CERTAIN topics are just too hard to “laymanize.” This is a buzzword current nowadays. It means presenting a concept in words and phrases that can be grasped by the man on the street. Such subjects are, by definition, complex and presume prior familiarity and knowledge, sometimes requiring their own special vocabulary.
… Now, what about a complicated change in the political structure that affects the whole country which nobody seems to understand, much less sees a need for? (If it ain’t broke, hurl it against the wall so it breaks into little pieces.)
The challenge then for the designated communicator for the complex structure and transition mechanism being proposed and possibly voted on is how to laymanize this. Add to this hurdle, all the previous failed attempts (maybe five in all) to overhaul the system and change the form of government. One previous proposal was the parliamentary system where the chief executive was elected by the party with the most seats in the parliament. Of course, the new structure allowed the present chief to run again for a different title.
Faced with the daunting task of bringing airy concepts down to earth, what is a communicator to do but fall back on what she knows best? Can the communicators learn from the past on why previous concepts failed to persuade or even connect? Okay, a song and dance on the parliamentary system just wouldn’t have worked — i-par, par mo; i-lia-lia mo? Parliamento. Nah. There was no social media to spread that for some lambasting. Anyway, what body parts are those?
The simple rule in communications states, “If you can’t explain it in three sentences, you can’t sell it.” And maybe you don’t really understand it yourself anyway. So, how can you persuade anyone, even if you are armed with answers to FAQ?
You need to give credit to innovation in the field of persuasion. Until now, it was presumed that you required a power point presentation, interviews in talk shows with articulate advocates (that is still a work in progress), a road show with prospective candidates for national positions in tow, or even a TV commercial with sunrise and carabaos pulling the plow. Why not use a song and dance routine as a low-cost alternative to get the topic into the daily conversation of barbers and wine connoisseurs?
As to the charges of vulgarity, from the Latin word “vulgus” or crowd, somebody important found the dance number cool. (You are asking me about vulgarity?) While the song and dance did get the topic to trend in social media, it’s not certain which side of the debate it truly helped. So please don’t be too hard on her. She should keep her job. Why? It’s too complicated.
MARIBEL ONGPIN: What federalism?
https://www.manilatimes.net/what-federalism/428651/
What federalism?
The Manila Times
August 10, 2018
THE move toward federalism which seems to have started from some shallow shortcut thinking in parts of Mindanao resenting the so-called “Imperial Manila” seems to be headed for a train wreck
Federalism is not an easy concept for a society like ours, very new in governing ourselves, very awkward when it comes to political parties (they emerge and dissolve according to the political weather) and very convenient for the ruling dynasties that govern most of our country, not to speak of the utter inequality all round which federalism will exacerbate.
Already we have been told that more layers of bureaucracy will be created and imposed by federalism, as though we were free of them now, adding to the burden that already exists. Also, the fragmenting of the country into 18 so-called federal and financially unequal states in different stages of development or underdevelopment, will only mean restricting political opposition in them because it will be all the easier for these to be in the hands of the ruling dynasts already in place. Only they will be able to maneuver and manipulate the political process keeping it within their power and enhancing their dynasties. That so-called financial bonanza for these areas will not be felt except by those in office.
There is more to say about the unwieldiness that federalism will impose from having four Supreme Courts, to any number of prime ministers or presidents to different legislatures, etc. All of which without judging their worth will certainly cost a load of taxpayers’ money.
Federalism has not been studied well enough in the context of our society. It is quite complicated if one just gets a little information about it and virtually incomprehensible when the whole subject is defined, its rules and conditions listed and no clear advantages or obvious benefits that are convincing enough for our present political situation. In the stage of where we are as a nation, it will not simplify or benefit our lives, but do the opposite by messing up our understanding of governance.
To begin with, it is not a people’s initiative and furthermore, it has been put in the hands of a select advisory committee that does not emanate from the grassroots with all due respect, but from academe and the legal profession, both far removed from the public. The choice of a constituent assembly composed of the legislature, such as it is, which is not a confidence-building institution for the self-serving actions it has taken particularly in the aptly named Lower House, is enough to doom the move to federalism. It is already being said, “Sila-sila lang” which makes for distrust and distance at the very idea of following their lead.
Why did not the powers-that-be opt for a constitutional convention where delegates would be elected by the public and given the trust that their choice of candidate can give? Why is a Constitution that is all of 30 years, a blink of an eye in time, to be tampered with and altered by a minuscule number of the population? It seems it is not being given time to succeed.
And why is there a dearth of real information, real debate, real clarification of issues? All that is heard is that there will be more money for each federal entity which in turn is not the irresistible lure that those who advocate it think it can give. The public knows only too well that if money becomes available, it remains with those in power and never really and meaningfully gets to them. Not with the firming up of dynastic elements that federalism will provide. If the members of the advisory committee think their recommendation/resolution to eliminate dynasties will succeed, they will turn out to be very naïve.
Meanwhile, to make the train wreck come closer and be more disastrous, give the campaign to convince the public to vote for federalism to the Presidential Communications Operations Office or PCOO. This is the office that placed the iconic Mount Mayon hundreds of kilometers away from its true location, the entity that invented a country called “Norwegia” and gave Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian a new name without his consent, “Winston.” And now it has caused a majority, including federalism partisans, to react negatively and derisively to a lewd song and dance (?) promoting federalism. Well, maybe we should leave them to their own devices, their antics will guarantee the train wreck sooner that this short-sighted, ill-conceived idea which is wasting our time deserves. Let us just sit back and let the PCOO drive the last nail on federalism’s coffin, er…urn, as Senator Lacson has promised that the Senate is poised to cremate it.
TONY LOPEZ: Davide says “no” to charter change
http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/272632/davide-says-no-to-charter-change.html