THE BIRTH OF PATRONAGE POLITICS AND HOW TO
END IT
• Based on Rene Azurin's remarks at the 2014 PEN National
Conference
The
distinguished historian Teodoro Agoncillo recounted how the president of the
then budding Philippine Republic, General Emilio Aguinaldo, referred to his
newfound adviser, Apolinario Mabini, the question of granting agricultural
lands in Pampanga to a long-time ally and general of the revolutionary army.
Mabini, taken aback, protested, “What will the people say if we who are in
power abuse it for our own benefit?”
It is
interesting that this moral issue already had to be confronted even as the
nation was still being born. Even more interesting is that a Filipino leader of
that period had unhesitatingly produced the correct response to that moral and
ethical question. The land-seeking general was not given the land he coveted.
Sadly, though,
that is only part of that story. Shortly afterwards, despite vigorous opposition
from the morally scrupulous Mabini and his allies, the moneyed and propertied
class in the Malolos Congress – who Agoncillo picturesquely described in an
essay as “men who conjugated the verb ‘to serve’ to mean ‘to grasp’” – managed
to effectively capture government by giving themselves strong discretionary
powers over public funds and the allocation of public resources.
The consequences of Mabini’s lost
battle in 1858 clearly hounds all Filipinos today. Tremendous discretionary
power over public funds, public resources, and public policies is vested in
those who capture control of government, and that power has been consolidated,
increased, refined, guarded, and avariciously used over the years by the
nation’s politicos for their own private and personal gain. Irrespective of any
labels or party names that all the presidents, senators, congressmen,
governors, mayors, and other government officials have attached to themselves over
the last 156 years since, all have been joined – save only for a shamefully
miniscule few – by the notion that the positions they occupy are opportunities
“to grasp” and not “to serve”. These valiant few naturally failed to perpetuate
their watch to serve.
By its very nature, of course, it is
inescapable that power is vested in government and, by extension, in government
officials. Because, however, it is not reasonable to expect that our public
officials will be as moral or as ethical as the “sublime” Mabini, their powers
should be strictly limited, constantly monitored, and held always in check.
Discretionary allocations in the national budget – like the huge presidential
discretionary funds and legislative pork barrel – should be eliminated
altogether. The decisions to award public projects should always be minutely
scrutinized, publicly justified, and never cloaked in “executive privilege”.
The discretion to impose regulations on economic activities should always be
seriously questioned and constrained. Finally, a system for ferreting out,
censuring, and punishing erring public officials should be in place and
operating effectively. All these imply a watchful citizenry, a vigilant and
fearless media, an equitable rule of law, and a working justice system.
Sadly,
our society is severely deficient in all these.
The morality of our highest public
officials has actually been on a steady decline since Mabini’s time. When
Mabini’s valiant efforts failed to overcome the machinations of the political
and economic elite of his time, government essentially became a tool that could
be easily exploited for private gain by the morally corrupt. Accordingly,
public office – and the enormous power associated with it – has become in our
society the vehicle of choice enroute to riches and wealth.
In theory, the
extent of government power is specified by the role the people assign to it. In
practice, that role is actually determined by the latitude the political class
is given to arrogate powers unto themselves. Unfortunately, “the people” –
being a dispersed, diffuse mass – being subservient to those in power have no
real ability to limit that latitude. It is therefore left to other organized
institutions of society – such as civic groups, business groups, advocacy
movements, professional associations, religious institutions, academic
institutions, and responsible media – to try to circumscribe the role of
government and the powers of government officials, and then hold them to
account.
Power – we
must bear in mind – is realistically checked only by power. Citizens, even in
democracies with constitutions spelling out their bill of rights, must realize
that they do not, as individuals, have the weight nor the force to prevent
government officials wielding the concerted power of the state from doing
anything they are bent on doing. Government, unchecked, can overwhelm any
citizen or group of citizens. And, in the effort to maintain power and to
continue to rule, governing elites commonly weave great webs of deception and
maintain a whole structure of public lies.
So what can we
– the powerless in society – do?
Fortunately
the dawn of social media is upon us. Political discussion in blogs presaged the
turn of popular opinion in both Tunisia and Egypt. In Tunisia, conversations
about liberty, democracy and revolution on blogs and on twitter often
immediately preceded mass protests” (“New Study Quantifies”).
Blogging is a
way to give readers information – much better than putting up posters or
relying on printed broadsheets. It also conveys to members the highly
motivating realization that they have big numbers – people who know their
pro-democracy Facebook group has 70,000 members will be much more excited and
less fearful than people unaware they are part of a big group. And it is an
efficient way to transfer skills and information” (Rosenberg).
One of the
leading social media movement proponents in the US is New York University
professor Clay Shirky, author of 'Here Comes Everybody'. He believes that “the
more promising way to think about social media is as long-term tools that can
strengthen civil society and the public sphere” and “social media can
compensate for the disadvantages of undisciplined groups by reducing the costs
of coordination. Larger, looser groups can now take on some kinds of
coordinated action, such as protest movements and public media campaigns that
were previously reserved for formal organizations. For political movements, one
of the main forms of coordination is what the military calls ‘shared
awareness,’ the ability of each member of a group to not only understand the
situation at hand, but also understand that everyone else does too. Social
media increase shared awareness by propagating messages through social
networks. Political culture heightens the conservative dilemma by providing
cover for more political uses of social media. Tools specifically designed for
dissident use are politically easy for the state to shut down, whereas tools in
broad use become much harder to censor without risking politicizing the larger
group of otherwise apolitical actors” (Shirky). Regime shutdowns, which
technologically savvy protestors have proven to be fairly adept at subverting,
alert the international community to problems within countries.
“New media can
have an impact by helping to transform individuals and give them new
competencies that empower them in politics. This can be something as simple as
taking a picture or a video with a smartphone, uploading that image of that
footage to YouTube” A second impact is “the way that new media draws external
attention from citizens and governments outside the country or the region to
that country or region to the place that is experiencing protest or conflict”.
In this sense, social media are a megaphone. “It is difficult to prove that
communication via new media or social media is actually what brings people to
the streets, especially in societies which have relatively low degrees of
Internet penetration and Internet access. Perhaps the best illustration of the
threat this information poses to authoritarian governments is their reaction to
it, states that have made a number of efforts to rein in speech and Internet”.
Conclusion
Before the
advent of social media, traditional media played an important role in a
democratic society. “The media is often referred to as the fourth estate, more
or less on the same altitude as the classical democratic powers of the
judiciary, the executive and the legislative.” Its role is supposed to
enlighten and inform the citizens so that they are in the position to make reasonable
political decisions.
Further, we
citizens must be committed to speaking out in defense of our democratic rights
and freedoms and in upholding our society’s institutions and values even when
the mighty power of government is wielded against us.
Writers should not
be indifferent to the events going on in the society where they live. We are
part of what goes on around us and what we impart reflects the values we
believe should govern our community. In that sense, all writing is political.
The Tamil
writer Poopathy wrote, “Literature is not a way to merrily spend one’s time,
but a way to awaken society. Writers have a social responsibility to tell the
truth that may help the progression of society.” The role of a writer is not to
say what we all can say, but to say what we are unable to say.
To end, It is
recognized that the Philippines is the social networking capital of the world. So,
those who care for the future of our beloved country should join the ranks of
social media practitioners; blogging, You Tube. Facebook, Twitter, etc. By exposing the lies and deception perpetuated
in Philippine media, responsible social media can rule out inferior political
lameducks thus exposing the worthy candidates.
“We may have found a cure for most evils; but we have found no remedy for
the worst of them all, the apathy of human beings.”
Helen Keller
