Category: elections

bongbong’s crowds — the voice of god ?!?

vox populi, vox dei — the voice of the people is the voice of god — so say the arroyo-estrada-duterte-marcos gangs who are ecstatic at the optic message that the bongbong-sara crowds, hakot and / or not, are sending to a sadly easily impressed electorate.  inez ponce de leon rightly asks: which people and which god?

We… The Circus?

Ireland is experiencing a shortage of clowns.

This was trivia tweeted in late September. The response to it was universal: does Ireland want our politicians? We can send them over!

It’s a response that rings truer each day as the Philippines heads toward the 2022 elections. A former activist lawyer joins the senatorial slate of the son of the former dictator. A current senator withdraws his candidacy for president. Arroyo, Duterte, Estrada, and Marcos come together to form a mega-clan of political families, all with the purpose of backing the Marcos Jr./Duterte Jr. tandem.

This coalition boasts that it has the majority, and points to the shouts of the many crowds that greet it. Vox populi, vox Dei; the voice of the people is the voice of God.

But wait … which people and which God?

The Latin phrase has been invoked so often that it is in danger of being misused. It appears to allude to Cicero’s idea of the people with a voice. However, Cicero was not talking about all people and just any voice: His concept was reserved for those who carried out clear and informed argumentation, at venues that allowed introspection and reflection. The first known use of the actual phrase is in a letter to Charlemagne by Alcuin: “And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”

The key, then, is not to simply believe in the crowds. Instead, there is a need to critically examine anyone who claims to be the majority. What exactly is this group doing that must merit a vote, regardless of how many people appear to support it?

This so-called “UniTeam” is led by politicians who promise to pull the country out of poverty, but have yet to answer charges of tax evasion, produce tangible proof of their education, or demonstrate ability to govern on the national level. This super-party has led caravans across bridges for dramatic meetings, or through a major highway where it held up traffic for hours. The voice of the people is assumed to be shouts, honking horns, crowds scrambling over each other for free t-shirts.

But what about the people handing out hot rice porridge? The people putting together meal packs for poor families? The people creating pink Christmas lanterns and selling them for charity? The supporters cleaning up parks, organizing free rides, listening to citizens who are not online? Are their voices any less loud because they aren’t shouting into a microphone? Are they any less united because they aren’t publicly signing coalition agreements?

The “UniTeam” seems to be yet another group that expects its followers to speak with one voice and espouse one belief. There is no space for dissent, no room for divergent thinking that will allow us to examine the many facets of our problems, no allowance for differing opinions that will help us have actual representation in government. This is not unity in diversity, or unity in allowing different groups with disparate interests to work together. This is a coalition that builds walls to close its ranks, and then delights in division.

This “UniTeam” has simply shown that it can attract attention, inconvenience motorists, and put people at risk during a pandemic. The caravan was not a show of support; it was a demonstration of how the candidates could manipulate crowds and exploit the desperation of people, and it sets a frightening scenario of what we can expect should we allow these candidates to win. To allow them space in our political arena would mean that we would willingly submit to be their monkeys, to play their games, to listen to the lies of a so-called voice of the people.

If we allow this to happen, then they are not the circus.

We are.

And we will continue to be the circus if we simply fall for the noise instead of recognizing the work of those who do good things quietly, who inspire many to goodness in silence.

Our vote is only the voice of God when it remembers history and accepts the truth: that we the people are not playthings for politicians. We will not be followers of a caravan whose red colors speak so clearly of the bloodshed during the Marcos dictatorship. We are people with dignity and compassion, and we will not fall for the madness of a circus yet again.

iponcedeleon@ateneo.edu

the sara & bongbong show

nung pinakawalan ang tsismosong si cong. joey salceda with the news that davao mayor sara duterte wants to run for president, naturally the big question was, with bongbong marcos or not?  is bongbong sliding down to accommodate her?  because everybody knows that if they don’t join forces, they’d split the marcos-dutz / admin vote.  talo pareho.

but salceda, like a true gma soldier, could not, would not, be baited about bongbong.  sara’s instructions daw were simple: “just focus on me.”  which joey takes to mean, talk about me and only me, not bongbong.

well, bongbong is speaking for himself, and of course he isn’t sliding down, why ever would he when the surveys say his numbers are up.  lalo na’t he already did that, slide down, in 2016 in deference to dutz, to imelda’s great disappointment,  and where did THAT get him?!?  talo na nga sa bilangan, talo pa uli sa recount.  loozvaldez, sey ng mga bading.  besides, walang marcos na umaatras, sey ni bong2.  LOL.

obvious naman that imelda, imee, and bongbong are desperate to get back to the palace — i think they think it’s where they belong, seriously — and they’re not about to give up the momentum they’ve gained after a lot of hard work and hard spending.

nonetheless bongbong could use a runningmate who would bring in the duterte votes, and i imagine that they’re willing to pay the price.

it’s complicated for sara because the super popular senate prez and eat bulaga icon tito sotto could prove unbeatable. i imagine that right  now she’s negotiating win-or-lose conditions in case bongbong wins and she doesn’t:  like immunity from suit for old man dutz — nagawa iyan for enrile back in cory’s time;  a choice cabinet position once puwede na, tho par for the course naman yan;  and, uh, compensation for lost rakets and other damages?

i pray she asks for too much, like term-sharing — yan ang latest buzz, three years for marcos,  three years for duterte, which is simply scandalizingly outrageous.    let’s pray they end up running against each other instead.

but in case they do end up joining forces, then we in the sabóg opposition are in for the fight of our lives, hopefully against the same enemies, which would mean getting our sh*t together.  #BlockMarcos #End Duterte 

 

 

Honesty, lies and Sara Duterte

[this was first published in march 2019 @inquirerdotnet, when the mayor was campaigning for her senatorial bets. now that she seems to be on the verge of running for president sa 2022, time to double up. the marcoses are not nag-iisa.]

RACHEL A.G. REYES

We are not naïve, stupid or gullible. We know and even accept that in politics and in public life, white lies, untruths, evasions, dissimulation, feigning, pretense and bullshit are at times necessary, even required for political wheeling and dealing.

At the same time, truth and honesty are universally valued and cherished in social and private lives. We categorically believe that lying is wrong. Lies rebound on the liar, and we know how a single lie can wreck lives and destroy reputations. Plato was unequivocal. He said lies were evil and poisoned the soul of the person who uttered them. The French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne concurred. “In plain truth, lying is an accursed vice,” he said. “We have no tie upon one another, other than the reliability of our word.”

We can be similarly uncompromising. We demand truthfulness and honesty from our elected public servants and from our colleagues and friends. We teach our children to be truthful and honest and regard as treacherous the lover, husband or wife who is found to be untruthful and dishonest.

That said, I have been trying to fathom Sara Duterte’s thinking. The President’s daughter has recently been saying a lot about lying and honesty. But given the nature of politicking in this country, the talk has spiraled out of the realms of reason.

Sara’s thinking

As far as one can gather, her argument can be unpacked as follows: (a) all politicians lie, everybody lies; (b) honesty should not be an electoral issue; (c) there is no legal requirement for senatorial contenders to be honest, truthful and of good moral character. Neither are academic qualifications necessary. Philippine citizenship and being able to read and write would suffice.

One could take the view that championing lying, as Sara does, is hard-as-nails pragmatism. Lies can decrease conflict, promote harmony, forge compromise. In this way, one is able to justify lies, accept the utility and necessity of telling lies, if the outcome is beneficial—if more good than harm can come from falsehood. The unbounded pessimist Friedrich Nietzsche went further. He said: “That lies should be necessary to life is part and parcel of the terrible and questionable character of existence.”

Yet, society cannot possibly function if, as Sara contends, we accept that everybody lies all the time. Society, writes the British philosopher Anthony Grayling, operates on probity and integrity. “For the ordinary transactions of daily life, we have to believe that most people are telling the truth most of the time.”

But public office is a public trust

Those who penned the Philippine Constitution would agree. Section 27, Article II is explicit: “The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.”

Moreover, Section 1 of Article XI states: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

I can’t see how these passages can be read as anything but a stern rebuke of Sara’s legal justification for lying and dishonesty in public life.

Sara is mayor of Davao City and running for reelection. She has been doing no campaigning of her own. This seems to be because she is very busy being the campaign manager and spokesperson for senatorial candidates running under her regional party Hugpong ng Pagbabago. Clearly, she is confident of winning the Davao mayoralty without too much effort on her part.

She’s loud ad she swaggers

Loud and swaggering, Sara has enormous presence. She is not a senatorial contender but acts like one. Those who think that she has her eye firmly on the presidency and aims to succeed her father are probably right. Which is precisely the reason why we should listen to her carefully. She is amassing power before our very eyes.

Sara advocates lying and dishonesty as acceptable for those in public life. Why should this be so troubling? Because, as Grayling writes: “To tell a lie you have to know the truth but deliberately intend to communicate its very opposite to your audience. You thus commit a double crime: of knowing but concealing truth, a precious possession; and of purposefully leading others away from it.”

Would Sara apply this standard on her children? Would she allow her husband to deceive her with lies and dishonesty?

Rachel A.G. Reyes (rachelagreyes@gmail.com) is a historian of Southeast Asia and writes commentary pieces on science, gender and politics.

 

Bongbong Marcos should apologize for his father

ANTONIO CONTRERAS

INDEED, children should not inherit their parents’ sins. But in reality, we do. In a culture where debt of gratitude is inherited, even debts, whether financial or moral, are bequeathed by deceased parents to their offspring. We cannot take pride in the accomplishments of our parents, without balancing it with a sense of remorse, and the duty to ask forgiveness from those they may have offended.

I once argued against the act of asking for forgiveness for our parents’ actions, simply because I was a firm believer of a kind of ethics where you can only be held liable or responsible for the things that you had control over, or that in which you had an active participation. But upon much deeper reflection, I soon realized that this is a very Western construct, where responsibility and rights are very much defined within an individualistic ethos.

This is not what happens in our communitarian culture where family honor is considered to be a well-revered institution, that in some cultural groups, clan wars erupt to defend it. Thus, preserving honor is not a mere individual construct, and becomes a family duty.

It is in this context that former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. should apologize for the sins of his father, the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Marcos family has always been pleading for a fair and objective treatment. They appeal to our sense of balance as we pass judgment on the complex period which Marcos Sr. had presided over, including the dark years of martial law. In fact, it is precisely because of such fairness and objectivity that Bongbong Marcos should not gloss over such complexity, by denying that everything was bright and sunny.

I lived through that period, and while I know that there were benefits that came out, there were also black memories that darkened the period of his father’s rule. To be objective is to take stock of both the positive and the negative. Bongbong Marcos cannot remind us of the good things that his father did without recognizing the bad things that happened during his term in office. After all, Marcos Sr. was not perfect as he was human, and he had his flaws. He was also not in total control of the actions of his people, but as president he bore the responsibility of being in command.

I know of people who disappeared in the dark of night, brothers in the student organization I joined. I have been told stories of torture. Indeed, these are people who may have rebelled against the state and joined the communist insurgency that threatened to make the Philippines into one of the Asian dominoes that faced the risk of falling, as the communist ideology was wreaking havoc and bringing death and destruction as it engaged in its expansionist project.

Nevertheless, there are rules of war which state parties are duty bound to uphold. While I do not expect rebels to uphold the law, what distinguished the state agents from them is the commitment to act within the boundaries of civilized combat, that inhuman punishments are prohibited, and that rights even of people who committed crimes against the government should be respected and protected. Thus, when state agents commit these atrocities, government leaders are duty bound to apologize and take responsibility.

There have been allegations of corruption, and the amassing of hidden wealth. I have always depended on the courts to adjudicate and determine the veracity of such allegations, and it is a given fact that sans the partisan agenda of those who hounded the Marcos family, independent courts both here and abroad have made judicial determination of the veracity of some of those claims.

If only for these, then it is in order for Bongbong to act honorably by recognizing that there were instances where laws of reasonable engagement against dissidents were violated and that there were instances where the courts established that indeed there were economic crimes committed. There is a preponderance of things that warrant, at the very least, a display of sincere remorse and contrition.

But instead, Bongbong has doubled down by refusing to apologize. He boldly declared that he is thankful that he is a Marcos, even congratulating himself for choosing his parents very well. Of course, no one is telling him not to be thankful for having been born into a very privileged family. And while he actually didn’t choose his parents, he can actually choose how to honor them.

As children, we do not control the actions of our parents. And while we owe so much to them, there are many parts of their lives that we are not familiar with or that were probably hidden from us. We are not privy to all the lies they told, every transgression they made, and every sin they committed. There is nothing dishonorable if we apologize for these. And it becomes a duty when we somewhat knew, and we tolerated it, and worse, we benefited from it.

For me, that is the biggest honor a son can perform on behalf of an imperfectly human parent — to bear the burden of an apology which the parents were denied of asking when they were still alive.

There is one other compelling reason why Bongbong should sincerely apologize. He is a presidential candidate offering himself to the people. If we believe surveys, scientific and otherwise, he has a chance of being the next president of the Republic. He has a solid base of support. He has nothing to lose if he apologizes. He may not convince many of those who have an intense dislike for him and his family, but he may just create more space to unify this toxically divided country by changing his narrative and redeem it in the eyes of those who are still open to changing their minds.