Autocrats and the denigration of politics
Randy David is a sociologist by profession. His is a social science and consequently there should be a science to his conclusions or findings. Yet since he became popular by hosting a public affairs program on GMA-7 he has used his social status to become a public intellectual. Unfortunately, he is not an objective public intellectual. He is one who has a bias for the opposition today; those who were in power for thirty years and whose campaign against Marcos he rode on to get to where he is now.
The truth is our Asian neighbors which have been more economically progressive are either in an autocracy or dictatorship. Singapore is the best example. It has been ruled by the Lee family or its proxy’s since independence. Vietnam is a hybrid communist autocracy, following the Chinese formula of one country, two systems, espoused by Deng Xiao Ping. South Korea climbed out of poverty through the determination of Park Chung Hee. Thailand is a constitutional monarchy but has a long history of coup de etat’s carried out by its military whenever democracy is overcome by the chaos and anarchy wrought by the very same democracy. In Asia, the template is strongman rule with a strong dose of Confucian, Taoist or Buddhist philosophy.
The Philippines is the most Westernized country in the region. We are also the only Roman Catholic country. These are what ties us down and stop us from becoming at par with our neighbors. Our “democracy” foments anarchy and chaos at all levels of society which results in our being burdened by the entitled rich and the entitled poor.
Now, think of the alternative to this. On the eve of the declaration of martial law in 1972, one of the topics being debated at the old Senate was the establishment of the Bataan Export Processing Zone in Mariveles. The issues raised by the senators included the questionable acquisition of land to be used by the zone, the suitability of the place itself for labor-intensive industrial production, the wisdom of suspending labor laws within the zone, etc. All these issues were deemed resolved after Marcos padlocked Congress and jailed opposition lawmakers like Aquino and Diokno. The BEPZ went on to operate as the country’s first official economic zone.
Quite a number of businessmen, academics, and middle-class Filipinos welcomed this change in the country’s decision-making process. To them, autocratic policymaking was simpler, for it dispensed with politics altogether. They had seen how routine disagreements between the executive and the legislative branches often resulted in gridlock that prevented the country from embarking on new paths to economic development.
This was exactly what Marcos’ concept of the “New Society” was about. It was meant to instill discipline among Filipinos, foster social harmony, and promote the country’s rapid economic development. The latter, in particular, was supposed to be accomplished through the deployment of technocrats and specialists in various fields, rather than through the time-consuming process of consultation with affected sectors and debate among politicians.
In this new configuration, the needs of society were to have primacy over individual rights. What those societal needs were, and who decided how they were to be met and at what cost, were questions that were not subject to public discussion, for, in the regime’s perception, these lay beyond the ken of ordinary citizens.
This type of thinking rides on the usual frustration and confusion people feel when they are confronted with a lot of information and a long menu of choices. What people tend to value more is the clarity of their emotions and the strength of their beliefs, rather than the facts to validate these. The call to end all debates and recriminations about the past is precisely the perfect anodyne for this sense of distress.
This is the logic behind Marcos Jr.’s cleverly crafted campaign. His unwillingness to debate, his refusal to defend or justify the record of the two autocrats from whom he draws support for his campaign, and his reluctance to go into specifics about his vision and plans for the country—these are the hallmarks of a would-be autocrat who cannot be interrogated.
We must not think that an autocrat always needs martial law to enforce his will. President Duterte has shown that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Marcos cloaked his autocracy in law, to the point of writing his own constitution to legitimize the lawmaking powers he had given himself. Mr. Duterte silenced the other power centers of Philippine society by preying upon the vulnerabilities of people. He publicly singled out the targets of his ire and deployed the coercive power of state institutions against them. And by ordering the police and the military to kill the identified enemies of the state while vowing to shield them against criminal liability, he made sure no one would challenge his rule.
This is how Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia for over 20 years. The police state that kept citizens in check during the period of the Soviet Union is not there anymore, officially. Today, there are elections, and Putin is an elected leader. But he rules Russia as a sole autocrat—he controls the oligarchs who run the economy, the strongmen who run its provincial governments, the courts, the media, the police, and the military. His is an autocracy without the excuse of an ideology.
I do not share David’s opinion that Duterte has been an autocrat during his term. Not under the aegis of the 1987 Constitution which was drafted by the appointees of the opposition when they were in power. This would be an acknowledgment of failure on their part because this is THEIR POLITICAL STRUCTURE THEY PUT IN PLACE which Duterte ran under, won and governed the country in the past five years.
David is trying to scare voters into submission by making them think that a BBM Presidency would be a repeat of his father’s rule. How can this be when the Yellowidiots have modified the martial law provision to such that it now requires the assent of Congress? This has been tested during the Marawi Siege when Duterte put the whole of Mindanao under martial law.
Singapore is what should be properly referred to as a democratic autocracy. How else can you define the fact that the Lee family has been in power since independence? It might only be after Lee Hsien Loong’s death that Singapore may finally become a democracy if the next Prime Minister is not from the Lee family. The city state’s leap from poverty after independence to prosperity in one generation is worth emulating but it would not have been possible without the senior Lee’s iron-fisted rule which had him purging the communists and shackling the media.
David and his ilk in the opposition continue to refuse to recognize the reality that Filipinos prefer strongman rule over liberalism. The segment of the population which supports the leftist-liberals are the minority. They are also responsible for this development because they gave in to the Church’s opposition to population control. This only served to widen the gap between the rich and the poor which is why Robredo is trailing in the surveys.
The denigration of politics has also been brought on by the opposition again because of the 1987 Constitution and their liberal ideology. There has been a deterioration of institutions and social mores post-Marcos. Mediocrity has become the norm. Our educational system is in need of drastic reform because it is also mired in a bureaucracy which condones and promotes mediocrity. We are not better off post-Marcos as we do not have food and energy security. We do not have continuity because we have to elect a President every six years. Our political system is such that it makes it hard for one who is talented and willing to serve the public to embark on a political career because of the cost involved in running for public office. This is why our talent pool is very shallow.
The economic track record of our regional neighbors speak for themselves. We do not live in normal times. The pandemic is ongoing and there is war between Russia and Ukraine. We have lost thirty years to due to American intervention and the collusion of the then opposition. It is about time that we chart our own path and become responsible for our destiny in a world which has become more volatile.
We do not need a President who looks at reality through rose-tinted lens. We need a President who can deal with the harsh realities we need to overcome in order to survive as a nation.
Comments