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.

A short, short review

photo from Rappler

I COULD research a flaw (or rumored flaw) in Leni Robredo's personality, then make a movie out of that. I could then end up hyping up, like a troll, the flaw or flaws (or rumored or speculated flaws) I uncovered in that research, couldn't I? All in the name of a "she's just human" supposed narrative statement, since I've always claimed to love her politics. End up, I said, because that film could actually drown out all the things she fought for during her presidential campaign, against all the odds (read: the entire anti-open government plutocracy and their friend, kleptocracy). Couldn't it? . . . Now, aside from the difference in their stature, Robredo is far from being a Manuel L. Quezon, and vice versa, as far as we know, and Quezon and Robredo belong to two different times in history with very different problems. I only pulled out that example with her in the above paragraph to present an argument, with which I would now want to ask this: did Quezon the film end up being an anti-left of center propaganda film that effectively trivialized Quezon's and Osmeña's nationalism against all odds (the Americans' reluctance) as well as put in the shadows the former's (progressive) policy struggles against the landlords and industrial plutocrats of his time? All in the name of putting a "focus" on a he-was-just-human supposed cinematic statement, with no intention of making it come out like a right-wing black propaganda film produced by an Ortigas and a Rocha.

(IN hindsight, did Heneral Luna the movie help make Rodrigo Duterte's "put Tang in a" glass-shattering curses come out as no more than just charming? And, looking forward, will Quezon's supposed treatment of Osmeña, as hyped up in the film, aid Sara Duterte's communication struggle against the Luzonians of our time?)

Agam-agam

ANG mga facilitators, makukulong. Ang mga nagdisenyo ng facilitation, maaabswelto. Iyan ang prediksyon ko.
    In the interrogative, contractors and DPWH engineers ba ang magiging Janet Lim-Napoles et al. of the 2020s? Facilitators taking the fall for the architects and top beneficiaries of the facilitation?

Wala

May nagsa-suggest ng tax holiday, isa naman bagong DPWH with new employees. Walang nagsa-suggest ng mas transparent na gobyerno!!!

Aasikasuhin na raw ang "anti-dynasty bill" at bill providing additional powers sa "Independent Commission for Infrastructure" (sic). Pero, as usual, no bill to make government more transparent.

For as long as walang gagawing mother batas for an open government, lahat ng legislation na isusulat ay malulusutan in the near future! Ganyan katalino ang mga kriminal sa Konggreso!!!

In the end

IN the end, all this back and forth between anti-Duterte and pro-Duterte citizens won't come out as that mid-2020s battle between supporters of ideas of good government and those conservative proponents of evil's continuance, but simply as that communication war between two parties who both tried to convince a badly educated majority that they were the ones on the side of the good. Sad.