the situation
presented is the eminent domain or the power vested in government to acquire and/or
redeem property upon payment or compensation.
Evidenced in the bargaining that had happened, the businessman challenged the
president to stabilize the peace and order of the country through which his business would
be protected. With all the analysis President Rigwa and other members of the Senate made,
they believed that informal settlers are the primary suspects in the proliferation of
criminality in the country. On its definition, informal settlers are those people who are
occupying a territory without a title or right to do so.
Now, the state, headed by President Rigwa, decided to claim the land which this
move is greatly supported by the Regalian Doctrine – as stated in the constitution, all lands
of the public domain belong to the state. He claimed the land by passing a law by which
informal settlements are hereof prohibited in the country. Although the purpose of claiming
such is somehow biased since there is already a conflict of interest, the action which the
executive and legislative branches of the government took is a great manifestation of their
plan to dismantle and remove informal settlers from their sight. As such, the eminent
domain is highly emphasized and utilized in the situation presented.
Another governmental power present is the power to create and enforce law as a
manner of controlling the society. Although it was not highlighted massively, the process
by which the president and other members of the government introduced and even had
passed law is proving a point that the state has that power to control and force people to act
or behave accordingly by restraining and regulating their liberty. With the help of the
constitution or the law, they define what is right and what is acceptable – in the context of
informal settlements, the enactment of such law is then a great indicator of the power and
authority vested in the president and the government which he is ruling over.
2. What makes Rigwa’s exercise of power and authority legitimate?
Rigwa is the president of a democratic country which means that he was elected
by the people. Associated with his position is a great power to head the country and the
authority to regulate and assert lawful policies and rules. This power and authority is
greatly defined by the constitution of a certain country.
In all forms, those who had been elected as presidents were given that supreme
power to enforce laws which the Congress passed, formulate and impose necessary
sanctions, build and maintain good relations with foreign countries and even investors, and
represent the best interests of the people. Such power can only be exercised by the president
alone for he has the authority to do so.
Placing such narrative in the context of the situation presented, the law which the
congress authored was passed and enacted with the approval of the president – a great
manifestation of the legitimacy of Rigwa’s power and authority as the head of the country.
With all means, he has the final say; although the country is following a democratic system
wherein power has been given to the people as a whole, but the president is still the most
responsible to make rational choices and decisions within the legal and ethical standards
of the constitution.
3. Does PALENGKERA, BINDITADOS, and SANKAPUNTA have power in the society,
why?
The members of these social movements are citizens of the country. With the
underlying tenets and principles of a democratic political system, the people has that power.
In the situation presented, the “people” is represented by the social movements.
Whether the members – the priests, nuns, or motorcycle riders – have certain positions and
status in the society, their collective call and stance against the violation of humanitarian
rights is a great indicator of their power as concerned citizens. Although, their power is not
encompassing to enactment of laws but the very essence of the core value of democracy
which is placing the citizens in the heart of the state, is having that power to call, influence,
or even force those who are seated in positions to make rational and humane actions. They
also have the power to criticize as they have that liberty and freedom to express their dissent
and disappointment to the recent course of action of the government. The right to gather
and push for a social movement is also a power that these groups possess.
Despite that their call did not prevail, it cannot be denied that they still have the
capability to push and ask for accountability from the government during times when they
are already failing to serve the interests of the people and protecting their human rights.
4. Looking at the above scenario, how would the Marxist’s view country X?
Karl Marx is very known for the way he criticizes the opportunities and favors
given to the dominant class which further oppresses the lower classes. He was also an
activist which pushed for a classless society to have just and equal society.
With the lens of a Marxist, the country X is highly biased and unjust. Since such
view highly emphasized that the state represents and operates for the interests of the
dominant class alone, the proletariat who are then exploited because of the poverty and has
not been given any opportunities to lift their lives up, became much more prone to
oppression and subjugation. As seen in the situation, the government indeed favors those
who are wealthier and can provide more. It is with this narrative that the concept of
inequality is further established. Because of the aim of the president to boost the economic
standing of the country, he bargained between foreign investors. This situation is greatly
unfair for the government sided with the investor and let his people suffer from their
decisions. Hence, it is again a great manifestation of how the state as political institution is
selective – only for the ruling class.
In another context, it can be assumed that the state saw that prioritizing the demands
of the bourgeoise will greatly benefit the country, especially themselves. Maybe the country
was able to increase its income per capita and even ranked 2 nd in Asia in terms of good
economic standing, but the mechanisms and even the process to achieve certain title is very
inhumane and exploitative. Not giving importance to the needs and demands of the
working class is a form of abuse and neglect which tolerate the occurrence of inequality in
society – it seems like what is more important is what the ruling class wants and not the
needs of the most oppressed sector in the society.
5. Is the prevailing political system of any nation determinative of the political behaviors
in the society, why?
In Sociological lenses, all institutions in society are interconnected – the system in
one affects the other and vice versa. The mechanisms in placed has also an immense effect
on how people would live, behave, and act. With this notion, the political system is a great
determinative of the political behaviours in the society as such system defines the
systematical process, the mores, and even the sanctions that would be imposed amidst
dysfunctions and irregularities.
Take for instance the nations which have democratic political system. One of the
best examples of political behaviour found within is the suffrage or the right to vote. The
president or the head of the executive branch of the government is elected not appointed.
It greatly explains that the power is in the people as a collective participant or stakeholder.
Thus, the people are expected to exercise their rights to vote during elections. There is also
an emphasis on liberty and freedom as they are free to express their dissent and critiques
towards the decisions made by the government. People can organize protests, social
movements and the like. However, these political behaviours cannot be accepted if the
political system is not democratic. When the political system of a nation is
authoritarianism, definitely the people are not allowed or are denied to participate in
politics – meaning, all decisions are exclusively within the government and it will not
consider the demands of the people. Worse case, people who are great critics of the
government might be jailed or killed.
The political system can be compared to a codes or algorithm installed in a
software. It dictates and defines what is allowed, and what is punishable. It regulates the
power vested in each individual and sectors of society. These principles would then limit
or control the behaviours of individuals regarding politics in general and in their social
participation in particular. If they are allowed, they would; if they weren’t, they might still
do it but with great threats and danger which could cost them their lives.