Political reforms must begin in the mind by changing our ideas and attitudes about democratic governance. While the political crisis for the moment is correctly focused in removing Erap, there is a growing anxiety that however his ouster is managed the incoming government will not be any different. Why? Because the habits of thought that produced Erap's government will still be there and these will be repeated in the succeeding government. With the memory of the failed expectations of EDSA 1 still haunting the reformists and activists of ’86, there is a lot of talk about changing the system. But what do they really mean by changing the system? There is a lot of talk but so little understanding. Some have used the term
structural reform but I think such lip service to change will yet again raise expectations that will not be fulfilled. On the other hand, having been burned in 1986, people are also more cautious. The incoming government will have a tough job if its reforms are limited to tinkering with the present system without changing the underlying rationality that brought about Erap’s disastrous governance.
We should hire,
not vote for officials to run our country. One habit of thought that can stand changing is the way we approach the selection of officials to run our country. How a popular actor like Erap became President of the Philippines is the result of that unfortunate habit of thought. If we stop to rethink our notion of voting for an official, we will find a serious flaw – somewhere along the line elections have become a mere contest on the "number of votes"; hence, the country’s descent into the abyss of electing the most popular official, no matter how thoroughly unqualified the candidate is. That is how we got Erap and the current political crisis. Because of the contest for the greatest number of votes, elections have become divorced from its original intent and purpose which is to select competent officials to run the country. The contest for the greatest number of votes in an election assumes a contest of equals so that any of the standing candidates could fully discharge the job description being called for – in this case, a man or woman of such mettle that he or she can run a country of more than 75 million people with the grace, dignity and expertise called for. The concept of voting has been so mangled that the substantive portion of the process is now completely left out. What is left is only the counting of votes. It is my contention that we can start with election reforms by changing the way we think about elections. The most important aspect of elections is that it is an exercise through which we select the very best men and women qualified for public office. In effect, voters each election day are selecting men and women who will be hired to do the job of governance. If we have a plumbing job to do we hire a plumber, if an electric job, we hire an electrician, a lawyer for a legal case, etc. That may be a modest beginning but if developed through many years will finally bring home to voters just what they are doing when they go to the polls. They are not just voting. They are hiring. Indeed, I do not see any reason why we should not change the entire lexicon of elections by hammering in the minds of our citizenry that come election day the sovereign citizenry is hiring its managers.The necessary corollary of hiring managers is they can also be fired when they do a bad job.
Almonte formula for good governance. I received a faxed note from General Jose Almonte who says that from now on he will be sending his ideas to friends so that he will not be regarded as "merely operating in the shadows." He thinks the dismissal of the Estrada Administration is now only a matter of time and that like most thinking Filipinos he is more concerned about the next government. He gives a two-point basis by which we might judge Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo's sincerity about reforms – promoting direct democracy and ensuring a level playing field of enterprise. What I found interesting in his note was his observation that President Estrada’s excesses will enable his successor administration to carry out relatively radical political and economic reforms that would not have been possible in the course of a routine succession.
"This time civil society, big business and even the politicians are primed to accept substantive changes in our political and economic systems – to prevent crisis such as today's from recurring.The next Administration must seize this chance history offers to excise the culture of cronyism from national society. The next administration must incorporate in the management of the Philippine state from now on the lessons of 1986 and 2000. The two key lessons we should draw from these successive crises are that we promote direct democracy and that we level the playing field of enterprise." Although I share General Almonte’s enthusiasm for direct democracy and a level playing field, I am not optimistic that these reforms can be addressed for the reasons I have stated above. Unless we change our habits of thought with regard to the way citizens relate to their government and vice versa, we will end up doing the same things all over again. The reforms he speaks of presumes an incorruptible Supreme Court and COMELEC to even get a people’s initiative into first base. Unless more fundamental difficulties such as the way we think and what we live for are addressed first, essential political reforms will not be successful. In a way, these reforms beg the question because it assumes what is in fact the goal – good governance. Holders of power being human beings will not so easily give up their privileged positions to make way for a level playing field.
Contrast between Singapore and the Philippines. For all those who may be feeling depressed at recent events in our country, it is not all gloom. A few weeks ago, I was in Singapore to meet up with our youngest son, Eduardo who works as director of research for the Pacific Economic Council Secretariat in Singapore. This being my first visit, Singapore was a startling discovery for me. I’ve heard people criticize it as an antiseptic city, full of rules but to me, it remains a fact that the material quality of life in Singapore is superior to Manila’s. Yet I was soon to question that depressed mood. It was a Malaysian, art curator Willy Valentine who showed me how wrong it was for a Filipino to feel bad about Singapore's success. He said Filipinos are quietly blazing trails for an understanding that is wider and deeper than what Singapore has achieved.
Singapore may be about material success but the Philippines is about a spiritual discovery springing from the angst of failure. In an absolute order, when one looks for the justification of life, of a nation, the country with spirituality but inferior material possessions has nothing to be ashamed of. Maybe we should stop trying to be another Singapore. Or criticize ourselves for having done less. That is not our role in Asia. Our role is to demonstrate that material success is only one aspect of a nation, there is much more and certainly this was spectacularly demonstrated by some of the most powerful Filipino murals on display in Valentine's art exhibit that sunny morning.
My e-mail address is:
c.pedrosa@qinet.net