Some basic advantages of the parliamentary system

1.

National big business campaign support won't have a monopoly on politicians running for national parliamentary posts because politicians will only have to run for a parliamentary seat from within their district. That is, they don't have to campaign nationwide since parliamentary seats are representative seats representing legislative or electoral districts, much like the seats in our present House of Representatives (barring the ludicrous party-list party seats).

     Therefore, anyone with a limited amount of money can aspire for a prime ministership (care of his party's support before or after the election, should his party get the majority of the seats in Parliament). Again, this is because one only needs to run within his district, therefore only needing a campaign budget for within his district, as against our present President and Vice-President and Senators who have to campaign nationwide with billions of pesos in campaign funds. This means, finally, that even a Grace Padaca or a Neri Colmenares, who may run sans national big business support, will have a chance at becoming Prime Minister, for as long as their party would nominate them or favor them to stand as their leader.

2.

Accordingly, parties with little money, for as long as they have members running in many districts, will also have a chance at getting a majority of the seats in Parliament at any given moment in history.

3.

Bills are quick to pass and get implemented in Parliament. Parliament simply allocates a period of time to debate on a bill/law and proceeds to vote on them, as against what we’ve witnessed as the slowness of the passage of bills in the presidential with bicameral legislature system. This latter system’s slowness often results in a failure to pass bills necessary for an administration to succeed, resulting finally in regrets at not having passed this or that at the end of every administration’s term.

     That slowness, after all, derives from nothing less than the pretense of a check and balance system supposedly embedded within the presidential with bicameral legislature design. It is a pretense, actually, that often results in nothing less than lame duck or quasi-lame duck or simply slow administrations. This also overlooks the fact that there is a more real check and balance system, and in a parliamentary system this balance exists between the ruling party's government, the shadow government, and the parliament of the streets. In fact, the supposed check and balance in a presidential with bicameral legislature system subliminally and virtually dismisses the voice of the parliament of the streets, almost discouraging it from being an active participant in the legislative debate.

4.

Real political parties will be established, as against our present political parties' liquid integrity. Our present parties have members who come and go according to where the money (including the executive department-allocated pork barrel) is.
     Granted, however, that (according to a The Journal of Politics article) that  a parliamentary system does not guarantee a country's being rid of partisan pork. But it, at least, is able to limit pork to partisan pork, which---qua pork---can be tackled later. The parliamentary system, at least, at the outset gets rid of that basic, presidential-system-inherent, opening-of-Congress across-the-board-pork-bait that generates the party-hopping of members of losing parties to the party of the winners, consequently denying the country of the benefits of having a genuine opposition or "shadow government".

5.

Since the parliamentary system virtually encourages the voice of the parliament of the streets to participate in the check and balance formula of governance, Prime Minsters’ terms may be shortened by virtue of a clamor for a vote of no-confidence by the people. This virtual inclusiveness is more in tune with the “government by the people, of the people and for the people” motto of democracy than is the fixed legalism of political-elite-run presidential systems with their fixed terms that can actually just ignore public clamor for resignations.

6.

Also, instead of having minority winners, we may be able to produce majority winners (winners with plus 50% of the votes). These majority winners would be established via instant-runoff voting. Instant-runoff voting cannot be done in a presidential with bicameral legislature system because there are already too many candidates on the general election ballot under this system (president, vice-president, senators, representatives, etc.) to render instant runoffs possible.

7.

Finally (for now), while it is true that the recent presidential debates already set a requirement for future presidential candidates, it must be noted that the parliamentary system is already by itself a culture of never-ending debate and of articulation and communication. A ruling party’s governance-with-laws itself has to be run through a parliamentary process of disclosure through articulation and communication as well as openness to arguments for and against. While not itself free from lobbyists, members of parliament are exposed by this culture of debate through what they say on the floor (or what they don’t say); and furthermore through what they say during interviews (or don’t say), since this culture would inevitably extend to the media and the streets, the voters. Through a parliamentary system, therefore, our recurring problem with merely singing and dancing and baby-carrying election candidates would be a thing of the past.
     Even in their choosing their Prime Minister candidates, the ruling party would already be choosing from among those who can best sell the party’s or ruling party factions’ policies. Thus, though a Rody Duterte could still become a Prime Minister, it would be highly unlikely that a ruling party would choose a merely most wealthy or merely most popular MP from among its ranks to be its government’s Prime Minister to face the speakers sitting on the other side of the parliamentary hall.

8.

More later.

-----------------------------

illustration borrowed from http://www.123rf.com/photo_16720316_abstract-word-cloud-for-parliamentary-system-with-related-tags-and-terms.html

Is It All We Ought To Do?

MANY of us would easily attest, some with total objectivity, to the difference that floated like a split-screen bar between the Noynoy Aquino government’s (or regime’s) social liberal image as projected by his speeches and his neoliberal image as remembered by the citizenry’s general experience with his governance. Many, I say, although the Aquino government will vehemently deny there is such a difference. And though we ought not to forget that crucial difference for our future history-writing and efforts at remembering, let us hasten now to ponder the immediate present and near future with this impending new government of Rodrigo Duterte, especially since we can’t keep on harping on the mistakes of the past (the way Aquino was wont to do for the gods of blame).
     So, to our topic.
     Recently, we had had a tremendous election campaign replete with all sorts of bias flying from all sides (and from these sides’ cultish fans, most strenuously). Needless to say, split-screen bars of comparison between reality and hype were afloat in the air for our easy grabs during that season, but we all know that during these seasons we understandably can’t (or won’t) use such checks, as we often are interested, generally speaking, only in avoiding what would otherwise allow us to draw the necessary lines between our candidates’ image of their truth and their impending real truth (beyond image) after their win, in case they won.
     Now, why is this split-screen bar so important? Well, this bar is important because this bar is actually you. And if you believe yourself to be just as important as, or more important than, the images to your left and right, then you will take care of this bar and not throw it away. True, there is comfort in the lie of merging the images to your left and right, but for how long really can you live with this lie before you realize already that you can’t have Marie Antoinette’s absent cake and eat it too?
     So, to the present.
     Well, sure, our respective usual confirmation bias that accompany our respective cult hero admiration for the cult heroes in our representative democracy’s star system will never disappear, post-election. The Duterte-ites will continue to guard their confirmation bias' data attesting to their supposed correctness, many to the end, with only a few holding on to these for only a year or more, just as the Roxasians will stick to their glue and will almost eternally hope to be able to say their waiting we-told-you-so’s.
     But, beyond Facebook shallowness, what ought we to do, really, post-election? Or should I ask, beyond being mere followers of the faces and feces of the stars in representative democracy’s star system, how should we carry ourselves now? How do others in the planet carry on? How do they behave in Switzerland, for instance, post-election time? For, true, even Switzerland with its quasi-direct democracy system votes to put people in representative posts, its form of democracy being precisely that, quasi, meaning half representative and half direct. But, interestingly, the Swiss place a higher premium on their participation in governance as a people, as against us who as a republican nation place a high premium solely on the performance of our leaders qua saviors. True, the Swiss system and culture is different, as the Swiss people are able to pass initiatives (major laws) by themselves at least three times a year, while we, or at least the few vigilant among us, can only think of protesting in the streets or of filing cases in Court every time we find our leaders misusing the benevolent gift we generously gave them in the preceding election/s, our blinded Trust.
     But we digress too far.
     Well, we can actually further digress here and talk about Rodrigo Duterte’s dangled parliamentary-system candy stick, which we can allow to touch us in the oncoming years, especially since it talks about a system not completely reliant on big business and national oligarchs, or at least not on big national campaign budgets for individual candidates. Or since it’s a system that makes it possible to turn a mere Neri Colmenares into a Prime Minister of our Republic while perhaps also rendering it impossible for a son of Bongbong Marcos to be the President of the Philippines in 2034. Or since it's a system that can pass urgent laws urgently within a day or a week instead of within the length of a senator's unpredictable six-year term.
     But, again, we digress. For, first, I think we ought to define. So let’s define Rodrigo Duterte.


WE must define Rodrigo Duterte because we chose him to be our next savior. I say savior, remembering that the reason why we chose a Joseph Estrada “para sa mahirap” was because we previously woke up to find a neoliberal Fidel Ramos taking too much care of business. But, soon, we realized too that Estrada’s pseudo-leftism was more “para sa mga big Chinoys”, so we allowed a Nora Aunor-ish Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be our next queen. That also disappointed us, with realizations brought our way by the words of Jun Lozada, among many others. We rode with the protests of Corazon Aquino et al and, consequently, the promise of her son who proudly carried the name of the legendary father after the death of the mother, thanks to nudges from a snickering show business sister who would later become a Board member of Hacienda Luisita. And here we are, as disappointed as ever. And today we lean on the name of what many believe to be a lousy speaker but a great deliverer, the tough king of Davao, Rodrigo Duterte, who promises to exile the oppressors of laglag-bala scam victims and to threaten back the mining interests of Lumad-hating companies associated with Mar Roxas. Are we in for another disappointment?
     Well, of course we are.
     We are because, even before we digress to proposals culled from our desires, blind proposals and desires with which we measure our expectations of our man at the helm, we always fail at the git-go (and afterwards) to define the reality of the man we installed on the throne at the Palace after the mythmaking season of election campaigning. We fail, even as many are armed with ready split-screen wands of knowledge that they can easily use this early in the six-year-term, not only for delineating the difference between the myth around the man and the reality of the man but more importantly the difference between the reality of the man and our expectations.
     So, to define. Who, first of all, beyond mere suspicion or image-making myths, is Rodrigo Duterte?
     Is he truly, as the Left submits, just another neoliberal pretending to be sympathetic to the poor? True, it’s a puzzlement how he was able to fund that billions-of-pesos-worth campaign that he just embarked on; surely big business (or a powerful external institution) funded his efforts? Or a large crowdfunding firm? But, given that, should we automatically assume that he would return the favor as a neoliberal and nothing else beyond? After all, many European socialist leaders were also funded by big business, as have Democrats in the United States been, in order to forge their way towards the establishment of some form of social liberal or social democratic governments. Let’s put aside that radical leftist assumption that even the leftmost form of liberalism is, in the end, ultimately neoliberal, just as we may put aside for this essay’s focus the assumption that any leftism beyond the most leftist liberalism is already unsound fascist communism that even Deng Xiaoping abhorred.
     So, a neoliberal Duterte? Is it really what’s looming? Well, in the sense of being for more privatization for a quick and (to be generous) efficient delivery of solutions, say, to mass transportation problems, I’d say it’s possible. For instance, it’s possible he would emulate Melbourne by turning EdlSA into a highway of tram rails operated by one private corporation. I won’t dismiss the possibility of that. But neoliberal in the sense of being for fiscal austerity, I doubt that anyone wants to do that in the Philippines, considering that much of the corruption in this country were culled precisely from social spending or what passed for social spending that ended up in the company of socialites. Corollarily, neoliberal in the sense of being for government spending reductions, I also doubt, considering that Filipino politicians understand the truth that the policy position the big banks are happiest with are social liberal policy positions that favor a fiscal policy. Why else would Norway’s Sveriges Riksbank award Paul Krugman a Nobel Prize in Economic Science? But how about being neoliberal in the sense of being for deregulation? Well, if historical memory serves us right, deregulation is usually only what ruling political parties hereabouts award to their friends, while it’s regulation, or fierce regulation, that they use against the friends of their enemies (that behavior makes all past Philippine governments, and possibly this one too, only quasi-neoliberal, at least in that sense).
     But what about the fear that Duterte is a fascist? Fascist how? There’s the fear that his reputation will lead him to fulfill a national (or federal) dream consisting of death squads scattered all over the archipelago. And it is here that I guess we can go back to our (and vice-presidential candidate Antonio Trillanes’) early suspicion that Duterte’s campaign was funded by special interests, which funding, by the way, turned out to have been facilitated by an Ayala-family bank (the reason perhaps why Trillanes was able to get wind of it the day after Duterte’s speech with the Makati Business Club happened, which speech by the way didn’t sit well with the club’s members, the Ayalas included). So, we were saying? Ah, yes. Would you, a billionaire of an institution, fund a candidate who could put your businesses at risk by being suddenly placed in a national police state that would likewise offend the various warlord oligarchs as well as the communist rebels, not to mention the new rebels that could be manufactured as a consequence by such an oppressive state? A police state in the Lee Kuan Yew sense, maybe (you know, for the benefit of a crony capitalism you cannot refuse), but definitely not in the Pinochet sense. If it were to be the latter and I was one of the campaign investors who invested heavily in Duterte, I’d make sure my vetted rooster doesn’t stay too long in his seat. That’s the toughest talk you will never hear me say on TV. Unless he gets to me first, a la Ferdinand Marcos.
     And what about Duterte as a communist, running by that favorite crayon the Roxasians and the entire Daang Matuwid mythology used to color his person with during the campaign? Well, even assuming that Duterte got funding directly from China or from China indirectly through the Communist Party of the Philippines, well, . . . apart from the fact that it was coursed through an Ayala bank, we should not allow ourselves to be eaten by the virus of confirmation bias and close our eyes to the important question of why Duterte was in conference with retired Armed Forces of the Philippines officers, most of whom have continuing alliances with American counterparts, at that very moment that he was talking to Jose Maria Sison via Skype. Surely many communists would be offended by this complete picture? Not Sison, though, it seems, which by itself should already be a question more on whether it's Sison who has become less of a communist now, although that would be simplifying communism too much, given communism's many variants. Given, also, how Xi Jinping turned China into a global corporation appointing state leaders to act as his regional managers.
     But, really, frankly, to close, . . . I can only conjecture on how neoliberal, and/or how social liberal, and/or how social democrat, and/or how socialist, and/or how communist, and/or how Peronist-esque, Rodrigo Duterte’s government is going to be. And/or how eclectic it's going to be, for better or worse. For to speculate too much in the manner of conspiracy theorists about the danger that Duterte might be to this country is to be the direct parallel of that one speculating too much in stocks in favor of Dutertenomics, especially since we know very well what Duterte said about the stock exchange, as being of no consequence in his book. Duterte may not be a presumptive President anymore, but we certainly still are in that short period where we can still only assume what his government will be.
     Well, certainly we can assume what his government will turn out to be, that’s within our rights, and it's good for the exercise of our wishful-thinking brains or fearful imaginations. But harping too much on how our leaders will serve us bares another truth beyond the reach of split screen bars. It’s a truth not solely about why our leaders have been behaving the way they did in the past but primarily about us. It says that the premium we place on our leaders’ prescriptions shows the quite naked truth about us as a people vanquished by the myth of pure representative democracy (it's not tagged by some as a fake democracy for nothing). It tells of a people who forever debate on their leaders instead of making time to debate on whether it is high time for them to stamp their demand for total participation towards a real democracy. It’s a naked truth I'll call, which, however, I'm sure many Filipinos will vehemently ignore.
     But in spite of that, I'll still ask, putting up a new split-screen bar. Is it all we ought to do, keep watch on our leaders for them to deliver the goods? Or can we also re-invent the historical wheel of participatory and direct democracy on another panel of our current panoramic vision of a bright future, if only to gain an alternative panel wherein we can perhaps better pin our hopes? Sure, if the presumptive Duterte-Robredo government can facilitate our attainment of that panel, so much the better, and we the Filipino people should remember the two as the true heroes of the people for that. But in the meantime, let's not be content with the proposal that what we ought to do is be vigilant merely. For it's not all that we can or should do.  [S /-I]

Another Post-Election Mini-Essay, On an Old Insistent Blues Concerning "The Stupid", That Here Quickly Counter-Blames the Complainers

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]

Starbucks Politics

PARA sa akin, less na nakakatakot sa panahon natin ngayon ang diktaduryang hayagan, dahil madali na itong makontra ng isang resistanteng kilusan. Sa katunayan, mas lalago ang resistensiya sa namamahala kapag ito ay mamamahala sa ilalim ng hayagang diktadurya; mawawala halos ang apatiya (kawalang-pakialam) ng madla, madla na matututong lumaban nang hayagan man o mapagkubli.
     Mas nakakatakot ang diktaduryang suwabe, kung saan ang lahat ng dikta niya ay dinadaan sa legalismo (kung ano ang nakasulat sa batas) at negative legalismo (kung ano ang di pinagbabawal ng anumang batas o ng absent na batas).
     Ang mga pagpatay na nangyayari sa unang uri ng diktadurya ay kinokondena. Ang mga pagpatay na nangyayari sa huling uri ng diktadurya ay bagamat nasa harap ng dyaryo ay dinadaan-daanan lamang ng mga may-dalang baso ng Starbucks na employed-but-underpaid-ngunit-kuntentong burgesya. [S / -I]

Hindi Nasa Mga Kristo ng Eleksyon ang Ating Kaligtasan

cartoon mula sa http://www.abante.com.ph/op/editorial/36156/editorial-eleksyon-trapik-at-baha-.html

MGA KAPATID, okey lang siguro na nag-aaway-away tayo ngayon dahil sa mga manok natin sa eleksyon. Basta importante lang, pagkatapos ng eleksyon, manatili sa isip natin at sa ating kaalaman na lahat ng pulitiko ay dapat lamang na ituring na potensyal na kalaban ng tao, kasama na riyan ang mga manok natin ngayon.
     Iyon ay dahil sa loob ng kani-kanyang termino ay maaaring di tumalima ang ating mga idolong pulitiko sa kanilang mga pinangako, sa kanilang inanunsyong adhikain, sa kanilang pinangangalandakang prinsipyo. Huwag sana maalis sa isip natin na tayo ang dapat na pangulo, na senador, na gobernador, na meyor, at ang pangulo at mga senador at mga representante at gobernador at meyor ay mga representatibo lamang natin sa Pamahalaan na maaaring di tumalima sa mga hangarin ng mamamayan, bagkus ay kakalaban pa sa mga pangarap ng bayan.
     Oo, mga ka-nasyon, pagkatapos ng eleksyon maging handa tayo na magrali, o magsampa ng kaso, o maghain ng mga inisyatiba o ng recall election o ng petition for referendum, kung meron kailangang labanang mga polisiya o mismong mga pulitiko na kumakalaban sa ating tiwala.
     Totoo, manok natin ang isa sa kanila ngayong mga araw ng eleksyon, ngunit maaari rin silang maging kalaban natin sa sabong ng mga darating na bukas. Totoo rin, nagmumurahan tayong mga botante ngayon sa sabungan ng pulitka, at okey lang iyon, dahil nagmumurahan lang naman. Basta lamang---para bukas---ay di natin isusuko ang ating mga tari sa mga Kristong pagkatapos ng eleksyon ay akala mo'y naging mga hari. [S /-I]

Salamat, semiotics

photo from http://www.elitereaders.com/naia-source-disclosed-how-scammers-pick-their-targets-at-the-airport/

PAANO mo masusukat kung gaano katanga o ka-switik ang isang rehimen? Simple lamang.
     Halimbawa, sa ngayon, sa pamamagitan ng science and art of semiotics, malalaman nating ang napakaraming stretch-wrapped na luggage sa isang airport ay simbolo ng isang pagkatakot at kawalan-ng-tiwala ng mga mamamayan sa kanilang airport personnel at executives. At kung matatandaan natin na anumang posisyon sa gobyerno ay position of bestowed trust, nangangahulugan lamang na ang kawalang-trust ng mga pasaherong ito na may stretch-wrapped luggage ay kawalang-trust sa mga nasa kanilang mga posisyon.
     Ngayon, pinansin o pinapansin ba ng gobyerno ang simbolong ito? Well, oo naman. Paano?
     Ito nga lang ang difference. Imbis na ituring na symbol of distrust ang stretch-wrapped luggage, itinuring itong signifier ng need at mabilisang ikinonnect sa neoliberal motto na nagsasabing “where there’s a need, there’s a good business opportunity.” Kaya imbis na magkumahog ang gobyerno na mawala ang symbol of distrust na ito, dahil itinuring niyang signifier of need lamang, nagkumahog siyang i-facilitate ang need na ito.
     Ano ang resultant, mga kababayan? Ang resultant ay ang nakita natin, na may gobyernong nag-facilitate hindi lamang sa pagdami ng simbolong ito (sa pamamagitan ng paglagay ng entrepreneurial stretch-wrapping services sa airport mismo), finacilitate din niya ang threat ng mga extortionists na nagsasabing ang di-pagbigay ng extorted money ay tutungo sa arraignment ng isang kakasuhang biktima.
     Semiotics, may tanong uli ako sa iyo. Paano mo nasusukat ang lalim ng pagkatanga o di kaya pagka-switik ng isang rehimen? [S / -I]

The Tragic Flaw In Our Looking for That Perfect Candidate

from https://democracychronicles.com/how-to-move-society-towards-direct-democracy/

IF YOU'RE a believer in socialist policies (in the Western European sense) and believe Rodrigo Duterte is truly the socialist that he claims to be, you might hasten to ask whether that position of his—which could actually be realizable in the sphere of social spending, at least—would also translate to being a fit figure for Labor Party membership (in the UK sense). For while Duterte’s record in Davao may be used as evidence of his brand of social spending, his pronouncements towards labor for the benefit of business may also get one to question the perfectness of his leftism. Oppositely, perhaps it also doesn’t help that one supporter of his on Facebook has also been campaigning for the Philippines’ membership in the AIIB.

     Meanwhile, if you’re a believer in what Grace Poe and running-mate Chiz Escudero have been advertising as what looks like a Lyndon Johnson type of their government by consensus, with the difference that it would likely be more centrist than  Johnson’s left-of-center or near-progressivist one, you might also be disappointed to hear that all this rhetoric and sloganeering from their Party with a Heart (Evangelista?) could actually be coming from Escudero’s and Danding Cojuangco’s NPC position that could hardly be realistically deemed as centrist in fact.

     And, too, if you’re a believer in Mar Roxas’s sort of espousal of social liberal desires, you might want to industriously glimpse back and be promptly disappointed by his track of recent years that look terribly more like somebody’s from a Neoliberal Party than someone’s from a Liberal (in the Canadian sense) one. And it doesn’t help that Roxas belongs to an oligarchic clan with connections to business interests that range from entertainment to mining.

     Finally, only God knows what conflicts between avowal and deed I could here pronounce for a brief regarding Jejomar Binay.

     But, hey, listen.

OUR RECURRING disappointment and regard for all those above seeming contradictions, contradictions which are actually not exclusive to Filipino presidential candidates (regardless of our political parties’ virtual ideology-less-ness), are not really what should constitute our tragedy, despite the fact that these serious sighs regarding our present choices are coming from the intelligentsia.

     You see, in our desire for the perfect candidate fitting snugly into our idealization of the potentially good leader of a potentially good, even great, governance within the soonest future, lies a sorrier symptom. For this desire has a mournful corollary, which is the hope to be able to relax under some new right or correct leader’s faithful service as governor of a people who’ve been seeking for decades all sorts of liberation from all sorts of ill situations.

     It is in fact this desire for the perfect leader that exposes a collective disinterest among Filipinos in being part of governance, in being part of government, beyond the election season. It exposes a goal of being able to lean on someone who would allow us to go back to our entertainment after our bestowal upon him/her, our candidate, of our full trust. Politicians, in fact, recognize this political laziness among the merely complaining governed, which is the very inspiration for all sorts of exploitation that have manifested in history as the activities of “corrupt politicians,” this after having been given the discretion and privilege to be corrupt, along with their families who would logically follow in their wake in the enjoyment of the privilege.

     In societies that enjoy that other privilege, the people's privilege (which also constitutes a duty) to use usable direct democracy instruments, instruments such as initiatives, referenda calls, election recalls, etc., the desire for the perfect candidate for the representative part of their democracy is not as rigid as in societies like ours. This is due to the fact that in such societies the election of the people’s ”representatives” are not treated as the end-all-and-be-all of democratic practice. In fact, in these societies pure representative democracies are seen as no less than horrendously fake democracies, even as the mere clever evolution of the old royalisms. They are seen so because in these latter societies the kratos (power, rule) are not seen as belonging in any way directly to the demos (people); that is, the impression is due to the knowledge that societies with purely representative democracies create governments by the representatives of the people, of the representatives of the people, and ultimately for the representatives of the people.

     Thus, along with this knowledge comes the recognition that the perfectness of election candidates in their society, a society with direct democracy instruments, cannot be deemed as equal in importance as the more crucial perfectness needed for the people’s unrelenting, unending participation in governance beyond these non-events called elections. [S / -I]

Pangako Laban sa Virus na Walang Bakuna ang DOH

from http://ssu.org.au/election-ticket-registration-closed/

ISANG buwan mahigit na lang ang pangangampanya natin at pangungumbinsi ng boto para kay Juan/Marya o laban man, isang buwan mahigit na paninira sa "kalaban", at nariyan na ang eleksyon. Panahon na marahil para ilabas ko ang aking pangako: isang bakuna. Heto.
     Ako'y nangangako na matapos ang panahon ng pangangampanya para sa ang sa tingin ko'y mga may maiaambag sa mas magandang estado ng governance sa ating bayan, probinsiya, at bansa, may maiaambag directly man o bilang epekto lamang (ang pinaka-radikal na example ng huli ay isang pisikal o legalistang diktadurya na naman na magpapahina sa kawalang-pakialam ng nakararami at magpapalawak sa populasyon ng magrerebelde laban dito at sa uri nito), . . . ako'y magsisimula na muling mangampanya para sa pagpapanalo ng aking sarili, ng ating mga sarili.

ANG aking sarili, ang ating mga ordinaryong sarili, ay hindi kandidato at hindi pulitiko. Ang aking sarili, ang ating ordinaryong mga sarili, ay mga indibidwal ng lipunan na sana'y mangangakong hindi magpapaalipin sa star system sa pulitika ng ating bansa pagkatapos ng eleksyon, at sa halip ay magnanais na maging bahagi ng pamahalaan, hindi bilang mga opisyal kundi bilang mga simpleng mamamayan, mga mamamayan na sana'y hindi limitado ang karapatan sa pagrarali lamang na di naman pakikinggan ang mga sigaw.
     Kaya matapos ang panahon ng pangangampanya at ng eleksyon, ewan ko sa inyo, basta ako ito ang una kong magiging hakbang. Ako'y mangangako, ako'y magpapabakuna.
     Ako'y mangangakong hindi magpapabiktima sa isang nakahahawang mosquito virus na laganap sa ating lipunan: ito ang virus ng partisanong herd mentality na punong-puno ng molecules ng confirmation bias. Maiintindihan ko kung ika'y magiging bahagi ng susunod na administrasyon, kung kaya't wala kang magagawa kundi ang manahimik sa maaari mong mga makita habang kailangan mo pa ang trabaho mo. Maiintindihan ko nga rin ang iyong mga pagdepensa rito. Ngunit kung wala ka naman sa gobyerno o walang kamag-anak dito na gusto mong dipensahan para sa maluwalhati niyang pakikibahagi sa susunod na magiging manipestasyon ng korapsyon subalit depensa ka pa rin ng depensa sa idolo mo at tira nang tira sa mga kalaban niya, aba'y sasabihin kong nahawa ka na yata ng sakit na tinatawag na partisanong emotional contagion tungo sa mga simtoma ng group emotion at collective narcissism. Ang bandwagon effect ng sakit na ito ay isang spiral of silence na bubuo ng iyong master-slave morality sa ilalim ng idol mo. Bagamat spiral of silence ang tawag sa epekto sa isip ng sakit na ito, hindi ibig sabihin ay mananahimik ka na sa harap ng mga kritiko ng iyong idol; ang totoo niyan, ika'y magiging maingay sa kadedepensa mo sa kalinisan at talino ng idol mo na siyang tanging makikita mo. Magiging zombie ka ng groupthink, Liberal man o NPC o ano man.
     Paano maiiwasan ang sakit na ito? Simple lamang. Uminom lamang ng wisdom elixir na nagsasabing ang ating pulitika ay maruming pulitika ng pribilehiyo, at ang eleksyon ay ang araw kung kailan ibinibigay natin ang pribilehiyo sa iilang tao ng isang uri upang mag-representa sa atin sa pamamahala sa milyun-milyong Pilipino. Ang ibig sabihin nito, ito ang araw kung kailan ibinibigay natin sa mga pulitikong ito ang pribilehiyo na magdesisyon sa kung saan nila gagamitin ang perang binuwis sa atin, magdesisyon para sa atin, tayong milyun-milyon. Mula rito, silang mananalo ang magiging bahala sa bilyun-bilyong piso ng pamahalaan, at tayo'y babalik na sa ating mga mahjong at trabaho, wala na uli tayong pakialam sa pamamahala ng iilang mamamahala sa atin at sa pera natin.
     Pero siyempre, hindi rin. Kasi ang mga mahahawa ng virus ng partisanong confirmation bias ay naroon pa rin at magbabantay, patuloy na dedepensa sa kanilang idolo sa star system ng ating liga, este pulitika ng pribilehiyo, tuwing may susulpot na kritisismo laban sa idol nila, at iikot na uli ang insultuhan sa Peysbuk ng mga fans ng pro at con idols.
     Samantala, ang mga idols na ito naman na iniidolo natin---nating mga nahawa ng virus---, mga idols na nanalo o natalo man, mga idols na pawang miyembro ng uring political elite, sila-sila rin ay maglalaban-laban sa ngalan kunwari ng prinsipyo at progreso. At tayong mga nahawa ng virus ay di maniniwalang pare-pareho lang naman naglalaban ang mga pamilya at mga korporasyon nilang yan sa pribilehiyong binibigay ng tao tuwing eleksyon. Dahil, di mo pa ba aaminin, pribilehiyo ang simpleng skeleton sa likod ng balat at karne ng bawat katawan ng eleksyon.
     Kaya, heto na. Ito at inumin mo na at iluwa. Ito ang bakuna. Mangako ka sa sarili mo na hindi ka magpapaka-alipin sa brand loyalty disease na binebenta ngayong kampanya pa lamang ng mga kapuso, kapamilya, kapatid, kakosa, kadilaw, kaputi, kaitim, ka-anu-anong kabuwisetan man yan, at sunod niyan ika'y mangako ng ganito: "pagkatapos, ako'y muling magiging mga kritiko ninyo, pagkatapos, lalung-lalo na ninyong mga ikinampanya ko't nanalo! Pagkatapos."
     Pagkatapos, at sigurado ka nang hinding-hindi ka kailan man mahahawa, . . . dun lamang tayo maaaring magsimula. [S /-I]

Everyone must feel royal about it

photo borrowed from http://kickerdaily.com/kris-aquino-erupts-in-anger-after-netizen-called-son-bimby-gay/

SO, all right, I guess everyone's got their fill on what happened to TV celebrity Kris Aquino's son Bimby last Wednesday and probably are better off, if I can be allowed a bit of ironic clause, without having a cup on what happened to a land reform beneficiary in Negros last January 9. And, just now, somebody nudged me if I heard about that Aquino statement of 2014 concerning herself and sex, which presumably also was all over Facebook in that year's January month, to which I said "no" and was therefore instantly sent a link to this report, "Kris admits not having sex", and the following video:

     I get it that many would rather get news about more serious tragedies and expect the news media to offer them precisely those. But I think they just miss the point and significance of all media coverage on the life and hours of Kris Aquino.

     For here's what else I think:

     I guess the point of all this Aquino-centric journalistic coverage is Kris Aquino herself as a vehicle for her unconscious self-promotion regarding her selfhood and selfness and therefore as a royal figure who has got all our attention but really no different than the average citizen who has to tweet on everything that he's doing right now. Such tweets, for instance, as "I'm kissing our dog's asshole right now."

     That unabridged character of hers should make Aquino everyone's Facebook friend, then. Not that all Facebook friends are true friends, but you get the idea. The concept of the "selfie" cannot be limited to self-held cameras and must now be extended to the shooting off of words that resemble the spirit of the selfie. The selfie, of images and words, thence will be seen not just as a simple gesture by individuals qua pointless individuals but as a symbol of their communing with the community of selves interested in each other's selfhood and selfness.
     If media coverage on KA, whether Boy Abunda-instigated or not, manifests a royalist pop culture, then indeed this mini-essay of mine is a Facebook thumb-up to all our little counter-royalisms. I see nothing wrong with either this media obsession with the stars nor with our own little forays into self-promotion on Facebook. I think we should all be stars to each other in the star system we design for ourselves according to each of our (narrow and broad) ideas about the universe. [S / -I]

Miss Representations

photo borrowed from http://wivb.com/2015/12/20/miss-universe-mistake-crowns-colombia-before-philippines/

THE RECENT Miss Universe debacle should now open the door to a future Miss Universe pageant with two Miss Universe crowns. With no pun intended on the concept of wormholes, the parallel Miss Universes would have one crown given to the Miss Universe representing the universe of matter and the stars, the other crown for the Miss Universe who shall be representing the universe of antimatter and the compact stars (white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes). Good manners in a candidate could get her the crown for matter, while bad manners in one of the mean girls (which we now know exist in the galaxy of stars in the Miss Universe contest) may covet for her the antimatter crown, which would probably be the crown that doesn't matter.
     But, in the end (or, as they'd say in other stars, in the beginning), who are we really kidding? This is really just a game between nations and among girls intent on a future career on Earth. [S / -I]

My Own "Putang Ama" and "Fuck All" Working-Class Moment On a Train

photo borrowed from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/115954-mar-roxas-wharton-degree

RODRIGO Duterte's bluff seems to have been that, a bluff, being wrong, as bluffs are. No, Mar Roxas' Wharton BS diploma looks to be for real.
     Not that that finding matters to me, for I really don't give a fuck about what a dude studied in college.
     I only care about what a dude knows now, especially what he doesn't seem to know. I do believe Mar Roxas knows a lot of stuff Wharton or fuck, but I also believe there are other things non-neoliberal he should know. If only he did, it'd be in his own and everybody's best interest.
     And that's my advice to my fellow man on the street. Vote for the person who knows what needs to be done and how to go around doing it, for that only means that that person really knows what's going on (as reported or unreported). Conversely, don't vote for the man who hasn't demonstrated knowledge of what's really going on and would therefore not know shit on how to go about resolving it. Don't look at his diploma; diplomas are dogshit when they're all about things that aren't here or can't be here on our streets.
     (Sorry for the socialist working class language and fuck, I'm in this sardine can called the MRT 3 mess and shitbin. Is this your fucking progress, you shitheads in fucking limos?) . . .
     So, again. I don't really care whether Mar Roxas has a Wharton BS economics degree or none. I only care about the fact that his economic sense is trickle-down neoliberal and his political sense corporatocratic. I care a lot about that. [S / -I]

photo borrowed from http://politics.com.ph/mar-thinks-traffic-jams-aint-a-bad-thing-heres-why/

TODAY IS MONKEY DAY

illustration borrowed from http://www.neatorama.com/2010/12/14/happy-monkey-day/

HAHAHAHAHA! This is a really fun and enjoyable moment in time to wallow in! Just look at everyone! Everybody's got a really bad thing or two or ten to say about the enemy camp and their negatives, and nothing bad to say about one's own candidate and camp. In the end, we'll all be the losers!

What's going on is no different from seeing fans of basketball teams slugging it out outside of the coliseum after a game, not knowing that the basketball "enemy" players are already at that very moment celebrating together in a million-peso party!

We've really become such victims of manufactured groupthink in this questionable system of ours called representative democracy that none of us wants to question. We are a really funny species. Happy Monkey Day. :) [S / -I]



smile emoticon

On Presidents as Executioners (or, The Reason Why We Have Courts)

WHAT'S the difference between self-proclaimed champion of socialism and presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte and other political leaders, most of whom are members of Philippine oligarchies that created a Philippine plutocracy and corporatocracy?

photo of Rodrigo Duterte borrowed from http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-shrugs-off-calls-to-run-for-president/

     Duterte, Davao City's mayor for seven terms, admits to having taken into his own hands, out of frustration with our national criminal laws, the execution of allegedly-criminal elements and syndicates that had purportedly hounded the peace and order of his city or, in later years, would try to ruin Davao's peace and order that he had supposedly taken pains to establish. After all, a local government that made it its policy to invite representations from the Lumad and Moro and communist camps---rampant in Mindanao---ought already to have peace as a given. Sure, it remains to be proven whether these executions really happened or are a mere part of his myth or scare tactics for peace and order's sake. It remains to be seen if someone will come out crying Duterte as mayor had executed an innocent man, in the way an article titled "You Can Die Any Time" did, or even harassed a political opponent. But here's what ought to be said: no other leader has admitted, seriously or in jest, to doing (in the past or in the planned future) such deeds as take into his own hands the salvaging of a gonner case. And the reason for it? Well, it might not be because other leaders never did (or would never do) anything like what Duterte claims to have done; it could be because what they have eliminated (or will soon choose to eliminate) in their own time as leaders were not (would not be) criminals or even perceived criminals but lawful members of society who just happened (would happen) to be in the way of their projects.
     You're all right. Duterte as future President of the Republic of the Philippines must submit to legislative bodies the job of debating on what ought to be the wisdom around certain laws he deems needful of amendments. For although it may be true that Duterte had executed criminals that the people of Davao are allegedly happy to be rid of, what if, as President of our republic, he has to delegate the implementation of this wisdom-cum-policy? The debate on capital punishment aside, would his army and police goons or executioner-governors and executioner-mayors always be right about their own final judgments as judges and jury over an archipelago of criminality---as Duterte probably was lucky to always be right as mayor-executioner, or so his supporters tend to believe?
     The subject of corrupt judges aside, the reason why we have courts---and precisely the reason why courts are public---is so that all judgments can be made transparent. For it certainly cannot be left to either a socialist president or a plutocracy president-puppet (and his apologists on TV) to judge whether, say, Lumad leaders, for instance, ought to be executed with impunity (as they seem to have been under the Aquino government) just because they seem to interfere with the national policy on making work for miners and keeping investment ratings high. . . . [S/-I]

photo of Lumad protesters borrowed from http://www.rappler.com/nation/104433-school-head-lumad-leaders-killed-surigao-del-sur