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.

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

HABANG hinihintay daw ang resulta ng imbestigasyon ng "Independent Commission for Infrastructure" (sic), may nagsa-suggest sa Senado ng isang tax holiday, isa naman bagong DPWH with new employees. Walang nagsa-suggest ng bill para sa mas transparent na gobyerno!!!
    Aasikasuhin na raw ang "anti-dynasty bill" at bill providing additional powers sa "Independent Commission for Infrastructure". Pero, again: as usual, no bill to make government more transparent!!!

NAWALA ang pork barrel, pinalitan ng insertions. Kung mawawala na ang insertions, ano ang ipapalit ng political families ng Pilipinas para maipagpatuloy ang kanilang . . .
    Oh, the performative rage of government leaders everywhere! But only a handful of them would actually back an open government bill!
    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 ating Konggreso!!!
    Kaya "open government" na now!!! Hindi lang sa SALN!!!

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]

Isang Maiksing Reminder Tungkol sa Anatomiya ng Pilipinong Botante at ang Ugat ng Abuse of Power sa Ating Bansa

ANO ang mali sa pronouncement na ito?
    "Jojo, di ba ibinoto mo rin si Duterte? Tapos wala pa yatang isang buwan ay kung anu-ano na ang pinagsasasabi mo tungkol sa Duterte government na binoto mo? Kung gago nga ang Duterte government, ayon sa punto ng ilang kritisismo mo laban dito, aba, isa ka rin sa mga dahilan kung bakit ganito ang nangyari sa bansa natin under the Duterte government. Kaya ang masasabi ko sa iyo ay ito: dun ka na lang sa binoto mo, gago ka! Panindigan mo na lang, punyeta ka!! Di ka namin kailangan sa panig namin!!!"
    Obvious naman na ang nagsulat nito ay hindi bumoto o nangampanya kay Duterte. Dahil ang bumoto kay Duterte ay ganito ang isusumbat:
    "Ang problema sa atin, boboto tayo, tapos sa huli tayo ay magrereklamo. Ganun ba parati? Di ba dapat suportahan na lang kung sino man ang nanalo dahil yun ang pinili ng tao? O totoo nga bang mahilig lang talaga tayong maging parating opositor? Kaya siguro hindi umuunlad ang ating bayan."
    Hokey. At ngayon, ang sagot ko sa mga mungkahi na yan, na ilalatag ko ng mahaba at ng ganito:
    "Ser, ma'am, ang pagkakaalam ko po, lahat po tayo ay nalalagay sa single-issue activism o single-issue politics tuwing eleksyon. At least sa case ko ganun ang tingin ko sa sarili ko bilang botante. Ibig sabihin, binoboto ko ang tao na nagmumungkahi na gagawa ng solusyon sa single issue na nasa tuktok ng aking listahan. Oo nga't marami tayong nasa ating mga listahan na di angkop sa kandidatong iboboto natin at maaaring angkop dun sa kabila, kaya lang hindi iyon ang nasa tuktok sa listahan natin, at kahit man marami tayong magkakaparehong causa sa ating mga listahan ay magkakaiba tayo ng piniling issue na ilalagay sa tuktok ng ating kani-kaniyang listahan. At dahil alam ko iyan, ser, ma'am, nung ako'y bumoto, pinangako ko sa aking sarili na hindi ako magiging loyalista ng sinumang pulitiko at ng kanyang mga pagpangako kundi ng pagtupad sa mga issues sa aking listahan. Kaya . . . dun sa sinasabi niyong pareho na dun na lang ako dapat sa binoto ko parati, nagkakamali po kayo sa inyong pag-iisip na ang binoto ko ay yung tao at hindi yung causa na nasa tuktok ng aking listahan (na maaaring tinupad niya o tinupad niya ng mali o sinuway niya o iniwan na sa daan). Alam niyo, hindi lang naman ang kandidatong binoto ko ang nangako. Ako rin ay nangako. Pinangako ko sa aking sarili na lalabanan ko ang aking piniling kandidato sa ibang issue sa aking listahan na hindi siya angkop. At, alam niyo, ganun din naman ang pinangako ko sa aking sarili pagdating sa ibang kandidato, na kung sila ang mananalo ay hindi ko sila lalabanan sa lahat ng issue, dahil hindi sila ang kinalaban ko kundi ang maraming issue na hindi angkop sa kanila. Susuportahan ko naman sila sa mga issue sa listahan ko na angkop sa kanila. Muli, . . . sa mungkahi niyo, ser, na doon na lang ako parati dapat sa binoto ko dahil di niyo ako kailangan sa panig niyo, at sa parinig ninyo, ma'am, na tila adik na ako sa pagiging kontra parati, hindi po ako pumapanig sa inyo, ser, o sa kabila, ma'am, dahil sa tao ninyo/doon kundi dahil sa causa ninyo/doon kung saan kaisa ninyo/nila ako, dahil nasa listahan ko rin ang causa na iyon. Ser, kung ayaw niyo akong tanggapin sa rally niyo dahil binoto ko si Duterte, aba, okey lang. Kikilos ako nang hindi ko kayo kasabay, dahil hindi ako lumalaban sa ngalan ng isang pulitiko kundi sa ngalan ng mga causa ko. Hindi ko kayo kaisa sa inyong loyalismo, ser at ma'am, dahil tinuturing ko ring kalaban ang anumang uri ng loyalismo sa tao o partido."
    At dito ay biglang paakbay na pumasok ang aking Facebook friend na si Bert David ng may ganitong mga salita ng pagsuporta sa aking posisyon. Aniya: "Baluktot pa kasi at dapat itama ang pag-unawa ng mga kababayan natin sa kung ano ang demokrasya. Akala pa rin ng ilan, ang inihahalal sa mga eleksyon ay kundi man inihalal upang maging diyos, ay hinalal para maging hari o reyna o diktador, kung kaya't ang mga itoy ay nagiging mandarambong o manggagantso o mamamatay-tao nila. Di pa rin maintindihan na ang ibinoboto at dapat ibinoboto ay ang mga mabuting tao na makagagawa ng mabuti sa bansa at sa kapwa. At lalong di alam na sa demokrasya, kabahagi ang botante sa pang-araw-araw na pamamahala kung saan tinatalakay ang mga bagay-bagay na ginagawa para sa ikabubuti ng madla (hindi para sa ikabubuti ng mga ibinotong akala nila'y dapat lang na naging diyos o hari o reyna o diktador na naging mandarambong o manggagantso o mamamatay-tao ng botante."
    Mismo. Dahil kung ito nga ang anatomiya ng ating pagboto, totoo nga ang kasabihan na ang karapatang bumoto ng tao sa isang representative democracy ay isang karapatan nilang pumili ng kanilang susunod na magiging diktador.
    Matagal ko na ring sinasabi na tae talaga ang isang purely representative democracy na walang kasama o kaakibat na direct democracy instruments para sa tao. Hindi ito totoong "demos kratos" (democracy) o people's rule, dahil madalas rito, ang ibinoto mong tao ay nandun na, nagsisimula nang umalis sa kanyang ilang mga pangako at umabuso na rin sa kapangyarihang ibinigay sa kanya at di na mabawi ng mga bumoto sa kanya, salamat sa pribilehiyong ito na bigay ng taeng pure representative democracy.
    At kahit pa matagal na akong nagdadadaldal tungkol diyan, walang nakikinig sa kuto na tulad ko, dahil buo na ang paniniwala ng sambayanan na ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa mga inihahalal, mga inihahalal na sana ay maging mabuti at hindi masama. Buo na ang kanilang paniniwala na ang ating kaligtasan ay hindi nasa pagpalit o pagbago sa sistemang nagbibigay ng pribilehiyong bukas na bukas sa temtasyon ng pag-abuso. Kaya walang natututunan ang bansang ito tungkol sa kasamaan mismo ng sistemang bukas sa abuso ng masama (at ng mabuting maaaring maging masama), dahil sa kanilang malakas na paniniwala na ang taong inihalal lang ang maaaring maging masama (at mabuti), na ang taong mabuti ay di magiging masama sa loob ng ganito kalaking pribilehiyo at poder. At ako'y naging pessimist na tungkol sa future ng bansang ire na reklamo nang reklamo ngunit ayaw umalis sa sistema ng pure representative democracy na siyang ugat ng lahat ng abuse of power ng mga pulitiko. [S / -I]

UNLESS WE PUT BACK THE L IN EDLSA, CHANGE WOULD STILL BE STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND WON'T BE COMING AT ALL

hiram mula sa http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/380824/balitanghali/rep-salceda-mas-nagdudulot-ng-traffic-sa-edsa-ang-pokemon-go-kaysa-provincial-buses

EMERGENCY powers. Ito ang hinihingi ng Malacañang sa Senado para malutas ang traffic at transportation crisis sa Metro Manila. "Change is coming" with those emergency powers, pangako ng paulit-ulit na campaign at government slogan ng Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. Subalit, teka, kung ang departamento ehekutibo ang nanghihingi at hindi ang Senado ang humingi ng hearing tungkol sa usapin na ito ng emergency powers para sa Pangulo, ito ang tanong: Di ba ay may inihanda at isinumite ka na dapat na plano sa Senado bago ka pa man pumunta roon para pormal na manghingi ng emergency powers? Bakit kailangan ka pang tanungin kung ano ang mga plano mo ng mga taong hinihingan mo ng emergency powers?
    Huwag na natin isa-isahin ang mga planong inilahad din naman ng departamento ehekutibo sa Senate hearing tungkol dito, pareho yung wow, na naman at yung maganda o tumpak na plano; kayo na ang bahalang mag-research kung ano ang mga ito at kumumporme o kumamot sa ulo sa bawat isa sa mga ito. Ngayon, gusto ko lang balikan ang mga nakaraan para mailatag ko ang aking pananaw sa buong polisiya sa trapik at transportasyon ng gobyernong ire.


MGA kababayan, may paborting salitang Bisaya na ginagamit ang Pangulo kapag nalalamyaan sa isang tao: bayot. Sa Tagalog, ibig sabihin nito ay bakla. Alam ko naman na ang ibig sabihin ng Pangulo ay malamya lamang, o walang tapang, o mahina, at hindi tunay na bakla, dahil alam naman niya siguro na maraming bakla ang may tapang at lakas ng loob, tulad nalang halimbawa ng tapang na marahil ay nakita niya kina Behn Cervantes at Lino Brocka noong panahon ng Martial Law. Gayunpaman, ayokong gamitin ang salitang ito kung ako naman ang malalamyaan sa isang polisya ng gobyernong ito dahil homophobic ang dating, tulad ng pagka-sexist ng pagsabing "para ka namang babae." Kaya ang gagamitin kong salita pag ako ang malalamyaan sa isang polisiya o kawalan ng isang pagkaklaro at pagkadiretso at pagka-malakas ay . . . malamya lamang. O di kaya walang kuwenta. O di kaya supot. Oops, di rin yata politically correct yon.
    Huwag na tayong magpaligoy-ligoy pa. Ito ang tanong ko:
    Kelan kaya tayo magkakaroon ng gobyernong may buong tapang na i-nationalize ang lahat ng sasakyang pampubliko sa metropolis o di kaya gawin ang ginawa sa Melbourne na di man nationalized ay nasa ilalim ng consortia kung kaya't di magulo, dahilan kung bakit nakaya niyang ipagbawal ang pribadong sasakyan sa ilang daan ng metropolis (maliban sa business cargo vans), at inobliga ang lahat na gumamit ng sasakyang pampubliko, maging janitor man o CEO ng mga korporasyon. Parang sa Japan din, kung saan pati ang mga CEO ay kumakain sa cafeteria ng mga sararimanu (salary men). Kelan kaya tayo makakakita ng ganitong uri ng tapang para sa pagkakapantay-pantay ng lahat sa daan? Kelan? Kailan?!
    Sa ngayon kasi, tila may pagsandal na naman sa rason na ang trapik ay di naman parating "matrapik", at ito ay pinapalala lang din ng isang kathang-isip nating mga komyuter. Hmm. Kaya pala't narito pa rin tayo at may patuloy na pakikinabang ang oil companies sa malalang trapik na nagpapalago sa kanilang mga negosyo, salamat sa pagsunog ng mga sasakyan ng gasolina kahit di umaandar ang mga ito.
    Naroon ang nakapagtatakang mga naunang utos ng LTFRB kung saan ipinagbawal ang pagdaan sa EdlSA ng isang uri ng public transport (UV Express) pabor sa isang public transport (buses), na di ko malaman kung ano ang naitulong sa trapik sa EdlSA gayung dumami lang naman ang nagcolorum na mga vans at naglipana na rin ang mga Uber at Grab. Ito ay habang nagkakakanta ang gobyerno na priyoridad daw nila ang public transport, gayung wala pa namang nagagalaw na paggalaw ng mga pribadong sasakyan at ang UV Express pa nga ang unang pinagdiskitahan, at pinaglakad pa ng malayo ang ilang mga mananakay nitong working class patungo sa kanilang mga MRT connecting stations. At sasabihin ng gobyerno na socialist daw siya at maka-working class? Sus, ginoo.
    (Mabuti naman at pagkaraan ng ilang linggo ay binawi rin ito ng mga taga-Dabaw na nagpatupad nito na tila may weird na konsepto tungkol sa trapik sa EdlSA, bagamat may mga kondisyon pa rin itong di ko pa rin maintindihan. O naiintindihan ko kung umaalis ako sa sosyalistang perspektibo na pinangalandakan ng gobyerno na siya rin daw perspektibo na pinanggagalingan nila. Pweh.)
    Meron ba talagang solusyong bago ang gobyerno natin ngayon maliban sa mga imprastaktura na naman na makikipaghabulan na naman sa dumaraming sasakyan na humahabol sa bilang ng mga indibidwal sa lumulobong populasyon ng lungsod?
    Ang problema ng trapik ay hindi ang trapik, kundi ang kathang-isip ng mga rehimen na ang tanging solusyon sa paglobo ng populasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan ay nasa paggiba ng mga bahay para matayuan ng mga kalsada. Saan ito hihinto, pag naubos na ang mga bahay? Ang problema ng EDSA (at hindi ng EdlSA) ay sa patuloy nating pagsamba sa pagkasanto ng mga pribadong sasakyan nang walang pagtatanong man lang kung alin at sino ba talaga ang dapat na ituring na santos ng highway na ito. Matagal na nating tinanggap na santos ang mga pribadong sasakyan dito, nang walang pagpreno at pagmunimuni tungkol sa kung sino ba talaga ang los santos. The saints. Napapanahon na siguro na ibalik natin ang L sa EdlSA, silang mga tunay na los santos, ang public transport commuters na siyang dapat na sinasamba ng mga polisiyang pang-transportasyon.
    Sa ngayon, wala. Wala akong nakikitang solusyon na magpapahinto sa pagpabor ng gobyerno sa pribadong sasakyan. Ang future transporation utopia kung saan wala nang pribadong sasakyan ay di pa darating sa Pilipinas sa mga darating na siglo. Kailangan pa siguro natin ng liderato na sa isyung ito ay may totoong tapang, tapang na may dalang pagbabago sa buhay ng mga taong di pinagkaitan ng kaukulang pansin ni Lino Brocka. Tapang di lamang sa pagtanggap sa katotohanan na kailangan na natin ng nasyon ng mass transport at di nasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan na wala na ngang maparkingan ay siya pa nating sinasamba, at lalo ng tapang na igiit ang solusyon na para sa nakararami, o para sa kanila na araw-araw ay gising sa reyalidad na hindi pinalala ng kathang-isip itong mga nangyayari.
    O di kaya, let's gather our heads on this, people! And I mean, let's gather the real bravery of working together on this in a participatory democracy, instead of relying on just the macho bravado of a Department of Transportation that keeps on giving us nothing but the drugged view of a promise of a bogus socialist transport policy that shall be coursed through diktats. Let's believe in us together, instead of just a Tugade. Together, not Tugade, and rally for real change sans the kowtowing to private interests via emergency powers. (Concerning PPP projects, here's a caveat to all optimistic about new government PPP arrangements expected to come from the emergency powers setup, marketed as the Duterte solution. . . . which, for our information, were actually also marketed before as the Noynoy Aquino, Macapagal-Arroyo, Estrada, Ramos, and Cory Aquino solutions: read about New Zealand's "promised electric trains derailed by misguided enthusiasm", for example).
    I say again: Let's take back our EdlSA, this time with the L that refers to the real santos, the los santos, Lino Brocka's santos, the public-transport-commuting masses. Yan ang epipanyo (o epifanyo, o epiphany) na pinapanangalin kong makita sana ng lahat bago pa man sumambulat ang mga lumang uri ng solusyon na dala ng emergency powers na ito. [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]

ANG ATING LABAN SA ARAW-ARAW

from http://quotesgram.com/joseph-brant-quotes/

BAKIT daw ba ako nagrereklamo sa ilang mga pangyayari sa ilalim ng pamamahala ng gobyerno ni Rodrigo Duterte, gayung ibinoto ko ito at tila ikinampanya pa sa Peysbuk.
    Ang kritisismong ito laban sa kritisismo ko sa ilang hakbang ng gobyernong Duterte ay nagpapatunay lamang na may tatlong prinsipyong umiiral sa ating kultura:

1. Na ganun kalalim ang kumpyansa o tiwala natin sa ating mga manok sa eleksyon, na para bang sila'y walang magiging dungis kung sila ang nanalo at siyang magiging tunay na messiah tungo sa mas magandang umaga;

2. Na ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa isang presidente at hindi nasa mamamayan;

 At, finally,

3. Na ang ating kaligtasan ay nagmumula sa boto natin sa ating mga eleksyon.

KATANGAHAN.
    Dahil ang ating kaligtasan ay hindi nasa mga panginoong matatalino, kundi nasa patuloy na tunay na kritisismo nating mga tao, ayon sa ating kolektibong talino, laban sa mali ng alinmang manok na nanalo sa ating mga eleksyon, maging sila'y manok mo man o manok ko. Dahil sa paniniwala nating nasa kanila ang ating kaligtasan at nasa kanila lamang, diyan tayo patuloy na tinutuka ng garapata ng mga hayop na 'to na tinuturing ng ating representatibong demokrasya na siyang tanging may talino para sa milyun-milyon.
     Oo nga't dapat may binoboto tayo tuwing eleksyon. At oo, yaong sa palagay natin ay may mas magandang plano, isasakatuparan niya man ito o babaliktarin. Pero yan ay eleksyon lamang ng mga lider, mga kababayan. Nakakalimutan natin na ang lider ng mga lider ay tayo, at ang pamamahala ng mga lider ay dapat pumapangalawa lamang sa ating mga kagustuhan bilang pinakamataas na lider ng demokrasya, demokrasyang di sana humihinto pagkatapos mahalal ng inihalal. Kung patuloy nating kakalimutan ito, aba'y ano ang pinagkaiba ng kultura ng demokrasya natin sa royalistang kultura ng fans ng naglalaban-labang mga hari ng mga monarkiya?
    Sa tingin ko, kaya tayo di umuunlad o may mabagal na pag-unlad sa ating pulitika ay dahil tayo ang nag-aaway-away sa sabungan ng ating reyalidad na pinapatakbo ng partisanong confirmation bias na itinanim sa mga utak natin ng ating mga pinanigang partido. Tila ayaw na nating harapin ang katotohanan na ang dapat nating sinasabong ay ang ilang mga polisiya ng mga manok nating tila'y wala pa ring humpay ang katutuka sa atin sa araw-araw.
    Sabi pa nga ni Dana D. Nelson: ". . . our habit of putting the president at the center of democracy and asking him to be its superhero works to deskill us for the work of democracy. . . . the presidency itself has actually come to work against democracy."


ANG lalim ng ating kumpyansa o tiwala sa ating mga manok sa eleksyon, na para bang sila'y walang magiging dungis kung sila ang nanalo at siyang magiging tunay na messiah tungo sa mas magandang umaga, ay nagpapatunay lamang na di pa rin tayo makaalis doon sa ating paghahanap ng ideyal na lider sa katauhan ng mga manok natin. Ito ay nagpapakita rin na sa pamamagitan ng patuloy nating pagsandal sa ideyal na lider sa ating nanalong manok, o sa ideyal sanang lider sa ating natalong manok na sa ating paniniwala ay siyang may dalang liwanag ng umaga, ay nananatili tayong nakakulong doon sa mito ng "ideyal na lider" sa katauhan ng mga elemento ng plutokrasiya na may mga sagot sa problema na para bang hindi natin kaya.
    Nakalulungkot na ang ating mga laban ay, bagamat para sa atin din, unang-una ay para sa kanila.
    How I wish that every political critic (professional and not) owned this sub-definition of "politician" or "government official"---as one who is a friend in a cause and an enemy in another. It's sad that politicians and political parties or factions have become many of my friends' political end-causes themselves.  [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]

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]

My amendment proposals to the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735)

DESPITE my being a part of the convenors' team of ePIRMA (the Empowered People's Initiative and Reform Movement Alliance instigated by Manny SD Lopez with my help) that later joined forces with the Cebu Catholic hierarchy-backed Cebu Coalition and the Makabayan Coalition in a largely evolutionary effort to draft the 2014 People's Initiative Against Pork Barrel, it’s true that I had reservations about the viability of the Philippines’ initiative process as avowed by the existing initiative-enabling law (RA 6735). Assuming that my reservations were loudly expressed and not merely kept to myself, you could say now that my hangup was proven correct. In this video clip from a GMA News coverage of an October 2013 forum at Hotel Rembrandt on Tomas Morato Avenue, watch from 1:46:

     I am not, of course, Joey de Veyra (I'm Jojo de Veyra), and I was not trying to "batikos" (criticize) the proposition campaign during the time of this news clip. In fact, despite my being identified as the convenor of a different group (the Facebook group called Forum for Direct Democracy Philippines), I (armed with the FDDP's cause) was among those very individuals trying to convene more people to join in ePIRMA's effort, efforts that culminated in a "people's congress" held at the Asian Institute of Management convention center in December 2013. If you are to get access to a coverage video of my entire speech at that forum---and my answer to a journalist's question on how ePIRMA proposed to do the signature-gathering realistically---you'd see where I stood in that whole affair, despite a supposed ambiguous position I carried according to that very brief portrayal of my voice in that news clip by 24 Oras. But that's immaterial now. The point is that I did, somehow, express reservations about the potential of the effort to succeed, which was a reservation shared by many in the group that also pushed the group to join forces with the Cebu Coalition (which was then loudly doing a parallel campaign in the Visayas) for a more united front.

     In August 2014, the initiative was formally launched in Cebu City. I was there as part of ePIRMA. But as regards to what happened soon after the launch, I'd here confess that the signature gathering was mostly left to certain parishes of the more organized Catholic Church, the primary backing of the Cebu Coalition. Sporadic rallies of support were organized by the Makabayan group and provincial groups. In contrast, other members of ePIRMA were seen to have moved on to various other national concerns. Manny SD Lopez---ePIRMA's leading convenor and most active campaigner on the road---would also busy himself with organizing the Christian Peace Alliance, one of the groups advocating for a drastic review of some provisions of the then-in-its-final-thrust Bangsamoro Basic Law. Lopez would also form the EdlSA 2.22.15 Coalition, a group that called for President Benigno Aquino III's resignation after the Mamasapano mishap. I myself soon became part of an online art magazine. So, I submit that in this latter period I was not privy anymore to how the signature-gathering for the initiative on the pork barrel was progressing. I did hear of some pockets of resistance to the initiative, as well as the Comelec's seeming lack of enthusiasm towards verifying the signatures, but that's about it. . . .

     Then came the various noises leading to the 2016 general election, within which any news concerning the initiative's progress was nowhere to be found on Google. Not anymore.

     Then came the elections. And, guess what: Rody Duterte became our new President, and Leni Robredo our new Vice President. What do these names mean? Or, rather, what---ideally---should these names mean to us?

DUTERTE belongs to the PDP-Laban, a political party that claims to be for popular democracy (populism) and participatory democracy. Robredo, in turn, is the wife of the late Jesse Robredo; Jesse made a name for himself as a stalwart of participatory governance in his capacity as mayor of Naga City before he became the Interior Secretary of Noynoy Aquino. Leni, as Jesse's widow, was soon drafted by the Liberal Party to run for Congress; she won and became a vocal campaigner for participatory democracy and, as a priority, participatory budgeting (you can read my worldview on Leni Robredo's decorative role within the Liberal Party government by clicking here).

     What, to me, the whole situation means to signal is this: that perhaps the time is ripe for a more realistic RA 6735, one that would provide the people a usable initiative instrument in lieu of the existing one that simply provides a semblance of direct democracy that ultimately ends up as short (because near impossible to fulfill the requirements of).

     Thus, for us to truly provide a usable instrument for a participatory government of the people, by the people and for the people (as against the continuance of our present purely-representative democratic governance by the prescriptive representatives of the people, of the prescriptive representatives of the people and ultimately for the interests of these supposed representatives of the people), let me now propose the following amendments to RA 6735 (even before that new federal-parliamentary Constitution being proposed by the Duterte government arrives). My proposed amendments are here below, in red, which a lawyer out there could perhaps to more properly articulate:

Section 5. Requirements. — (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum (10%) of the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof in the case of Constitutional amendment, and of which every region is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters in the case of national statute initiatives, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with the Commission.

(b2) A petition for an initiative on a new national statute, or one on an initiative seeking to amend an existing statute, must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every region must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative seeking to amend an existing national statute may be exercised only after three (3) years from the ratification of the same and only once every three (3) years thereafter.

Section 7. Verification of Signatures. — The Election Registrar is obligated to verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election within twenty (20) days from receipt of the petition.

SECTION 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum. — The Commission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum.
     Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the Commission shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the same, publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the petition.

     My arguments-cum-reasons for these amendments, should they appear to be not so obvious, I shall provide later in other essays. For now let me say that the signature requirement of 3% of the registered voting population per legislative district is, while required by the Constitution for Constitutional amendments, is just too steep for the creation of new statutes and initiatives seeking to amend existing statutes. Furthermore, with that requirement, it is possible for one legislative district to hostage the national interest, which definitely runs counter to the tenets of democracy and plurality. Furthermore, the period required for the Comelec to do its job in the management of this process must be accompanied with administrative penalties to avoid any inside filibustering of this democratic process. . . . [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]