Wrong turn
Wrong turn
Updated 10:54pm (Mla time) Oct 11, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the October 12, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
THERE'S one disturbing thing the growing anxiety about the impending crisis -- deepened rather than dispelled by the food coupons government proposes to hand out to the hungry -- has sparked. That is the renewed talk about the possibility of emergency rule, or a plain authoritarian one, in this country. I've heard it in a number of fora lately: people wondering if an iron-fisted policy would not halt the economic decline, or forestall the riots.
I've even heard some people argue that iron-fisted rule might be good for democracy itself in the long run. Their argument runs thus: A stern ruler who has a vision, like Lee Kuan Yew or Mahathir, could arrest the slide and rev up the economic engine. A growing economy enlarges the scope of freedom, as witnessed by China, which has greatly relaxed its rigid political structures because of rapid growth. In the end democracy thrives in its fullest sense, with the citizens having both bread and freedom.
I thought the last anniversary of Ferdinand Marcos’ proclamation of martial law, which we marked only some weeks ago, would have put an end to this kind of speculation. But the specter of hunger seems to have revived it like an electric charge to an atrophied heart. The argument of course is not without its appeal -- it looks good on paper. But that is only on paper. Marcos himself used the same argument many years ago, and showed the only paper it looks good on is the kind used in the toilet.
I have three arguments against it.
The first is that the people who are likely to declare emergency or authoritarian rule in this country are the very ones who caused the problem to begin with. Marcos declared martial law in 1972 expressly to arrest the country's slide into anarchy and chaos and to reform an oligarchic society. That was all very well except that he himself was the reason for the anarchy and chaos -- he (and Imelda) had just about pissed off everyone in the country -- and he himself had contributed greatly to social inequality. The latter would deepen during martial law, with the emergence of his cronies and their collective pillage of the country.
The one who is likely to usher in authoritarian rule today is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the very person who caused the fiscal crisis (or contributed most to it), the slide into anarchy and chaos, and the deepening divide between the rich and the poor. The last being the kind people used to call "social volcano" before the 1972 proclamation of martial law. It doesn't take a brain scientist to figure out what would happen if the disease were to pose as the cure, if the problem were to pose as the solution. Martial law gives the answer: The anarchy and chaos would grow, the social divide would widen.
We'll probably see even more anarchy and chaos if it should happen this time because of one thing: Unlike Marcos, Ms Arroyo does not control the military.
My second argument against authoritarian rule, permanent or temporary, is that it misses the point about what makes other countries, particularly those in Southeast Asia, work. It is not authoritarianism. The various Southeast Asian countries have different political orders. Some are authoritarian (Malaysia, Singapore), some are liberal (Thailand, post-Suharto Indonesia), some are socialist (the Indochinese countries). Yet most of them have advanced tremendously. Malaysia and Singapore reduce us to scatological terms; and even Vietnam -- ravaged by a long and bitter war -- has caught up with us and is outstripping us. Clearly, what they have -- and we don't -- goes beyond the kind of political order they have.
What they have in fact -- and we don't -- is nationalism. Or for those who are allergic to the word, what they have-and we don't-is a sense of country, a sense of belonging to country, a passion for country. Several ways of saying the same thing. I cannot sufficiently belabor that point. Those countries have bigger crooks than us, but they have patriotic crooks. Suharto stole much more than Marcos, but he kept the money in Indonesia. Marcos stashed it abroad. Those are two different attitudes and ways of thinking, those are two different worldviews.
We want to copy from them-although that, too, is the one thing they have and we don't: They don't copy, they do things their way -- let us copy their (com)passion or “malasakit” for their country. That's what works for them, that's what works for any people. Name one country that has gotten ahead in life that has a people that want to belong to another country. We can experiment with all the social and political orders we want, but none of it will work if we expect to be elsewhere at the end of the day, or when doomsday comes.
My third reason against authoritarianism is that we have already tried it while we have yet to try democracy. Yes, that's right, democracy. That is something we've never had, at least in its essence, which is giving power to the people. We've had rebellions, we've had revolutions, we've even had people power, but we've never given power to the people. That is what democracy is all about. What makes a democracy is not a strong republic, it is a strong people. That is what makes America a democracy, that is what makes the various countries of Europe a democracy, that is what makes at least some socialist countries a democracy: Power is wielded by their people.
Laws are nothing if they cannot be enforced, and the only ones that can really enforce the law are the people, not cops or soldiers. It is the universal expectation that public officials may not steal, and the universal demand for retribution to fall on those that do, that prevent officials from stealing. That is something we do not have. We do not have a strong people. We do not have an order where power rests in the hands of the people. We do not have a democracy.
It's time we tried it.
Updated 10:54pm (Mla time) Oct 11, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the October 12, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
THERE'S one disturbing thing the growing anxiety about the impending crisis -- deepened rather than dispelled by the food coupons government proposes to hand out to the hungry -- has sparked. That is the renewed talk about the possibility of emergency rule, or a plain authoritarian one, in this country. I've heard it in a number of fora lately: people wondering if an iron-fisted policy would not halt the economic decline, or forestall the riots.
I've even heard some people argue that iron-fisted rule might be good for democracy itself in the long run. Their argument runs thus: A stern ruler who has a vision, like Lee Kuan Yew or Mahathir, could arrest the slide and rev up the economic engine. A growing economy enlarges the scope of freedom, as witnessed by China, which has greatly relaxed its rigid political structures because of rapid growth. In the end democracy thrives in its fullest sense, with the citizens having both bread and freedom.
I thought the last anniversary of Ferdinand Marcos’ proclamation of martial law, which we marked only some weeks ago, would have put an end to this kind of speculation. But the specter of hunger seems to have revived it like an electric charge to an atrophied heart. The argument of course is not without its appeal -- it looks good on paper. But that is only on paper. Marcos himself used the same argument many years ago, and showed the only paper it looks good on is the kind used in the toilet.
I have three arguments against it.
The first is that the people who are likely to declare emergency or authoritarian rule in this country are the very ones who caused the problem to begin with. Marcos declared martial law in 1972 expressly to arrest the country's slide into anarchy and chaos and to reform an oligarchic society. That was all very well except that he himself was the reason for the anarchy and chaos -- he (and Imelda) had just about pissed off everyone in the country -- and he himself had contributed greatly to social inequality. The latter would deepen during martial law, with the emergence of his cronies and their collective pillage of the country.
The one who is likely to usher in authoritarian rule today is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the very person who caused the fiscal crisis (or contributed most to it), the slide into anarchy and chaos, and the deepening divide between the rich and the poor. The last being the kind people used to call "social volcano" before the 1972 proclamation of martial law. It doesn't take a brain scientist to figure out what would happen if the disease were to pose as the cure, if the problem were to pose as the solution. Martial law gives the answer: The anarchy and chaos would grow, the social divide would widen.
We'll probably see even more anarchy and chaos if it should happen this time because of one thing: Unlike Marcos, Ms Arroyo does not control the military.
My second argument against authoritarian rule, permanent or temporary, is that it misses the point about what makes other countries, particularly those in Southeast Asia, work. It is not authoritarianism. The various Southeast Asian countries have different political orders. Some are authoritarian (Malaysia, Singapore), some are liberal (Thailand, post-Suharto Indonesia), some are socialist (the Indochinese countries). Yet most of them have advanced tremendously. Malaysia and Singapore reduce us to scatological terms; and even Vietnam -- ravaged by a long and bitter war -- has caught up with us and is outstripping us. Clearly, what they have -- and we don't -- goes beyond the kind of political order they have.
What they have in fact -- and we don't -- is nationalism. Or for those who are allergic to the word, what they have-and we don't-is a sense of country, a sense of belonging to country, a passion for country. Several ways of saying the same thing. I cannot sufficiently belabor that point. Those countries have bigger crooks than us, but they have patriotic crooks. Suharto stole much more than Marcos, but he kept the money in Indonesia. Marcos stashed it abroad. Those are two different attitudes and ways of thinking, those are two different worldviews.
We want to copy from them-although that, too, is the one thing they have and we don't: They don't copy, they do things their way -- let us copy their (com)passion or “malasakit” for their country. That's what works for them, that's what works for any people. Name one country that has gotten ahead in life that has a people that want to belong to another country. We can experiment with all the social and political orders we want, but none of it will work if we expect to be elsewhere at the end of the day, or when doomsday comes.
My third reason against authoritarianism is that we have already tried it while we have yet to try democracy. Yes, that's right, democracy. That is something we've never had, at least in its essence, which is giving power to the people. We've had rebellions, we've had revolutions, we've even had people power, but we've never given power to the people. That is what democracy is all about. What makes a democracy is not a strong republic, it is a strong people. That is what makes America a democracy, that is what makes the various countries of Europe a democracy, that is what makes at least some socialist countries a democracy: Power is wielded by their people.
Laws are nothing if they cannot be enforced, and the only ones that can really enforce the law are the people, not cops or soldiers. It is the universal expectation that public officials may not steal, and the universal demand for retribution to fall on those that do, that prevent officials from stealing. That is something we do not have. We do not have a strong people. We do not have an order where power rests in the hands of the people. We do not have a democracy.
It's time we tried it.
posted by Dante at 11:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home