Involvement & intervention

In modern societies, involvement is unavoidable and most of the time good. The pressures that made human beings form communities in early times have intensified and now hardly anyone thinks of solitary existence as a practical alternative. Materially, intellectually and spiritually, people have become so interdependent and their involvement in each other’s human concerns has become mandatory. Borders that earlier circumscribed human societies are increasingly yielding and so families, ethnic groups, nations, even cultures and civilizations have become interactive parts of a globally seamless web of human relations.

It is probably not accidental that a most powerful icon of modern times is the "Internet" – a technological tool enabling humans living in accelerated times and incredibly compressed space to link with each other practically instantly wherever they might be.

Involvement facilitates intervention. Where people are endowed with sufficient compassion and maturity, their intervention is usually in the direction of ameliorating the human condition. Historically, there has not been a greater sense of shared responsibility worldwide to minimize poverty, corruption, illnesses, human trafficking, wars, tyrannies and other afflictions. Unprecedented is the current sense of popular involvement and activist intervention in environmental protection, species preservation, democratization and overall humanization.

The more developed a society is, the clearer the public’s sense of what has to be done to assist the less fortunate in gaining and sustaining a properly human stature. Thus, in the more productive and equitable societies worldwide, people are prone early in life to involve themselves in societal concerns, to undertake both proactive and reactive measures in managing their most pressing human imperatives. Citizens in such societies learn early enough to appreciate the need for intelligent assessments of their objective condition and the role that political empowerment plays in effecting desirable societal outcomes. This critical mindset makes democratization inevitable, a matter of course.

How else can it be when involvement and intervention are predicated of mostly everyone?

The situation is different for most societies euphemistically called "developing" or "underdeveloped". Here, it is usually the case that while involvement might be the domain of most people, intervention is reserved for a special few – mostly those who have consolidated enormous economic resources by impoverishing their citizenry and wield political power with little or no public accountability.

In these unfortunate societies, the trappings of humanized existence are prominently displayed. Paper constitutions, hollow institutions, falsified religions and lofty rhetoric superficially define the life of most people. For everyone, the good life is supposedly just around the corner and the best is always yet to come. From one political administration to another, the clarion call is for patriotic unity. Victims and victimizers are enjoined to think beyond personal circumstances and to have in mind only their collective good. Robbed and robbers, raped and rapists, plundered and plunderers, traitors and patriots — all are supposed to be overwhelmed by the sense of a common good, all are exhorted to collaborate in a collective enterprise to build a strong republic, a democratic order and a fully human community.

Nobody loses, everyone wins. Win-win solutions are floated for every conceivable problem.

Everyone must be involved, but only the powerful and influential can and must effectively intervene. This political subtext has powerfully influenced the history of most underdeveloped societies. It has subverted much of the gains that so-called waves of democratization might have made worldwide in the past hundred years.

In the specific case of Filipinos, this line – involvement for all, intervention for some – is clearly wearing thin. As a new millennium starts, they regard their governance institutions and authorities with extreme skepticism, by this time perhaps even with irreversible cynicism. Across a hundred years of colonial administration and national rule, there is precious little to indicate that the material or spiritual life of most Filipinos has improved. On the contrary, there is much evidence suggesting the horrible idea of deepening national immiserization. Within this punishing context, one finds it natural for so much frustration, hopelessness and anger to be felt by so many people.

At no time in its history has this nation faced a more critical challenge than at present. With highly discredited authorities unable to effectively govern, with various forces threatening to break loose and create anarchy within their much despoiled country, patriotic Filipinos may decide not to shirk their moment of truth much longer.

Really, would Filipinos, already much involved, now dare to intervene and force a real paradigm shift in the way this nation is governed? Would they dare undertake a no-nonsense democratization of Philippine society?

If they did, the nation will take little time disposing of sideshows like the Oakwood mutiny, the Pidal accounts, the Davide impeachment and similar minor distractions. Even the elections of 2004 may have to be postponed as Filipinos dedicate themselves to the truly daunting challenge of a lasting regime change.