‘Calibrated tolerance’

Where the public interest is concerned, the police and the authorities are not easily associated with a credible policy of "maximum tolerance". In this country, an aroused public expressing itself on critical issues of the day has always risked life and limb before the rhetorical preachers of maximum tolerance – those armed minions mostly lacking psychological balance and their constitutionally-mandated bosses often suffering from paranoid fits. Sadly, it appears to make little difference whether one entertains these thoughts in martial law times or mulls them after those fearful times presumably ended.

The current shibboleth is "calibrated tolerance". Since a thesaurus now attends all word processing programs, the authorities – expert word processors that they are – easily calibrate the public phrasing of illusory tolerance. Today’s announced policy of managing public rallies and demonstrations could quickly change from being "calibrated" to "measured", "graduated", or "regulated" tolerance. A short step further and thence "controlled", "coordinated" and "orchestrated" tolerance becomes inevitable. With orchestration, your aggressive, high serotonin political baton-wielder takes the lead and a whole nation soon find itself imperilled.

The simple objective of the authorities’ sophistic verbal gymnastics is to obscure the fact that their actual policy seeks to curb the free expression of views deeply critical of their administration. And where the authorities are markedly insecure for some reason, they may be tempted to intimidate citizens whose legitimate protests could embarass a visiting dignitary the authorities so desperately need to impress. The mask of "maximum tolerance" is shelved and that of "calibrated tolerance" is donned. Of course, neither mask has more than the thinnest patina of democratic tolerance so vitally needed in societies seriously committed to democratization.

There is actually something ominous about the present use of "calibrated tolerance" by the authorities. It rings much like "calibrated response" which cold warriors in the 50s and the 60s fancied. When the world was perceived to be locked in mortal struggle between good and evil, "calibrated response" was part of the vocabulary of most political strategists. Their calibrations went all the way to a nuclear scenario which called for all contending parties to be annihilated. The official doctrine was aptly called MAD, for mutually assured destruction.

Is the country perceived by the lead authorities and this administration to have warped back into cold war times and space? When citizens refuse to toe every line the authorities unilaterally lay down for them, are they to be viewed as incorrigible Darth Vaders, abominable Abu-Sayaff lovers or treasonous communist sympathizers who — like termites — must be exterminated in the holy crusade to build a nation’s strong republic? (Incidentally, as a matter of technically correct political vocabulary, a republic — however strong – and a democracy are not necessarily the same. Representative government always yields a republic. Only effective popular sovereignty guarantees the presence of a democracy. A strong republic where oligarchs control and where the citizenry has little say or influence in governance cannot be passed off as a democracy. What has to be targeted for is a strong democracy, which in all probability will also be a strong republic since representative government is practically unavoidable.)

National administrations cannot possibly pursue a policy of maximum tolerance with mindsets bespeaking cold-war perspectives. If-you-are-not-with-me-then-you-are-against-me orientations are not functional in times of crisis when a leadership must inspire people of various persuasions to undertake vital, collaborative work. A president who keeps dividing the people — at times by presenting alternatives that often define false choices or forced either-or’s — may eventually gain a page in the nation’s history, but it is highly doubtful that it will read well.

In an ironic sense, it is really the public that has practiced maximum tolerance as regards the antics, the corruption and the outright treason of many among those tasked constitutionally to serve this nation. Without being better educated about the historic realities of their nation, without being better organized in protecting their legitimate interests and, consequently, having to forego so much political efficacy, most Filipinos have had no choice but to practice maximum tolerance for their political leaders.

With greater national awareness and better political education, with increasingly effective organizational work, Filipinos themselves will see the need to drop their practice of maximum tolerance. When empowered citizens finally commit to a perspective of calibrated tolerance, the authorities shall have a truly good reason to tremble. One can mark this fortuitous event as the birth of a strong democracy in this part of the world.