Paranoia and political durability

In ancient Greece, a young, newly-crowned king wondered about how he might hold on to his throne longest. Around him were numerous adversaries, many with personal grudges as well as economic and political grievances on his account. Practically all of these people would be interested in his rule being as short as possible.

In the course of his frantic search for the secret of political endurance, he was told about a ruler who had remained in power for over half a century. So, leaving his kingdom to one of his most trusted followers, he sought the patently durable ruler and requested the latter to assist him in his concern.

The ruler – well-known, much respected and, most of all, a feared tyrant – took the young king to a cornfield. Before his rather puzzled guest, he unsheathed his sword, moved into the dense field, and started cutting down every cornstalk at least breast-high or taller. Done with this heuristic exercise, the ruler returned to his still uncomprehending spectator and bade the youth return to his own kingdom.

History does not record whether the young king benefited much from his tutorial experience. No chronicle exists of this young king wielding political power as effectively or as long as his alien tutor.

In those times, inciden-tally, a tyrant was not necessarily an evil or malignant ruler. The term "tiranos" — borrowed by the Greeks from the Lydians – referred to anyone who became king or ruler without following the legitimate course or procedures sanctioned by either tradition or the law, someone who by a stroke of fortune or perhaps some exceptional craft riuses to power in this procedurally defective way. The displaced rulers and their sympathizers — often oligarchs overwhelmed by the poorer classes led by popular demagogues — tagged their political successors with illegitimacy and referred to them as tyrants. Since the new rulers often turned out to be a undesirable as the authorities they overturned — power’s ability to corrupt apparently having universal application – tyrants eventually gained the modern sense of being corrupt and self-serving rulers.

It is quite probable that our homegrown politicians also have come across this particular narrative. Being much brighter than the story’s youthful king, it is likely that they do not puzzle over the tyrant’s action. When some of them rise to the highest positions of power in Philippine politics, they could well recall what they came across, understood well and now are in a position to implement.

There is a problem however. One cannot simply act as the efficient tyrant in the story, summarily cutting down anyone who appears to be a possible competitor in political preeminence. Philippine society may appreciate effectiveness and efficiency but it does not take kindly to gross demonstrations of political or personal ruthlessness. Political eminences here have to be more sophisticated, more circumspect and more illusive. Their demolitional language and actions need to conform with what most Filipinos would consider humane ("makatao") and will always have to be fully in keeping with a person’s self-respect ("marangal"). At the very least, when one cuts down real or imagined contenders to one’s political supremacy, s/he would have to be guided by these and similar constraints called for by our national culture.

A sense of timing is crucial. In cutting down one’s competition, real as well as fancied, one has to bide one’s time. People are irreparably turned off when a powerful political figure appears to slash at someone because of pique (as in when someone loses his or her cool because of "pagkapikon") or from some other knee-jerk reaction to whatever causes someone to lose his or her equanimity if only momentarily.

Paranoia may appear to be a functional orientation for insecure political leaders, especially those who clearly are tyrants in the modern sense of the term. Still, even for incorrigible tyrants, paranoia and the actions it provokes cannot be publicly projected without losing tremendous political capital. Public sarcasm as well as public terror — predictable popular reactions to paranoid rule – never contributed lasting capital to history’s stricken rulers. It is really best to avoid paranoid thinking when one engages in contemporary politics. However, when avoidance for any reason is not possible, the smarter politicians instinctively do everything to conceal their paranoia as best they can.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a dearth even of simply smart politicians nowadays. Those who go beyond and search for patriots, nationalists and maharlikas among our politicians do chase the wind. None-too-smart, paranoid types are the often the only ones in abundant supply. They reach all the way up to the very summit of formal governance in this country. Pitiful politics, indeed!