What does the Filipino want? — not this, not that
The most recent Pulse Asia survey which shows how low in credibility and trust ratings the present dispensation has sunk into, when taken in conjunction with the rainbow of statements—from outright calls for the President’s resignation to carefully-nuanced appeals for transparency and accountability in government—should have galvanized the middle class and the general public into some form or action. So far, nothing yet. For the moment, the status quo holds.
The political indecision and impasse bedeviling the Filipino today is a case of “not this, not that”. Not GMA, not the Opposition. Most emphatically not those whom the public perceive as representing vested interests. The walk-out by some groups when known political figures went up the stage during the Feb 29
Social change entails moving into uncharted political seas. Hence, the problem of social change boils down to two questions: (1) What sort of superior persuasion will eventually induce the status quo to yield to change? ; (2) What non-violent means can the public use to make their demands heard and obeyed?
At the outbreak of the 1896 Philippine Revolution, Jose Rizal emphasized that armed conflict was just one part of the equation; the civic factor was the more critical and determining part. In his book, “The Roots of the Filipino Nation”, Onofre Corpuz commented on Rizal’s reservations: “A revolution by the upper classes ends when victory in arms is won; the purpose of this revolution is the transfer of political power into the hands of the victorious upper class bloc. This is because justice to the upper classes means simply that they hold power. On the other hand a people’s revolution is won not in the mere change of political power; it is not won until after social justice has been established in the post-revolution society. (emphasis supplied) This just society is impossible without democracy, without the people participating effectively in political power, and therefore the Filipino Revolution, the people’s revolution, was aimed at the collective goals of national liberty, social justice, and popular democracy.”
Two years later, Apolinario Mabini, in his “La Revolución Filipina”, warned: “In order to build the proper edifice of our social regeneration, it is imperative that we change radically not only our institutions but also our manner of behaving and thinking. It is necessary to have both an external and internal revolution (emphasis supplied) by establishing our moral education on a more solid foundation and purging ourselves of those vices, the majority of which we have inherited from the Spaniards. Should we not have these conditions, our people will find themselves daily more decimated and impoverished by civil war and internal dissensions until they will be completely annihilated, with the generous blood of our martyrs unable to prevent it.”
Rizal and Mabini hit the bulls-eye in explaining our inability to unite and move as one. After decades of glowing promises, ringing rhetoric, and high expectations, the stark realities of worsening poverty, graft and corruption, shameless arrogance, and brazen attitude of impunity by public officials have led public opinion to say: “Pare-pareho lang sila.” (They’re the same.)
Despite this current sense of drift, it is possible to break through the political paralysis. The converging calls by many sectors to search for truth, for transparency, accountability and responsibility from government suggest that Filipinos may already have started their journey toward real social change and not merely choreographed transitions of political power.
What is vital now is for these diverse groups to communicate with each other, enhance their linkages, and refine their skills in social dialogue founded on reciprocal openness, honesty, and fairness to one another.
Implied in this is the conscious decision and determination to allow everyone ‑ regardless of past political links and ideological beliefs ‑ to actively participate in this communal effort, provided that he / she who joins must commit himself / herself to live according to the new standards of personal ethics and social values which the movement espouses. This means mutual verification: we must consistently check each other whether our walk matches our talk.
Commitment to seeing as much of the truth as possible also means that we cannot afford to categorize ourselves versus others. Any self-righteous attitude or exclusiveness is fatal to the movement, because the ultimate goal is to discover a wider vista of truth and justice, not to achieve victory over the opponent. Mutual verification and all-inclusiveness are twin partners.
Above all, the search for truth will require from every adherent an unflinching willingness to shoulder any sacrifice occasioned by the struggle which he/she has initiated, rather than pushing such sacrifice or suffering to others. There is no room for cowards and back-sliders in the journey to the truth.
* * *
Julio Rey B. Hidalgo is an advocate for a truly nationalist policy founded on a real democracy. He was a member of the 1992 campaign team of then presidential candidate Fidel V. Ramos and also a member of the 1996-97 campaign planning team for Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He was a member of the Council on Philippine Affairs (COPA) from 2000 to 2003.
- Latest
