IT'S the post-election blues.
Again, here we are scoffing at our fellow voters for having chosen the wrong
leaders. But, Reader, may I ask a favor before I go to my mini-essay proper?
Let's not
use the words dumb and stupid, since only a few of you, my readers, are
psychologists or psychometrists, and I'm not one as well. Let's use the words
educated and informed instead. Okay?
Now to my essay.
You see, every time I open a conversation about direct democracy instruments and participatory democracy, especially now during these post-election blues days, the classic answer I get is "we're not ready for that yet; we have an uneducated (not dumb or stupid) masses that you can't even trust to vote for the right people. How much more to trust them to decide on issues!"
Here's my classic answer to that:
For an average person to vote for or against a direct democracy initiative on, say, abolishing the pork barrel, it’s true he would need to be educated on it and be informed in order for him to feel concerned or be strongly affected. But it’s also true that all he’d really need to do is listen to the debates on it on radio, TV, or the tabloids. He, as a citizen who is either readily aware of what he wants or has been made aware of what he needs now and should want as a living entity in a society, need not have a PhD to know on what side of the issue he should position himself in after a good soak in the problems around that legal issue. In fact, he need not be as educated and deeply informed as a technocrat to be able to know that a sand mine could be bad for his fishing village.
Then here's my classic counter to the belief that we cannot afford to stray from the arena of pure representative democracy, at least for now, while the masses have yet to attain their good education.
You see, for an average person to know a candidate full well, in the sense of knowing the latter's qualifications as well as record and history (of positions on many issues and flip-flops and alliance shifts therein), listening to debates on the radio about that person during a campaign period won't be enough and won't ever be enough. In fact, to know a candidate really well, one needs to read an entire good book on him.
In short, we've got our reasoning backwards. In representative democracy, for us to be right in our choice of a candidate for a position, we’d need wide access to education and full information, at least as regards to the personalities running whom we are obligated by suffrage to choose from. With direct democracy instruments, on the other hand, we only need to know what we want and need in relation to a law or bill being discussed! With direct democracy initiatives or calls for referendums, we don’t need to read an entire book on, say, taxation and social spending in order for us to get the idea that maybe the display of government officials’ names and pictures in public projects is not a good practice. With choosing a person to manage an entire gamut of problems on our behalf, we would.
And so, once again, as I always say every after election day with its usual blues, . . . you can't really complain about our fellow Filipinos' propensity to choose the wrong leaders. For in your conscious or unconscious support of pure representative democracy (in our parts known as our cacique democracy) and your conscious or unconscious apathy toward what should be a much-needed clamor for the people's participation in governance via direct democracy instruments, you have also unwittingly been party to a system that churns out a cycle of elections where the people elect wrong candidates for their government (since people often can't know much about their leaders and can, in contrast, only know themselves full well, particularly what they want and need).
Today you spit on your neighbors' having acted dumbly and stupidly in choosing a right leader or leaders. You brag about your choice's having been the correct one, even as you yourself can't be certain about it, or even as you could be just as wrong as your neighbors with your choice.
You spit on your neighbors' choice. And here's my counter to that:
What did you do to keep them from putting too much premium on elections? What did you do to convince them that pure representative democracy is not the only form of democracy or that it is in fact a fake form of democratic practice? What did you do to let them know that what they have accustomed themselves to holding as sacred is really nothing more than a system of government by elected representatives of the people, of these supposed representatives of the people, and often for these representatives' interests only while they pretend to be representing the people’s needs? What have you done to be less dumb or less of a stupid slave than them to this star system not of truths about the stars but about myths about these stars?
You, too, could be one of the reasons why your neighbors can’t go beyond the worship of the heroic mirages in the sky that they will never be competent enough to be certain of, not even if you give them PhDs with books to read, for even a PhD degree doesn’t guarantee a rounded knowledge about candidates. For the only things your neighbors can really fully be certain of are themselves and their desires for their lives, regardless of their IQ or educational level. Just as the only thing you can be fully certain of is yourself and your desires for your well-being, regardless of your IQ or educational level. [I /-S]
Now to my essay.
You see, every time I open a conversation about direct democracy instruments and participatory democracy, especially now during these post-election blues days, the classic answer I get is "we're not ready for that yet; we have an uneducated (not dumb or stupid) masses that you can't even trust to vote for the right people. How much more to trust them to decide on issues!"
Here's my classic answer to that:
For an average person to vote for or against a direct democracy initiative on, say, abolishing the pork barrel, it’s true he would need to be educated on it and be informed in order for him to feel concerned or be strongly affected. But it’s also true that all he’d really need to do is listen to the debates on it on radio, TV, or the tabloids. He, as a citizen who is either readily aware of what he wants or has been made aware of what he needs now and should want as a living entity in a society, need not have a PhD to know on what side of the issue he should position himself in after a good soak in the problems around that legal issue. In fact, he need not be as educated and deeply informed as a technocrat to be able to know that a sand mine could be bad for his fishing village.
Then here's my classic counter to the belief that we cannot afford to stray from the arena of pure representative democracy, at least for now, while the masses have yet to attain their good education.
You see, for an average person to know a candidate full well, in the sense of knowing the latter's qualifications as well as record and history (of positions on many issues and flip-flops and alliance shifts therein), listening to debates on the radio about that person during a campaign period won't be enough and won't ever be enough. In fact, to know a candidate really well, one needs to read an entire good book on him.
In short, we've got our reasoning backwards. In representative democracy, for us to be right in our choice of a candidate for a position, we’d need wide access to education and full information, at least as regards to the personalities running whom we are obligated by suffrage to choose from. With direct democracy instruments, on the other hand, we only need to know what we want and need in relation to a law or bill being discussed! With direct democracy initiatives or calls for referendums, we don’t need to read an entire book on, say, taxation and social spending in order for us to get the idea that maybe the display of government officials’ names and pictures in public projects is not a good practice. With choosing a person to manage an entire gamut of problems on our behalf, we would.
And so, once again, as I always say every after election day with its usual blues, . . . you can't really complain about our fellow Filipinos' propensity to choose the wrong leaders. For in your conscious or unconscious support of pure representative democracy (in our parts known as our cacique democracy) and your conscious or unconscious apathy toward what should be a much-needed clamor for the people's participation in governance via direct democracy instruments, you have also unwittingly been party to a system that churns out a cycle of elections where the people elect wrong candidates for their government (since people often can't know much about their leaders and can, in contrast, only know themselves full well, particularly what they want and need).
Today you spit on your neighbors' having acted dumbly and stupidly in choosing a right leader or leaders. You brag about your choice's having been the correct one, even as you yourself can't be certain about it, or even as you could be just as wrong as your neighbors with your choice.
You spit on your neighbors' choice. And here's my counter to that:
What did you do to keep them from putting too much premium on elections? What did you do to convince them that pure representative democracy is not the only form of democracy or that it is in fact a fake form of democratic practice? What did you do to let them know that what they have accustomed themselves to holding as sacred is really nothing more than a system of government by elected representatives of the people, of these supposed representatives of the people, and often for these representatives' interests only while they pretend to be representing the people’s needs? What have you done to be less dumb or less of a stupid slave than them to this star system not of truths about the stars but about myths about these stars?
You, too, could be one of the reasons why your neighbors can’t go beyond the worship of the heroic mirages in the sky that they will never be competent enough to be certain of, not even if you give them PhDs with books to read, for even a PhD degree doesn’t guarantee a rounded knowledge about candidates. For the only things your neighbors can really fully be certain of are themselves and their desires for their lives, regardless of their IQ or educational level. Just as the only thing you can be fully certain of is yourself and your desires for your well-being, regardless of your IQ or educational level. [I /-S]
No comments:
Post a Comment