QUEZONIAN CONTEXTS FOR OUR TIME

“I WOULD rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans, because however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.” Quezon the movie adopted another version of that quote, which ends with "because no matter how bad, a Filipino government might be improved." In our time, those two versions would differ significantly.

THE former. The former could be used to refer to a US-modeled system of government with a strong president under a strongly-representative democracy CHANGED IN THE FUTURE, after repeated demonstrations of failure, to a more democratic parliamentary form perhaps, and/or to one under a more participatory democracy or quasi-direct democracy like that of Switzerland. The word "can" is optimistic towards Filipinos' capacity to create or instigate or demand such a transition or transformation. The latter. The latter version of the quote (with "might") is less positive, but perhaps more realistic, as if cognizant of the fact that we have always had a policy of maintaining ignorance and propaganda-vulnerability in our country's overwhelming majority (simply via our education system that refuses to be fully socialized and takes pride in a hierarchism of trainings). But although the latter is realistic, almost implying a pessimism or as if subtly preaching the impossibility of hoping, it is however ignorant of the fact that a government molded through a plutocratic model of fake democracy WILL NEVER ALLOW ITSELF TO BE "IMPROVED". Or is it pessimistic precisely because of the near-impossibility of seeking improvements within it?

WHICH version do you prefer? At the risk of sounding like a Macchiavellian inciter of armed rebellion, I'd say that such a plutocratic/kleptocratic government system that has allowed so much power among its wielders will indeed never allow a more open government, or share legislative power with the people through truly-useful initiatives, and that the only time it will allow these to encroach into the system is when a revolution occurs that would demand the upending of those eternal refusals. As an open government and participatory democracy advocate I'll risk stating that statement bordering on Macchiavellian or otherwise Marxist pessimism, however, knowing full well that Filipinos currently want to upend our current system that continues to refuse significant changes only through the lens of either communism or Islamism, both of which our plutocracy has been able to keep at bay. Filipinos will never go to war against our eternally corrupt plutocracy in the name of open government or a quasi-direct democracy. . . . Never. Although they might be able to, someday. Can change. Might improve. Two different worlds in a parallel universe.

Anti-Semiotic, Ang Putik

(borrowed from httpbellyngot1.wordpress.com)

LAHAT ng bagay sa mundo ay may meaning. Kahit nga ang pambansang almusal nating pan de sal na imported mula China at Turkey ang ginagamit na arina ay isang maliit na bagay lang na may malaking meaning. Ang EdloSA pa kaya, na may kilokilometrong trapik na ngayon ay may problemang ayaw solusyunan (dahil malaki ang kinikita ng oil companies sa trapik na ito) . . . kahit pa nag-rebolusyon na sa abenidang ito ang maraming ordinaryong tao noong 1986! Diyan pa lang, may malaking meaning ka nang makikita! Kaya kung sasabihin mo sa akin na wala nang meaning ang EdloSA 1, isa kang nagbubulagbulagan sa katotohanan ng mga bagay-bagay tulad ng pan de sal. O baka naman iniiwasan mo lang ang totoo: na hinayjak ng elite, tulad ng idolo mong elite o royalty, ang naibalik na “demokrasya”. Hinayjak nila ito para hindi na ito maging mas demokratiko pa, maging sa participatory man o semi-direct na democratic direction. Di ba? Aminin. Pati ba naman ang mga meaning ay hahayjakin mo rin, tarantadong hayjaker ka. [S / -I]

Siyempre wala

photo from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/137508/137508

ANG problemang trapik sa Metro Manila ay problema ng tao, hindi kotse. Mantakin mong napakaraming meyor ang nag-dedecide tungkol sa traffic flow at traffic harbingers sa metropolis na ito at kailangan silang konsultahin lahat ng MMDA at sumang-ayon sa bawat panukala ng nasabing ahensiya.
    Iisa lang ang meyor ng New York City at mas malaki ang land area ng New York City (hindi pa kasama ang water area) kaysa sa total area ng buong Metro Manila! Matrapik din sa New York City, ngunit walang napakaraming meyor na kailangan konsultahin at kumbinsihin.
    May gagawin ba si Presidente Duterte o ang Konggreso sa problemang ito? Siyempre wala! [S / -I]

DYSTOPIAS

ALL these environmentalist posts I made yesterday on Facebook, of the YouTube videos above profiling this year's non-partisan Goldman Environmental Prize awardees, could perhaps together have acted (qua posts/shares) as also my way of explaining to my Facebook friends why I cannot be for the Bongbong Marcoses and the Mar Roxases and the San Miguel Corporation-backed Grace Poes of this world, and why I cannot be a loyalist of any of them, unlike some of these Facebook friends of mine. And I said I'm sorry, even though I can't really be.
    Now, the non-partisan, anti-loyalist rationale behind those Facebook posts or shares is also what's behind my belief that says . . . the Duterte government's support for, on the one hand, environmentalist baby Gina Lopez and, on the other, mining baby Bongbong Marcos, is really nothing more than a fragment of Rodrigo Duterte's Big Tent ploy to get contending forces inside his government to fight it out on policies; he'll just watch who will finally come out the winner. And these contending forces will continue to fight it out from under that Big Tent while he, the President, dangles to all of them bits of promises to keep them all within his side of the fence and still in line, so he can do whatever he wants from that secret of a soul that he has, unimpeded by any real opposition, if ever there is going to be much of an opposition left in this everyone-promised landscape. It is my belief that this Big Tent ploy is certain to unravel in the end, although the pessimist in me senses that that unraveling will not likely be happening soon, despite recent changes in the Cabinet, which were minor. So, the Bongbong Marcoses and Gina Lopezes operating within such Big Tent governments as Duterte's will continue to fight it out from within their shared Big Tent matrix, with the Dutertes of Big Tent governance laughing all the way to the (seas') horizon to meet the oncoming realization of their public and private utopias.
    The current formation of impending utopias will shape the dystopias of our tomorrow. Our dystopias. Mine, and my Facebook friends', whichever side of the various loyalisms they now happily belong to. Our planet’s natural environment has its own big tent, and it is somewhat of a dictator itself: it asks us now whether we’re for it or against it. In the end, it doesn’t really care about us. [S / -I]

Angelo Suarez Charged

AS a sort of follow-up to my posts regarding the government's traffic management efforts or shortcomings (read them here), we're giving way to this announcement posted on Facebook by a Facebook page titled MRTBulok Resbak (which translates to "RottenMRT Revenge") regarding the arrest of Angelo Suarez.
    We will be observing how the chain of events that culminated in this charge unfolds in the days to come and what that unfolding might/would signify in terms of being a manifestation of government's real management ideology (not to mention its overall political ideology beyond its lip service).
    We would also welcome any input from government in relation to its stance towards Angelo Suarez, whose initial case we mentioned in the closing paragraphs of our earlier blog titled "More Big Tent Bullshit Than Socialism, Really".

AND now to that Facebook post, which we are here reposting verbatim:

photo from https://www.facebook.com/mrtbulokresbak/posts/1418481751513573:0

#MRTBulok Resbak!

Sa gitna ng kabulukan ng MRT, nagbitiw sa posisyon si DoTr-MRT3 General Manager Roman Buenafe. Sa araw na inanunsiyo ang kaniyang pagbibitiw, ipinagmalaki ng DoTr ang kaniyang “achievement of 20 running trains.” ISa mismong araw ng pagmamalaking ito, nagkaproblema sa riles ng MRT, tatlong beses napilitang huminto ang operations, at naipon sa mga nagsarang estasyon ang mga agrabyadong pasahero. Na naman.

Malinaw na malinaw: Wala sa lugar ang pagmamalaki ng DoTr sa bulok na serbisyo ni Buenafe, dahil bulok pa rin ang MRT. At ang kabulukang ito, dulot ng pribatisasyon sa mga tren kung saan inuuna ang interes ng mga negosiyante bago ang kapakanan ng mga mamamayan. Ang MRT, kabilang ang LRT, itinuturing na negosyo, hindi serbisyo.

Inaresto noong Agosto si Angelo Suarez, isang miyembro ng Train Riders Network (TREN) dahil sa pagsisiwalat at pagpoprotesta sa kabulukang ito. Pinakasuhan at pinaaresto ng DoTr-MRT3 sa ilalim ni Buenafe, batay sa eye-witness account ng isang guwardiya na nagbandalismo raw siya ng “MRT bulok” sa isang bulok na tren. Matapos salubungin ang kaarawan sa presinto, nakalaya lamang siya dahil dismissed ang kasong nagpiit sa kaniya—kasong di dapat natuloy kung pinili na lamang makipagdiyalogo ni Buenafe sa mga tulad ni Suarez na nagpoprotesta sa kabulukan ng MRT dulot ng pribatisasyon.

Sa araw ng kaniyang paglaya, sa isang meeting kasama ang Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), nagbitiw ng salita si DoTr Sec. Arthur Tugade na bagaman kinokondena nila ang naganap na bandalismo, hindi sila interesadong ipagpatuloy ang kaso. Mas interesado silang buksan ang diyalogo sa pagitan ng gobyerno at ng mga nagmomobilisa laban sa pribatisadong MRT.

Kaya kagulat-gulat na matapos ang isang buwan, nakatanggap si Suarez ng subpoena. Noong September 28, nalaman niyang hinahabla siya ng gobyerno, matapos sabihang di interesado ang gobyerno sa habla. Kasinglinaw ng pagkabulok ng MRT ang kagustuhan ng pamunuan ng DoTr-MRT3 mang-harass ng mga militante sa kabila ng sinabi ni Sec. Tugade.

Para sa damages na naghahalagang P380 dulot ng bandalismong ginagawa lamang ng mga nagpoprotesta sa kawalan ng alternatibo para sila pakinggan ng mga awtoridad, nahaharap si Suarez sa posibilidad ng kulong hanggang 6 na buwan, dagdag sa multang aabot ng P3,000.

Sa October 12, haharap siyang muli sa Office of the CIty Prosecutor ng Quezon City para maghain ng counter-affidavit. Sa gitna ng pagbabago sa liderato ng DoTr-MRT3, walang pagbabago sa kaniyang kaso. Batay sa pagtuloy ng DoTr-MRT3 sa habla, tila sarado pa rin sa diyalogo ang gobyerno; ang bukas lamang ay ang posibilidad na ikulong si Suarez at iba pang militanteng lumalaban sa pribatisasyon ng MRT at iba pang public utilities.

Sa bagong pamunuan ng DoTr-MRT3—sina Cesar Chavez at Deo Manalo—ito ang panawagan namin:

—Drop all charges against Angelo Suarez: Umiba sa landas ng nakaraang lideratong nakagawiang mang-harass ng mga militante. Pakawalan na ang kaso at tanggaping hahanap nang hahanap ng paraan para magprotesta ang mga mamamayan hangga’t nananatiling negosyo, hindi serbisyo, ang trato ng gobyerno sa public utilities gaya ng mga tren.

—Dinggin ang mga militante: Maraming taon nang paulit-ulit ang sigaw ng mga nagmomobilisa—balikan ang onerous contracts na pinasok at pinabayaan ng mga nakaraang rehimen, at usigin ang rehimeng Duterte na panindigan ang pangakong #ChangeIsComing pagdating sa kasalukuyang pribatisadong mass public transport.

—Rescind onerous contracts: Panahon na para bawiin ng gobyerno ang mga pribatisadong tren. Unang-una ang MRT sa mga dapat isauli sa taumbayan. Suportado ito ng mga mamamayan, at tamang suportahan ng DoTr-MRT3 ang panukalang ito bilang #PartnerOfChange. Makiisa sa tulak tungong pambansang industriyalisasyon! Magsisimula lamang ito sa nasyonalisasyon ng public utilities gaya ng mga riles.

Umaasa kaming hangad din ng bagong liderato ng DoTr-MRT3 ang pagbabago sa mga tren. Masisimulan ito sa pagbitiw sa kaso ni Suarez.

—————

Inaanyayahan ang lahat ng nakikiisa sa protesta na lumagda sa online petition na bitiwan ang kaso sa http://www.ipetitions.com/…/mrtbulok-resbak-mrtbulok-fight-…

at paki-share ito nang may sumusunod na mga hashtag: #MRTBulok #PPPBulok #DropAllCharges #SerbisyoHindiNegosyo [S / -I]

Napoleon Bonaparte and Ferdinand Marcos Are Antonyms, Not Synonyms

photo from http://empiresandallies.wikia.com/wiki/Napoleon_Statue

NAPOLEON Bonaparte to the French people.

    Ferdinand Marcos to the Filipino people.
    I don't think they're synonymous.
    In fact, the reason why Bonaparte is considered a hero by the French is because he finally got rid of royalism, despite bringing back the monarchy, by introducing to the world an extensive list of human and civil liberties previously deemed unfathomable in the whole of Europe, known as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The manifestation of this seed on consequent world tracts on civil liberties would deem Napoleon's declaration as at the pinnacle of the French Revolution's mountain of a legacy.

photo from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bust_of_Ferdinand_Marcos,_near_the_town_of_Baguio.jpg

    In contrast, Ferdinand Marcos, like other US-sponsored dictators in their countries, introduced royalist kleptocracy to the Philippines' republican democratic system by embedding in it limitations on, at times denials of, human and civil liberties to Man and the Citizen. The manifestations of this seed on history would be in the abuses that would act as the pinnacle of Marcos' own plutocratic and crony capitalist New Society manifesto for mass obedience, his Revolution from the Center, the black mound of a legacy of which continues to live in our hopeless day.
    So, should right-minded Filipinos deny Marcos the "hero" tag and funeral honors the Duterte government would like to proceed with if the French would not deny the same to Napoleon?
    Again, from the beginning. [S / -I]

WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE SCHEDULED STATE BURIAL (WITH HONORS, AS A MATTER OF COURSE) OF FORMER DICTATOR FERDINAND MARCOS AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI?

cartoon borrowed from paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com

1.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership under various faces, with its filial penchant for forgiving, even if only a bit, and permitting people in exile to return to their regions of wide support in exchange for the surrender of a few centavos of their stolen wealth. Along with this, the dismal performance of the Presidential Commission on Good Government in running after the Marcoses' stolen wealth in offshore accounts, not to mention the reported corruption of some appointed officials of the commission. Along with this, the oligarchies' lack of transparency with regards to the amount and whereabouts of all the recovered ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses' haul.

2.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership (through one of its own or otherwise a puppet), with its treatment of Philippine politics as a game wherein its leaders can nurture an anti-Marcos image, complete with TV documentaries about the Marcos era and annual anniversaries reflecting on the Marcos oppressive years of horrors, while entering into business jointures and secret political alliances with elements of the Marcos family; in the case of Noynoy Aquino, fanning anti-Marcos rhetoric on PTV4 and ABS-CBN care of the Lopezes even as he patches up differences with the Danding Cojuangcos and the Floirendos and other former Marcos allies to build both business and political alliances for his Liberal Party machine, one of which products may have been getting back a larger influence on Hacienda Luisita stocks that would result in Kris Aquino's sitting on the board of the corporation, to mention a few such arrangements beyond our masses' full comprehension.

3.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership and its failure to govern beyond the (legalist) ways and habits of the crony-serving Marcos era, which led to people's disillusionment with these post-Marcos governments that led in turn to a popular belief that perhaps Marcos was just a victim of black propaganda and that maybe what those Marcos-supporting white and grey propaganda releases have been saying were probably more right than not.

4.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership with its secret arrangements that may have given the Marcoses leeway to enter the various propaganda media, which entry would lead the Marcos machine to convince millions of disillusioned Filipinos of old and new generations to consider the possibility that maybe Marcos was not that bad, culminating in an almost-win for the vice-presidential candidacy of Bongbong Marcos.

5.) The Filipino oligarchy's leadership, with its failure to strengthen a continuing knowledge of all the recent Philippine history of abuses and inculcating all this into the memories of both old and new students and teachers.

6.) Finally, the irony of a newly-elected President who unabashedly proclaims that he is a socialist (partly true, perhaps, while also partly false) while confessing to a close friendship with the rightist Marcos family, and---after the elections---confessing to having been primarily funded by a Floirendo (a former Marcos ally in Mindanao) during his presidential campaign. (Incidentally, it was purportedly thanks to this Floirendo that a Duterte-Marcos 2016 tandem became the most common tandem on the presidential election posters on the walls and fences of Davao).

7.) And. oh, we almost forgot: the Filipino people being too divided on their impression about the Marcoses, thanks to all of the above, that would now render it impossible for them to launch a revolution against all of Marcos' friends in government (if there is even such an animal as a true enemy of the Marcoses in the highest roster of government since the presidency of Ferdinand's cousin, Fidel Ramos). [S / -I]

REMINDING THE PRESIDENT OF THAT DISTRUST THAT PRODUCED "IN DIGONG WE TRUST"

photo from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Philippine_State_of_the_Nation_Address.jpg

THE President is giving us a dressing-down for flagging his statements that favored a Con Ass over a Con Con for the drafting of a new Constitution. He says that this distrust towards our senators and congressmen in Congress is too much. And he says nobody has a monopoly on good wisdom.
    We understand the President's concern about the huge resources that would be needed for a Con Con. However, the President must indulge us our continuing distrust of these people in Congress along with their wisdom. We might like to note that they mostly derive from the wealthy class of our Republic, as do their wisdom (or wisdom absent from their knowledge).
    As a self-described Socialist, the President might understand where people's distrust is coming from. In fact, he might recall that his campaign leaned on this very distrust towards the wealthy political class. He used this distrust to push for a more trustworthy alternative, and in fact continues to use it as a rationale for many of his freshly-launched new or rehashed policies, the anti-illegal drugs drive being one of them. After all, this is the same wealthy political class that would never give up its access to the pork barrel (of whatever name) and rid us of a pork-barrel-run system of executive-legislative governance. This is the same wealthy political class that would like to continue to use the "epal" tradition of putting their names on every government project or vehicle or structure that they can appropriate as products of their generosity. Therefore, it is this very same wealthy political class that would likely avoid a furtherance of power-sharing areas with the people through stronger direct democracy instruments such as the initiative, the right to call for referenda, the right to recall elections, among others. Thus our fear that this Con Ass could very well decide to get rid of the people's initiative clause in the 1987 Constitution (instead of strengthening it).
    Sure, it's possible that delegates to a Con Con might be just as suspect to our nation's eyes. There would be the gamble. But the President must understand that our fears in relation to most politicians in Congress are not totally without grounds. The President might remember that most, if not all, of his new policies, and the people's support of them, all come from fears. So that if he can trust that our larger fears against the proliferation of illegal drugs in our neighborhoods are what is keeping us from fearing his police state methods against illegal drugs more, then he must trust our expression of fears in other areas.
    Who knows: he who rules by fear just might be able to help this nation further in exploiting and defeating one other fear: the fear of reinvigorated old privileges among wealthy political class elements when they go unchecked by the people who may have just been further excluded from their government via a more fake democracy in a new Constitution. [S / -I]

Digong's Pale Vision of a Revolution

photo from http://www.1meee.com/%E2%80%AArodrigo-duterte%E2%80%AC%E2%80%AC/

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte wants the French model, a semi-presidential system, but with a unicameral legislature. What gives? Well, the basic rationale for the parliamentary system against the presidential system is that it's the parliamentary system that gets rid---more or less---of national big business' hold on presidential candidates (who need big business money to run at all). So what does this say about the Duterte vision of a revolution for the Philippines' future?
    Another basic rationale for the parliamentary system is the fact that, like two-party systems, political parties automatically get serious about their being parties in fighting for majority seats. And even when parties lose seats in a parliamentary system, they get serious about forming a shadow government. In this kind of setup, the need for the pork barrel, which is used in the presidential system for congressmen to veer their voices to a path more in tune with the executive branch, virtually disappears. In turn, in a parliamentary system, there is no more need for party people to change parties everytime a new president from another party enters the picture. Duterte's vision of a revolution, it seems, doesn't want to get rid of the pork barrel and just wants the "unicamerality" of a Parliament.
     So much for revolutions? [S / -I]

Alam Mo Ba Ang Ibig Sabihin ng Quid Pro Quo?

photo from http://thesource.com/2015/12/17/happy-37th-birthday-manny-pacquiao-top-5-humanitarian-movements/

SO, dahil alam mo naman pala, ano kaya, Senador, kung ang binabalak mong gawin sa trabaho mo sa Senado ay gawin din ng mga katulong at hardinero mo sa iyo, magustuhan mo kaya?
     Ano kaya kung ang tao nalang ang maging Senado sa isang direct democracy para makapag-sports nalang ang political elite ng ating plutokrasiya o walang kuwentang representative democracy? [S / -I]

Paano Mamuhay sa Glorious Century ng mga Mesdames, Eraps, at Erams

photo from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/29417-gloria-arroyo-proclaimed-winner-in-pampanga

NAGTATAKA ka pa kung bakit malaya si Imelda na ngayo'y Kongresista pa, si Erap na ngayo'y meyor na uli, at---ilang oras mula ngayon---si Gloria na maaari nang ibalik sa Konggreso, ayon sa kaniyang mga in-appoint na maging mga "hustisya" ng Korte Suprema? Di ka masanay.
     Alam naman nating sa Pilipinas, walang kapamilya ng isa sa mga pamilya sa tuktok ng ating plutokrasiya at oligarkiya ang nakukulong ng matagal, dahil parating ang kanilang pagkakulong ay bahagi lamang ng drama, ng isang serye ng moro-moro plays, sa gitna ng tunggalian ng mga magkakalabang pamilya rito.
     Drama, o moro-moro play, dahil kahit man may tunggaliang pulitikal, tunggalian sa lupa o sa negosyo, o anumang away sa gitna ng mga pamilyang ito, bahagi pa rin ang bawat isa sa kanila ng magkakakabit na relasyon ng kanilang mga angkan na may mga sariling iginuhit na linyang di dapat nilalalagpasan ng anumang aksyon ng isang Bahay. Kumbaga, sa bandang huli, pare-pareho lang naman ang kanilang mga ipinaglalaban---ang kanilang mga sariling yaman.
     Batas? Ang batas sa mga pamilyang ito ay isa lamang laruan, at minsan ay isang punyal na maari lamang ipukol ng tuluyan sa mga di-nila-kauring lapastangan sa kanilang royalidad.

PERO, siyempre, pagkalabas nila sa kanilang drama-entabladong kulungan, iboboto natin sila uli. Dahil alam mo naman, ang star system sa ating representative democracy ay isang sistemang walang pinagkaiba sa noong malayang pinapipili ang tao kung sino ang gusto nilang magdala sa kanila sa kalayaan: si Prinsipe X o si Prinsesa Y. [S / -I]

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]