It's time for a shift to direct democracy

IN LESS than a month, Filipinos will flock to the booths to elect their new senators of the state, their provincial district representatives in Congress, their provincial officials, and city or municipality officials. Facebook is filled with an exchange of virtual posters and banners and videos and essays promoting or mocking candidates. But there is no guarantee that the senators or congressmen or officials we'll elect will fulfill promises through legislation or implementation, and we'd have to wait till the end of their term to avenge broken promises with our own promise to ourselves not to reelect them.
     But this morning, my friend the poet Marne Kilates re-posted a video essay, titled "The United States of Inequality," by the American left-liberal journalist and commentator and former press secretary of the Lyndon Johnson administration, Bill Moyers. Among my Facebook friends, I believe it was first posted by the journalist Sylvia Mayuga. Marne tagged me, along with six others, to his video posting, which showed Moyers presenting anecdotal as well as documentary evidence of a broadening gap between a pampered (by government) wealthy class and the burgeoning neglected (by government) poor in his country. Here is that video:

(from http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-the-united-states-of-inequality/)

     Marne offered this caption to both describe the video's topic and sentiment as well as pose a challenging question to all those tagged and others: "The bitter truth that no one is talking about in the United States of Silicon Valley (or Texas Instruments): That capitalism is failing or has failed. The inventors of modern democracy have bought and sold FDR's Bill of Rights to corporate lobbyists. Warren Buffet: 'If there was a class war, we have won.' The 1% has won because the system that should protect the 99% has failed."
     This instigated the quick regrouping of my long-silent thoughts on this problematic---of democracy's and capitalism's having failed as the prevalent political and economic systems of much of the world---so to finally make themselves be heard. Time and Newsweek magazines have time and again posed these very same taunting and attractive questions, which perhaps woke many a student (or the students in people) to grab a pen and write their assignment. I grabbed the opportunity.


I SAID, there are democracies and there are democracies. And a representative democracy that cradles an oligarchy is a betrayal of the tenets of democracy.
     But it's quite understandable to me why the US Constitution framers avoided the temptations of direct democracy at the federal level (as against Switzerland, for instance, which embraced it); and that understanding may come from my being an Americanized Filipino, quite familiar with the American experience with oppressive majorities lording it over minorities. But representative democracy, in the US as well as in the Philippines, has also exposed the contradictions within the mother system of democracy, and these contradictions are precisely due to representative democracy's incompatibility with a demos that is largely uneducated, gullible, and manipulable by the magic of public relations, press relations, advertising, and a corruptible privatized media. In essence, such a representative democracy has become a democratic lie, where campaign lies are heeded by duped, ignorant masses who are participants in a vicious cycle of victimization and exploitation. Given this fact, I would argue with America's declarers of independence and say that I'd much rather struggle as a minority within the direct democracy lorded by a majority that may nonetheless be persuadable than struggle within the elite-handled machinery of representative democracy where the entrenched elite always wins.
     Then there are capitalisms and capitalisms. A capitalist system operating through a neoliberal or ultra-free market or right libertarian attitude of governance necessarily begets a society of oligarchies. A capitalist system, meanwhile, allowed to operate by a government of regulations and transparency (allowing freedom of information over corporate books, for instance) begets a society of equal opportunity. The American Dream is founded on the latter. Sadly, the American Dream concept may have been bastardized by a Texan oilman's definition of the phrase, where winners take all and losers go to hell.
     Now, the Moyers video above has a socialist voice to it that seems to want to call out to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal. But there is no poverty of FDRs in American politics. The trap that is hindering progress is representative democracy that has been conscripted by exploiters from the American industrial Right, aided by strong machineries like the Tea Party and Fox News. When such a contaminated representative democracy is applied upon a largely ignorant or poorly informed manipulable demos, whose ignorance is enhanced by a just-as-manipulable media, then there is the logical likelihood of this demos' ignorance manifesting itself in how it votes. For instance, let us assume that you have an FDR in Barack Obama. While you, the ignorant demos, elect a social liberal to the White House because you were persuaded by his speeches of promising to create socialized programs for the impoverished people such as those around wealthy Silicon Valley that Moyers mentions, you also elect people of the Right to Congress because you were persuaded by their speeches promising to create alternative ways of delivering socialized programs that would complement as well as check the President's. Unbeknownst to you, these elements of the Right are sure to stifle or handicap the efforts of the liberal you elected to the White House to deliver all those socialized programs he promised you and you agreed to accept. But you cannot blame yourselves, being ignorant of the stupidity in your act, so you blame the liberal president you elected who has been forced to make concessions here and there just so he can deliver some of the programs he promised stupid you. It is this ignorance in the voter that creates the contradiction in representative democracy that recreates its own perennial failure.
     Now, Philippine politics has the same dilemma. The virtuous idea of check and balance is also constantly hijacked, nay hostaged, by people in Congress who would not stop at merely achieving a lame duck social liberal or progressivist leadership. The ransom is a free and dirty market economy run by elite corporations both legal and not, unhindered, unregulated, untaxed.
     It's neither democracy nor capitalism that has failed, it's the form of democracy we've chosen that has.


MARNE, ONE of the Filipino poets whose politics I admire, said, "there has to be some other way of handling power for the benefit of the majority of the people who are poor. In America or elsewhere, you will immediately be branded socialist or communist or dictatorial. The point is to create an opposite action to the forces of absolute economic power, entitlement, and impunity." Which kind of taunted me to present a Marxist axiom.
     Instead I wrote: The US is not wanting of people in politics who have those very objectives. But the opposition is strong and the masses are easily duped into thinking these other guys are their heroes. In the Philippines, meanwhile, which has the same problem, it's about time we took a second look at Switzerland's direct democracy model (along with the proportionate representation in that country's National Council). That could be the one solution to the problem of oligarchies and "political dynasties" that continue to proliferate in our government and influence daily governance.
     Then, here, a friend of Marne's (Dave B-) offered a quote from Noam Chomsky's book The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many which, he said, "seems relevant as it supposes that the current structure has morphed into something new and different: An executive board-of-sorts corporate structure . . . of the world." And the Chomsky quote goes:

"Throughout history, the structures of government have tended to coalesce around other forms of power — in modern times, primarily around economic power. So, when you have national economies, you get national states. We now have an international economy and we’re moving towards an international state — which means, finally, an international executive.

"To quote the business press, we’re creating 'a new imperial age' with a 'de facto world government'. It has its own institutions — like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, trading structures like NAFTA and GATT [the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, both discussed in the next section of this book], executive meetings like the G-7 [the seven richest industrial countries — the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Italy — who meet regularly to discuss economic policy] and the European Community bureaucracy.

"As you’d expect, this whole structure of decision-making answers basically to the transnational corporations, international banks, etc. It’s also an effective blow against democracy. All these structures raise decision making to the executive level, leaving what’s called a 'democratic deficit' — parliaments and populations with less influence."

     "There is, however, a glimmer of hope," said Dave, "in that we are at least cognizant of capitalism's unfulfilled promises."
     "The glimmer of hope, maybe, is that we will not just be cognizant of unfulfilled promises but will act on changing the system itself. We have no choice. Rescue the planet from the voracious blind and the power-mad, or perish," Marne seemed to taunt me again with this.
     But here, our Wall Street-based business analyst Peter Casimiro (who fortunately happens to be in a firm he's not embarrassed to belong to) chimed in, saying, "Thanks for the tag, Marne. . . . While I agree that there are inherent problems with both democracy and capitalism, and further argue some of the points you and Jojo [that's me] in particular raise, one thing that's curiously missing is the fundamental understanding that both democracy and capitalism, whether functioning models or dysfunctional models, are indeed determined and controlled by none other than the very same people who suffer or flourish from it. Neither democracy nor capitalism can be corrupted if the masses are not silent victims, or more often the case, abettors to the usurpation of power by its all too familiar hijackers (the political class empowered by law and their evil cohort-cum-boss the economic-elite-cum-slave-owners). Now, what mechanisms would effectively police our insatiable desire to one-up each other? Again, unfortunately, much as the problem lays (or lies . . . take your pick, both are useful descriptions in this case) within, so does the answer---we are after all, like it or not, our brothers' keepers. As for a model to mimic, hmm, perhaps Sweden (still, though not nearly as much as a decade ago, a decent egalitarian one) might be the only one left. But if you're really willing to venture out to no-man's-land (think political economy and capital markets fundamentals), perhaps Bhutan and its GNH index is the most ambitious. In the end, Marx can not be faulted for his famous quip that 'capitalism can not abide by a limit' because he knows all too well that the only reason that is true is because capitalism's formula relies on something inherently flawed---humans."
     Then, here, Peter recommended Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Politics.


YES, THE greed of humans.
     But that is precisely why government regulation was invented. That is the reason why the rules of even the WTO improves an inch towards fairness almost every year. That's thanks to other humans policing free enterprise and the intermittent abuses of the greedy humans. Thanks, likewise, to democracy that provides these other humans space wherein to challenge the power of the greedy.
     As for Chomsky's reality bite of a picture, yes. The solution for which problematique has been a globalized counter-force of organizations who have chosen to speak against governments (domestic or regional or global) that have ceased to service Everyman. Greenpeace, Amnesty International, etc. are examples. The activism of the global left-of-center is an example of something that has been playing an important part in the checks and exposés. It's a question of numbers, really. When only 2,000 people show up to present placard protestations at a gathering of global bankers, that will still be nothing compared to the 3,000 policemen put in place at the summit area to fire teargas at any group of protesters. When the time arrives, however, that a whole city has been informed, which city might then decide to in turn act, then all abuses by any global entity will be forced to think twice. If Karl Marx has taught us anything, and this is what I am taunting myself to say now, it is that no one X who is benefiting from a rotten system will want to let go of that system. Some alternative force (aided by the left, the reformist military "right" or the "occupying" center) would have to decide whether it will content itself with pleading or henceforth plan to wrest that system away from X.
     So, will government (the executive branch as well as Congress and the Supreme Court) of the present or the oncoming years be positive towards a change from a representative democracy to a direct democracy? Will it resist such a change because it doesn't want to give up benefits it can milk precisely from the failure of the status quo? Will we then have to plan a way by which to wrest that system away from an existing government's hold?
     I don't know how popular or unpopular this idea is among our academics and party-list parties. So far, I have found a positive note regarding this from the political analyst and writer Mon Casiple. I have yet to look for more proponents. Here's the Casiple piece: click here.


THE ALTERNATIVE to a free-for-all economics of the elite that has failed the majority is not the impossible economics of early-20th-century trendy communism but corrected economics (regulation!), development economics, welfare economics, New Keynesianism, post-Keynesianism, etc. The alternative to a failing representative democracy is direct democracy.
     How do we get there? The ultimate ideal for any of the forms of democracy is a well-educated masa. But only the socialization of education and awareness (through the schools, yes, but primarily through a freer media and social media) will make that possible, which won't be attained unless the neoliberal philosophers are at least half-removed from the system where governance votes. In the meantime, the vicious cycle maintained by those who enjoy seeing a stupid majority continues. And this is the situation that inspires coups and intelligentsia-driven armed revolts, the end result of which still marginalizes the 99%. [END OF PART ONE]

(read Part 2)

WHY MY TWO CANDIDATES NEED TO BE JERKS IN ORDER TO WIN IN THIS ELECTION

 

photos from http://www.liberalparty.org.ph/ and http://soksay.blogspot.com/2013_05_01_archive.html

YOU know what they say in fiction, where there’s no conflict there’s no story. And you know what they say in public relations, negative publicity is better than no publicity at all.
     These two axioms seem to escape the campaign of two of my candidates. I have been campaigning on my Facebook wall for the senatorial candidacy of Ramon Magsaysay Jr. and Risa Hontiveros, if only because they are two of my chosen candidates that need the boost, being not yet in the top 12 of the most recent surveys. I do this, aware though I am that their image seem too clean, and therefore not that relatable to people. It’s possible they’d lose.
     Empathizing with the people, it’s easy to relate to Loren Legarda—the mataray face that rarely sports a smile. There is ready conflict in that face alone, seeming to say by itself, “I am a fighter.” There’s that other fighter on the Senate floor easy to relate to, Alan Peter Cayetano—fierce, sublimely sardonic, who can mix feigned respect into his arguments. It’s also easy for the masses to relate to Chiz Escudero—talks with nary a comic flair, robotic in his legalese, but all in relatable Tagalog, never mind if much of that legalese is beyond the average voter-fisherman; there’s all the flavor of conflict in his stance alone, defensive and offensive at the same time; the triangle rift with Heart Evangelista’s parents could help him further his bid if managed well. It’s easy to relate to Nancy Binay, even. Daughter of a father constantly chided by a colonial mentality for wearing that dark skin, survivor of many an allegation of corruption, consistent organizer of rallies on Erap’s behalf. It doesn’t matter if it’s true the daughter is running on and in the father’s behalf, it’s still him, and there’s ready conflict in that position alone, whether you like it or not. There’s also a ready conflict in JV Ejercito’s name, son of a man beloved by the masses for his defiance of all protocol imposed by a worldly world, a man deposed by a "more corrupt" Gloria Arroyo.
     My candidate Risa Hontiveros, on the other hand, is being wrongly sold, merely as maganda, which doesn’t count for much even to Miss Universe juries. Jun Magsaysay’s story, meanwhile, is a seemingly forgotten story. There is no conflict behind the face anymore. For my two candidates to win, they have to be jerks. That’s why it would serve Hontiveros’ campaign abundantly if the Church starts hitting her personally. It would serve Jun Magsaysay’s campaign abundantly if defenders of the Fertilizer Fund Scam starts maligning his name now.

photo from http://www.ivoteph.com/senator-2/candidate-for-senator-2013-risa-hontiveros-and-his-profile/

TO be called nothing is to be insignificant. To be called an asshole or a jerk presupposes haters. And where there are haters there are defenders. An asshole or jerk tag, therefore, signals conflict, and conflict reboots people’s attention to issues of evil and good, right and wrong, heroism and villainy. The “asshole” or “jerk” comes out to the majority as either a champion or an enemy. To come out as an enemy is to lose in a campaign; but at least one lost in a fight, not in a non-fight.
     In short, like Loren Legarda, it’s not important to enumerate the wars one will fight for, though that would be a bonus or necessary for a springboard, but it’s important to project the aura that you are fighting, or defending, or offending. Not simply smiling.
     The art of politics is the art of projecting a story of conflict. The art of being a politician is the art of projecting the face of a fighter, the face of a jerk. It is no wonder that even in art, the greatest of artworks are often politically incorrect. Because art is primarily concerned with itself, its own art. The cause of the art often overpowers the cause of a thematic cause. But the correct thematic cause within an artistic cause is always a bonus, especially after a win.

BUT there are two kinds of jerk-ness.
     As a social liberal, I’ve often come across the complaint that within social liberalism’s campaign of virtue and empathy and sympathy, some social liberal celebrities turn out to be unworldly assholes. Impressions like this come, of course, after one such social liberal celebrity’s stumbling into a large mistake (whether true or not) that starts to show tragic flaws in his person on mainstream media, certain disappointing flaws that qualify his asshole-ness to conventional wisdom, flaws which mainstream media could in turn embed into an encyclopedic definition of this “asshole”’s sensational image, perhaps permanently waylaying too his boring heroic social liberal achievements into the dustbins of memory.
     One example of this victimization by achievement-dustbinning is that one done on the person of John Edwards, a US senator who fought long and hard for the popularization of the concept of universal healthcare (along with housing vouchers and universal college education) as an agenda for US legislation even before Barack Obama became a US senator. We know of course what happened to his media-managed story, and what he has come to be known as now. An ass. The problem media had with his jerk-ness was the disconnect they read into his espoused causes and what he later “did to his wife.”
     Some leftists would also include the true compassion for the poor in Che Guevara as belonging to this roster of victims of Western media pigeonholing, he whose image has been handled by American rightist media—or so those leftists would aver—to revolve around certain Cuban executions alone. The problem media had with his jerk-ness was the biased disconnect they read into his espoused objective and what he had to do to the enemies of the state, never mind if the West itself did the same to its outcasts, mostly blacks.
     The problem with social liberal jerk-ness is it’s passive and tagged, requiring lots of explanation. There is the other kind of jerk-ness, the managed jerk-ness, often associated with false progressives, although any political bent can appropriate this approach.
     Unlike the social liberals whose flaws are observed and hyped by the enemy, false progressives traditionally flaunt their character flaws as hallmarks of ordinariness to which the masses must (and often do) relate. In short, they manage these flaws in the media to gain the applause of the masses’ own, as if their flaws are proud reflections of the masses’. One could say that their argument is full of bread and circus, an ongoing argumentum ad captandum aimed at duping the object of their treachery by pretending to be on their side in a pre-defined conflict with a pre-defined elite.

photo by Associated Press, linked from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/anthony-bourdain-paula-deen_n_1522031.html

NOW, I’m not going to illustrate my characterization of the asshole and jerk (social liberal or otherwise) further with names from the political arena, these names often being with a following cloaked in the diaper of confirmation bias, talk about whom—therefore—would lead us nowhere rational.
     Let me talk instead about two chefs, embroiled in a seemingly similar contrast of positions in 2011, as a metaphor for what I mean by jerk-ness that presupposes conflict, which consequently raises the bar of any contest.
     In mid-2011, famous chef Anthony Bourdain, still streetwise but well-loved enfant terrible of food television, added another name to his roster of named “worst chefs,” this time the equally famous and well-loved Paula Deen. Bourdain called Deen “most dangerous to America” for her “unholy connections with evil corporations,” all the worse because “she’s proud of the fact that her food is f---ing bad for you.” His reaction’s main gist was contained in this clause: “I would think twice before telling an already obese nation that it is OK to eat food that is killing us.” He finished up with a painful punch: “Plus, her food sucks.” One would have thought that that last sentence was all he really wanted to say.
     This time, however, he got a target who fought back. Said Deen: “Anthony Bourdain needs to get a life. You don’t have to like my [and those others’] food . . . but it’s another thing to attack our character. I wake up every morning happy for where I am in life. It's not all about the cooking, but the fact that I can contribute using my influence to help people all over the country. In the last two years, my partners and I have fed more than 10 million hungry people by bringing meat to food banks.” She added, “I have no idea what Anthony has done to contribute besides being irritable.”
     Many food writers, while conveying their admiration for Bourdain’s TV show and personality, sided with Deen on this latest exchange—after Bourdain’s last word on a tweet that went: “Resolved: Next time I’m asked (for the millionth time) who the worst cooks on Food Network are, I’ll just shut up. Who cares?”
     The food nation was divided.
     At the outset, Bourdain did come off as an “asshole,” as some comments put it, sounding quite unfair in implying Deen has been a major contributor to Americans’ obesity problem, though that statement could have been positively taken as simply in cognizance of Deen’s broad fandom, a fandom who seems to be worshipful of her fatty, fried foods dipped afterwards in mayonnaise heaven. Was Bourdain being envious?
     On closer examination, however, since we might find it hard to connect Bourdain’s rant with Michelle Obama’s campaign to reverse childhood obesity, we may glean a simple elliptical point in this latest Bourdain sardonic grunt.
     You see, many food writers missed Bourdain’s point when they failed to review his own record with beurre blanc dips and fatty foie gras. And they seemed to have been taken in by Deen’s argumentum ad captandum, wherein she dangled her connection to food banks as her bread and circuses recipe for applause against Bourdain’s merely chain-smoking, punk rock-loving enfant terrible image that seems to constantly hate the majority’s good taste even while celebratory of their street taste. Understandable, yes, considering food writers are not trained like political scientists to accept the fact that champions of mass behavior are themselves posited in a sort of rebel’s ivory tower stance (in defense or in offense).
     That was sad, because—for one—every time Bourdain says something philosophical on his show or in his books, it’s always with a tongue in cheek, albeit substantive with allusions. Sad, likewise, because media might have noticed those times when he’s totally serious, as when in the throes of a (to him) rarity, sentimentally enjoying fatty chicharrones with pan de pais in a Puerto Rico small-town plaza. If media had taken the time to review his record, though of course I am speaking from a position of perfect hindsight, they would have seen the reason why he has earned the love of many—he has been one Ramones-loving “jerk” of a champion passionate about empowering “peasant food” in their purity, beyond the apostasy and sacrilege of fusion. He praises local food because of their local-ness, not their bastardized here-from-there-ness. Taking note of that significance, they might have been able to conclude that it’s possible it wasn’t really those other chefs (that he named worst) that he hated, he’d easily be Emeril Lagasse’s friend tonight after being the enemy yesterday, but the “corporatizations” of food around them, including those food idealizations espoused by Food Network.
     So, that said, we can’t and mustn’t take Bourdain seriously and literally on any sudden Jamie Oliverian concern about fat’s popularity, or any sudden un-Bourdainly rally for healthy haute-ness for that matter, knowing him to be that ongoing champion of much unhealthy stuff that he now seemed to be rallying against. Those unhealthy stuff he’d raised like flags before include the ever-No Reservations-popular foie gras, accompanied by such delights as, say, Quebec’s cheese-heavy poutine, that pop up every now and then in his shows. As for his supposed hatred for “corporatization,” it must be clarified likewise that he has been a staunch defender of Ferran Adria’s recipes using such corporation-churned products as Smint.
     So, let’s keep it all in context from now on. The Bourdainene thesis is: pure people’s food versus culinary bastardizations and simplistic fusions by importation. When he imports, he makes sure he doesn’t bastardize, even when he attempts variations. Therefore, when he says “I don’t like your piña colada, it’s so unhealthy and bad,” he really means that this corporate invention is no better than crappy corporate cheese by Kraft that needs a Ferran Adrian artistic doing-over to be acceptable to an un-duped people who’ll be paying for it. He’d preach against “promoters of obesity” like Deen while praising a coconut-water flavored roasted pig in Bali, its lard dripping, for the same reason. Food integrity.
     It’s not what the kid says, it’s what he means, then. He’s that kind of a jerk, that sort of “peasant food”-championing asshole that the food media couldn’t, at least for a couple of weeks, connect to a food thesis.
     Now, having said that, clarifying things on Bourdain’s behalf which seemed to require a lot of explanation, let me say now that I doubt that Bourdain’s rant would have discouraged many a Bourdain fan from his shows. It might even be safe to say that his fans will remain his fans whatever the hell he says to offend others. In fact, I think the only moral one could derive from this brouhaha is with the fact that non-fans of the man got interested in what he was talking about, some getting interested in what he really meant to say, if only to see whose side they could side with. One would have thought, were he running for political office, that this jerk-ness was all managed.

PARENTS teach their kids not to be jerks.
     A friend of mine once ranted over a just-transpired experience with an (to her) asshole, “Why did God create assholes? I know they’re where shit come from.”
     But, then, of course, there are assholes and there are assholes. And the good thing about them, all sorts of them, is they actually liberate us from our own stupid shit. They’re something to be thankful to God for, since it is, after all, by their mere existence that we are able to churn out revolutions from our guts. We begin to discuss right and wrong, good and bad, left and right. A conflict of views ensues, and a real contest is instigated.
     But sadly, presently, if the poll surveys are to be our mark, it seems that Jun Magsaysay’s having been an asshole to the Fertilizer Fund Scam’s backers and defenders and Risa Hontiveros’ being a female jerk to the RH Bill-hating male-managed Catholic Church (“they must respect the separation between Church and State”) have already been so quickly pigeonholed as ‘soft’ by media, thus into the dustbins of short-term memory. The resultant on their media image has been different from John Edwards’ (realigned) or Che Guevara’s (biased). In contrast to, say, presidential sister Kris Aquino’s image after her public dramatizations of her husband’s purported evil manners that have instigated a debate on many a Facebook thread, they (Jun Magsaysay and Risa Hontiveros) are coming out too clean, seemingly perceived as devoid of enemies and therefore boring.
     Someone must hype up their having, like Anthony Bourdain, been jerks once. [END]

Mas mabenta sa mga network ang bakbakan at iyakan sa Sabah kaysa ang mapayapang usapan sa geopolitics (o, Ang tunay na kuwento sa likod ng Sabah invasion)

photo from blauearth.com

AWAY SA TOPIC

JANUARY 9, 2013. Naroon kaming tatlo, ako, ang kaibigan kong pintor at ang kaniyang asawa, sa Ma Mon Luk Quezon Avenue kasama ang ilang mukhang pulitiko sa ibang mga mesa na dumating lulan ng mga Pajero nila na may kasama pang mga police escorts.

      Kung maririnig mo ang usapan namin, parang see-saw: ang kaibigan ko'y gustong mag-focus sa mga simbolo ng pop culture habang ako ay nakatuon, at least sa araw na iyon, sa mundo ng geopolitics. At lahat ng ito ay sa harap ng mainit pang siopao bago dumating ang aming wonton soup.

      Geopolitics. Don't we just love this topic? Isn't this the alphabet we'd like to see in our soup? By we, of course, I can't include Philippine television.

      Unti-unti, nadala ko rin ang kaibigan ko sa topic na mas gusto ko noong araw na iyon, at napunta na nga ang usapan namin sa pagtulong ni Mr. Ma sa mga Hapon noong panahon ng giyera, mga Hapong gustong magpalaki ng teritoryo para makakuha ng yamang maiuuwi nila sa kanilang Emperador at mga isla. Painful memory, but almost forgotten. Sa isang mesa naman, pinag-uusapan ang isang tumatakbo sa pagka-senador na si Mitos Magsaysay, na sabi'y dismayado at di natuloy ang ZTE deal ni Gloria Arroyo with China (see ZTE scandal). Pero bagamat politics na may geopolitcs pa rin ang usapan from table to table, walang cinematic theme sa Ma Mon Luk, walang barilan kahit me mga talk of wars of the past. Dito, everything's pure, boring Discovery Travel and Living television around a hot siopao while waiting for one's wonton soup.

AWAY SA LUPA

FAST-FORWARD sa February 9.

      Around 200 kataong pinamunuan ng kapatid ni Jamalul Kiram III na si Agbimuddin Kiram ang nag-land “illegally” sa Lahad Datu, isang town-district sa “Malaysian state” ng Sabah. Supposedly iyon ay isang irredentist siege na nag-a-assert ng claim ng Sulu Sultanate sa state ng Sabah. Ang mga taong yaon ni Kiram, na ang karamiha’y heavily armed, engaged in a standoff with Malaysian police, telling reporters Malaysia is "only renting" Sabah from the heirs of the Sultanate and should be the one to leave.

      Ang pangulo ng Pilipinas, si Benigno Aquino III, ay nagpadala ng mensahe kay Kiram na mag-stand down at i-settle ang kanilang claim sa pamamagitan ng isang peaceful process. Tinukoy niya ang kabuhayan ng mahigit 800,000 na Filipino (documented at hindi) sa Sabah na madidiskarel ng isang bayolenteng konprontasyon with the Malaysian forces. Inusig ni Aquino si Kiram sa kanyang ginawa at sinabihang pabalikin na niya ang kanyang mga tagasunod at pag-usapan na lang ang lahat, habang sinabi rin niyang nararapat arestuhin si Kiram sa kanyang ginawa, dahil siya’y nakikipag-giyera sa ngalan ng Pilipinas, na isang krimen ayon sa Konstitusyon. May mga nagalit sa media at sa oposisyon sa tough talk ng Presidente.

      Si Kiram naman, for his part, ang nagsabing siya’y naubusan na ng pasensya sa gobyerno ni Aquino (at ng mga nakalipas na gobyerno), at ito'y matapos ang isang diumano’y sulat niya sa Palasyo ay ayon sa kanya'y hindi binigyan-pansin ng kasalukuyang Pangulo. Malacañang searched, or pretended to search, for the letter. Sa kasagsagan ng standoff, nagpatawag ang Palasyo ng isang press briefing upang ianunsyo na ang nasabing sulat ay nakita, kung kaya’t makabubuti na sa lahat kung magpunta na si Kiram sa Maynila para mapag-usapan ang kanyang claim. Ngunit, dagdag pa ng announcement, di ito nangangahulugan na abswelto na si Kiram sa ginawa niyang paglabag sa batas ng Pilipinas.

      Nang tangkain nang arestuhin ng Malaysian forces ang grupo ni Kiram, nagkaroon ng palitan ng putok. Nabalita agad na may mga nasawi, kasama ang ilang sibilyan. Nagkaroon ng isang exodus ng mga manggagawang Pilipino (karamihan Tausug) by outrigger boats and small launches. Bagamat binalita ng Philippine media ang pagkasawi ng ilang Malaysian police, majority ng reports ay tungkol sa mga nangyayari sa partido ni Kiram at sa mga displaced Filipino workers, understandably.

      Ngunit tila sinisi ng media at ng social networking public opinion ang tough talk ng Aquino administration sa mga mensahe nito sa partido ni Kiram na tila raw siyang nag-udyok sa partido ni Kiram na ituloy ang “invasion” at naging sanhi na nga ng pagsiklab ng putukan. May tila pagkiling daw ang gobyerno natin sa mga reactionary forces at interes ng Malaysia. Yun ang sinasabi ng pamilya Kiram at tila yun din ang slant ng maraming reporting ng media at propaganda/amateur “reporting” sa Facebook. Gumamit ng hindsight bias ang mga opinyon ng kritiko ng gobyerno para ipagduldulan ke Aquino ang hard tone na ginamit niya para takutin si Kiram, na ayon sa kanila’y isang tonong tila di umobra. Hi-nype-up ng mga opinyong ito ang isang “amateurish handling” daw ng gobyerno sa ongoing crisis, at tinawag pa nga ang later “disengagement” call ni Secretary of Interior and Local Government Mar Roxas na mabagal ang pagdating sa huling minuto.

      Sa kasagsagan ng conflict, umapela rin si DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman sa media na huwag tawaging “refugees” ang mga Pilipinong pabalik ng Mindanao galing Sabah. “Can I also request the media not to call them refugees because they are not,” she reportedly said. “They’re returning citizens. They are not refugees. Kasi iba ‘yung refugee. It’s as if you’re fleeing your country and you don’t have a country; they do. They are Filipino citizens, working in Sabah [who are] unfortunately not documented.”

      Tila nag-backfire ang statement na ito ni Soliman, what with media’s focus on the horrors of the ongoing armed conflict. Soliman ought to have been aware of the fact that media’s micro-journalism was painting a patriot out of Kiram’s person and a Malaysian collaborator out of Noynoy Aquino’s.

photo from gmanetwork.com

AWAY SA DEPINISYON

OKEY. GUSTO kong dito simulan ang sanaysay ko tungkol sa isyu. Let us examine Soliman’s statement.

      “Kasi iba ‘yung refugee. It’s as if you’re fleeing your country and you don’t have a country; they do. They are Filipino citizens, working in Sabah [who are] unfortunately not documented.”

      Technically, mukhang wala namang mali. Dahil kung may paghahanap man ng refuge na nangyari, tila ito’y nangyari noon pa, noong lumikas ang mga workers na ito sa Mindanao patungong Sabah bilang mga economic refugees mula sa bansa nilang walang maibigay sa kanilang trabaho o kabuhayan.

      Technically also, di natin puwedeng masabing bansa nila ang Sabah, unless they count themselves as subjects of the Kiram monarchy, and many of them do not. Kahit ang isang Pilipinong nagkaroon ng titulo ng lupa roon would have a readily existing technical dispute between himself and the Kiram royal family.

      Technically, ang Sabah ay bansa in transit. On paper, it may be said to belong to the Philippines, ngunit wala pang may may-ari, dahil puwede mo ring sabihing technically ay maaaring di i-honor ng Kiram family ngayon ang 1962 ceding of Sabah to the Philippines ng previous Raja Muda na si Muhammad Esmail Kiram I. Puwede mo ring sabihing hindi rin atin ang Sabah kung wala tayong kakayahang i-enforce ang ating claim by force, which force would technically strengthen the claim. Technically, therefore, wala pang may may-ari dahil in transit, pinag-aagawan ang sovereignty, by both paper claims or claims by force (or disguised force).

      So, umaksyon na nga si Kiram III para sa kanyang sovereignty claim, na meron nang force element, through his irredentist move. Sadly, though, ang action na ito ni Jamalul Kiram III demonstrating sovereignty also presumed a sub-sovereignty, parang provincial sovereignty claim under the Philippines' national sovereignty claim. Malungkot ito, sabi ko, dahil may kontradiksyon. Malungkot, dahil ang kontradiskyon na ito ay hindi makita ng mga kritiko ng gobyerno, kung kaya’t tila kulang ang sumusuporta sa posisyon ng sarili nating gobyerno.

      Kaya tutulungan kong magpaliwanag ang gobyerno rito kung ano itong kontradiksyon. Ganito ang takbo no’n: ikaw, Kiram III, habang sinasabi mong ang provincial sovereignty claim mo ay dapat tinutulungan ng national sovereignty claim, gumawa ka ng isang unilateral na aksyon na nagpapakita na wala kang pakialam sa national sovereignty claim. Kaya ka nga gumawa ng sarili mong action demonstrating your own sovereignty, e. In effect, habang sinasabi mong Pilipino kang dapat tinutulungan ng Pilipinas, ang action mo ay walang pakialam sa Pilipinas, di nakinig sa Pilipinas, di pinansin ang concerns ng batas ng Pilipinas, at di nag-isip sa puwedeng mangyari sa mga Pilipinong nasa Sabah. At, kung totoo ang lahat ng sinasabi mo sa propaganda mo tungkol sa kadakilaan ng aksyon mo, prinesume mo na tutulungan ka ng isang bansang ayaw mo na o di mo kinikilala. Ano ka ba kung ganon? Masasabi kong ikaw ang hindi naging Pilipino, ikaw ay naging Kiramian lamang. Pero, of course, hindi nakita ng mga kritiko ng gobyerno yung kontradiskyon na iyon, kaya suwerte mo (at suwerte ng mga propagandistang nasa likod mo).

      Ang action ni Jamalul Kiram III ay hindi para sa Pilipinas. Ang aksyon niya ay para sa kanyang pamilya lamang, o para sa isang faction ng pamilya Kiram lamang, dahil ang pamilyang Kiram ay isang pamilyang mayroon ding kani-kaniyang claim sa soberanya sa kanilang apelyido at pagka-heredero. In short, mga kababayan, kung meron tayong claim sa Sabah, tayo sa Pilipinas, ang kalaban natin sa claim ay dalawa: ang Malaysian claim at ang claim ng faction ni Jamalul Kiram III. Sa palagay ba natin ay ibibigay sa Pilipinas ng faction ni Kiram ang Sabah kung makuha na natin ito mula Malaysia? Di matatapos doon ang giyera. Tayo naman ang gigyerahin ng royal forces ng Sulu.

      Entonces, tama si Soliman. Refugees nga ang mga lumikas na Tausug noong nasa Sabah pa sila, dahil ang Sabah mismo ay lupa that doesn't have a country yet. Nung bumalik sila sa Pilipinas, napunta sila sa isang bansang kanila at siguradong sila lang ang nagmamay-ari.

photo from positivelyfilipino.com

AWAY PARA KANINO?

SUBALIT umiikot ang talakayan ngayon sa nakalipas, sa History ng Sabah, na tila may malakas na patunay na sa Pilipinas na nga ang Sabah. Ngunit, assuming na pakikinggan ito ng Malaysia, di ba iikot din ang tanong sa kung ano ang ibig sabihin natin ng “Pilipinas” na may karapatan sa Sabah? Ito ba’y ang buong Pilipinas bilang estado o ito ba’y Kiram family lamang (na kinikilala natin bilang mga Pilipino)? Kasi kung ang latter, ibig sabihin hindi natin ipinaglalaban ang karapatan ng Pilipinas sa lupa ng Sabah, ipinaglalaban natin ang karapatan ng isang pamilyang Pilipino upang makuha nila ang kanilang inangking lupa. Ito ay dapat klaro, sa dahilang kung tayo ay makikipag-giyera sa Malaysia, dapat alam natin na nakikipaggiyera tayo hindi sa ngalan ng Pilipinas kundi sa ngalan ng isang Pilipino-kunong pamilya. Ang lupang ipaglalaban natin gamit ang dugo ng ating mga anak ay upang maibalik sa pamilyang Kiram ang kanilang lupa. Tanong ko: ipadadala mo ba ang anak mo na gawin ang patriotic act na ito para sa isang inagaw na islang pagmamay-ari lamang ni Lucio Tan?

PUNO’T DULO NG AWAY

SO, OKEY. Technically Sabah is the Philippines', as per the former sultan’s ceding of Sabah to the Philippines in 1962. Pero this is all technicality looking at the past. Technicality looking at the future would shed light on the behavior of the country's leadership, at maaaring magbigay-sagot sa atin kung "bakit ganun ang behavior ng Malakanyang at tila pumapabor pa sa Malaysia."

      Eto. Bakit ba nag-apura na si Jamalul Kiram III at ang kanyang mga funders at gumawa na ng isang desperate na show of force para i-claim ang kanyang proprietary rights sa lupa ng Sabah (habang hinihimok ang gobyerno natin na tulungan siya kasama ang “ating” sovereignty claim)? Hindi ako naniniwalang nagpadala nga ng sulat sa Malakanyang si Kiram. Tumakbong senador ng Lakas-Kampi-CMD noong 2007 at nakabili ng million-pesos worth of weapons, pero di makalipad sa Maynila para makalapit sa ilang mga opisyales ng gobyerno? Simple lang ang rason. Ayaw talaga ni Kiram at ng kanyang mga funders ng peaceful talks na alam niyang (nilang) walang patutunguhan. (Ngayon na lamang sila nanghihingi ng talk with the president, matapos nilang makita na wala silang ipoprogreso sa standoff maliban sa pagkalipol ng kanilang angkan).

      Oo, iniisip nila noon, bago ang bakbakan, na walang patutunguhan ang peaceful talks. Kasi nga naman, in a matter of months na lang, come 2015, magsisimula na ang ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), isang magaganap na economic at political revolution sa Southeast Asian region that would recontextualize (and postmodernize) the Sabah dispute. Prime movers ng ASEAN Economic Community ang Philippines at Malaysia. Why do you think inapura rin ang Bangsamoro treaty? Why do you think Malaysia finally agreed in the Aquino period, after starting to entertain the idea in the Ramos period, to have nothing to do with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) [with Indonesia’s help] any longer? Gusto na ng ASEAN region na tapusin ang mga maliliit na territorial disputes sa rehiyon para imbis na papunta sa secessions ay magtrabaho na ang lahat para sa integration, kahit man may mga autonomous na regions sa loob nito. Naniniwala ang ASEAN governments na narito ang tunay na power para sa lahat ng ASEAN members, at sa mga corporations ng ASEAN member countries, laban sa superpowers at kanilang mga super-siopao intereses.

      Alam ng gobyerno natin na hindi padadala si Kiram sa mapayapang usapan dahil alam niya rin na getting obsolete na ang sultanate claim. At alam din marahil ni Aquino na walang saysay ang makipag-usap kay Kiram, kung kaya’t ang unang naging hakbang niya ay ang takutin si Kiram ng arrest, dangling the Philippine constitution, at para takutin ang sinumang iba pa na gustong sumunod sa movement ni Kiram.

      Habang nangyayari ang Sabah invasion ni Kiram, ano sa palagay niyo ang binabalita sa PTV-4, ang government channel? Ang pag-uusap ni Noynoy Aquino at ng Sultan of Brunei. Ang Brunei ang isa pa sa hinihimok na sumali totally sa integration, na may tila konting problema sa integration dahil sultanate din ang lupa ng Brunei. By the way, ang Malaysia ay mayroon ding mga sultanates, being a state with a constitutional monarchy. . . .

      Itong lahat ang macro-view at future view, hindi ito ang past view. Sa pananaw ng mga Pilipinong sumasang-ayon sa integration, ang malaking kalaban natin ay hindi ang Malaysia kundi ang economic at political bully na China! Makakaalis tayo sa pagka-inferior sa China (or, more properly, makakacompete tayo sa standing ng China) kung mag-iintegrate ang Malay race, economically at first at pag-isa ng aviation routes nito sa 2015. Who knows kung susunod na agad ang United States of Southeast Asia in a matter of a few years, towards a supranational union.

      Ito. Ito ang puno't dulo ng lahat ng kaguluhang ito. (With some sidebar stories, perhaps, about Lakas-Kampi-CMD interests to boot).

photo from nst.com

TINAPOS NA AWAY

MALAYSIA helped the MILF and MNLF movements precisely to protect its interests in Sabah. Tapos, bigla-bigla, ayaw na niya. Ito ang rason: may mas maganda nang interest na hindi lang para sa kanya, para sa lahat din. Hindi maaaring walang rason ang mga biglaang pagbago ng ihip ng hangin kung bakit ang magkaaway ay biglang magdedecide na huwag nang mag-away. Ito yun, ito ang rason. At iyon din ang rason kung bakit may free flow na ng workers to and from Malaysia na di na istrikto sa dokumentasyon. Sa mga susunod na dekada, hindi na foreign country ang Malaysia, parang ibang state/province na lang ng isang rehiyon na may iisang ASEAN passport.

photo from internationalist.org

DAHIL SA MGA KAAWAY?

Okay, so, now that it's out of the bottle, tanong ngayon: bakit tinago ito ng Malakanyang at hindi na lang sinagot ng diretso ang puno at dulo? Ito pa siguro ang pagkakamali. Sa takot na any loud masses-directed announcement regarding the AEC would mobilize pro-China Philippine leftists to sing anti-globalization songs, Malacañang contrived diverse rationales for its actions that looked "favorable to Malaysia." But that reason, the AEC reason, is the only reason that will pacify the nation. Well, understandably, of course, the pro-China Left sa buong rehiyon ay maaaring makalikom ng following ng madla para ibalik tayo sa middle ages ng division.

CONSPIRACY:
President Aquino issues warning to people who plotted the expedition of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III’s men to Sabah. MALACAÑANG PHOTO BUREAU

WALANG KAAWAY?

Noong di pa nagsisimula ang bakbakan, may pinakalat na feelers ang Malakanyang na may intelligence reports daw silang nakuha na may kinalaman ang dating administrasyon sa pagsalakay ng mga Kiram sa Sabah. Marami ang natawa rito. Ipatatawag daw ng Palasyo ang ilang tao noon ng administrasyong Arroyo, kasama na rito si former defense secretary Norberto Gonzales, ang parating pinaghihinalaang may pakana pag may ganitong mga pangyayari (Glorietta explosion during proceedings for Arroyo’s impeachment, LRT explosion during proceedings for Joseph Estrada’s impeachment, etc.) Sabi ng oposisyon at ng media, ano na naman daw stretch ng imagination ito ng Malakanyang? Bakit daw naghahanap ng kaaway na wala rito? Nasa Malaysia raw ang kaaway natin, at bakit daw di tulungan ng gobyerno ang ating kapwa Pilipino, ang mga Kiram?

     Pero kung intelligence reports, iaassume ba natin na walang katotohanang mayroon nga nito? Sa pagkakaalam ko, matagal na ang understanding ng Lakas people with CMD (Christian Muslim Democrats)/PDSP (Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas) people, kaya nga Lakas-Kampi-CMD alliance, which latter party includes Kiram (under Norberto Gonzales’ PDSP’s banner). Natatandaan mo ba noong pinag-uusapan pa lang ang ASEAN Economic Community na mula pa sa panahon ni Fidel Ramos? Tapos nagpatayo si Gloria Arroyo ng quasi-consular office sa Sabah noong panahon na niya? At di ito pinayagan ng Malaysia? Nung luminaw na ang usapang ASEAN Economic Community noong latter part of 2007, biglang sinabi ni Gloria Arroyo na di na interesado ang Pilipinas sa sovereignty claim nito sa Sabah. Marami ang umangal. Ano ang nasa likod nitong pagbabagong ito? Noong 2007, pinatakbo ng Lakas-Kampi-CMD si Kiram for senator. Bakit? Kung wala ka nang sovereignty claim na isinusulong, bakit kaalyado mo ang isang taong may patuloy na prorprietary claims sa Sabah? Ha? A, oo, may proprietary claim pa nga pala. Sinabi ba ni Gloria Arroyo na di na rin interesado ang Philippine government na suportahan ang proprietary claims na ito? Ibig sabihin, kung magkaka-ASEAN Economic Community, at ang Sabah ay magiging autonomous province ng ASEAN Economic Community, at rendered obsolete na ang sovereignty claims ng lahat ng bansa, at least mayroon pa ring proprietary claims. Shortly after Kiram was adopted by Lakas-Kampi-CMD's senatorial slate, pinalaya rin ng Arroyo government si Nur Misuari early in 2008. Naaalala rin ba natin ang dating attempts ng Arroyo government later for a Bangsamoro treaty on ancestral domain na nauwi sa pag-teterrorize ng ilang paksyon ng MILF dahil sa conflict ng gusto ng Malakanyang at ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema tungkol sa treaty? At may pamumugot pa ng ulo ng ilang miyembro ng Philippine Marines na nangyari?

     Tanong: ano ba ang maaaring interes ng mga tao ng Lakas-Kampi-CMD sa Kiram clan? At kay Misuari, gayung delikado pa ring challenge ang waning MNLF sa stronger MILF? Or, by a stretch of the imagination, ano ang puwedeng interes ng mga funders-we-don't-want-to-believe sa Sabah? Hmmm. Alam niyo, ang oil reservoir sa ilalim ng sedimentary rock na pinagkukunan ng mayaman-na-ngayong Brunei ay parehong source na pagkukunan mo kung magdidrill ka sa Sabah offshore. Matagal nang binalak palawigin ng Malaysia at ng Petronas ang drilling doon, pero dahil nga sa claimants hindi ito magawa (ng hayagan).
     Balik tayo sa funders. Noong pinaplantsa pa lang ang Bangsamoro treaty ng Noynoy Aquino administration, wala kang maririnig kay Nur Misuari. O baka lang hindi marinig dahil walang lumalapit na taga-media. Noong malapit na ang araw ng pirmahan at kumpirmado na ng government media ang withdrawal ng support ng Malaysia sa MILF (at waning MNLF), at Malaysia pa nga ang tumulong sa pag-uusap ng lahat ng partido, heto't nag-iingay na si Misuari laban sa treaty bagamat may mga delegates siya rito, na kung tutuusin mo ay wala namang mababawas sa kanya (unless maging unreasonable siya tungkol sa hatian ng natural resource revenues at sa territory na masasakop ng autonomous region). Or, heto't may mga taga-media nang lumalapit kay Misuari (sino kaya ang nagsabi sa kanila na puntahan si Misuari?). Ngunit ito ang tanong ngayon: kailan ba nagkaroon ng multi-million peso weapons ang mga Kiram? Sino ang nag-supply sa kanila? Bagamat sa una ay dineny ng MNLF na nasa likod din sila sa napabalitang sabotahe sa Bangsamoro treaty between the Aquino government and MILF at sa pag-provoke sa mga Kiram na gawin ang balak nila, noong Marso 5, 2013 ay kinumpirma ng MNLF spokesman na si Hadhi Acmad Bayam na mayroon silang mga Malaysia-trained na tao at mga nakatagong weapons na ipapadala para tumulong sa mga Kiram.

     Ngayon, corollarily, sino ang may kapangyarihan o access para ma-monitor ang accounts ng pamilya Kiram, their capacity to buy weapons, outgoing funds and incoming funds, big and small? At sino ang may capacity to monitor a sudden influx of journalists to Sabah prior to the Kiram's Sabah announcement of an "invasion"? Dalawa: Philippine government and Malaysian government. Ano ang findings ng intelligence nilang dalawa?

     Of course, we can choose to believe na walang funders, na lahat ng $3,000 ArmaLites ay donated lang ng mga concerned citizens. Oo nga at mahirap magpatunay sa publiko, lalo na kung may mga bagay na di puwedeng sabihin sa publiko regarding how governments can monitor the traffic of funds and sources (e.g., ipapaalam ba ng US na ang naintercept nilang Iraqi weapons ay galing sa team ni Oliver North kung hindi nag-leak sa media? Syempre hindi, internal na lang yon). Mahirap talaga para sa press release managers kung may delicacy sa paglabas ng information sa media kung may diplomatic repercussions din dito vis a vis a flammable public lacking in knowledge about the whole picture (inclusive of opposition partisans na may sariling propaganda agenda na nagbubulagbulagan sa whole picture). Tandaan natin na marami sa mga weapons ng MNLF ay nanggaling din ng Malaysia, at maaaring makasira sa role ng Malaysia sa mata ng publiko (both Philippine public and Malaysian public). [Conversely naman, puwede mong ilabas sa media ang mga bagay tulad ng existence ng isang Jose Pidal account na common knowledge sa isang bangko, pero iba naman ang haharang sa iyo roon sa paglabas ng detalye. Batas, hindi diplomatic issues.]

     We can choose to believe na walang funders, and even choose to believe all sorts of meme reports of rampant rape and torture sa isang Facebook wall na may larawan lamang ng nahuling mga bihag na galing sa kampo ni Kiram. Nagkalat ang “reports” sa Facebook na ni-layout sa Microsoft Word na nagsisisigaw ng katotohanan tungkol sa nangyayari sa Sabah na mga pagsasamantala ng mga Malaysian forces doon. Tila nanalo ang propaganda ng mga ganitong “reports” sa unang bugso sa mata ng matatalinong tao sa Facebook. Sabi ko sa sarili ko, kanya-kanyang confirmation bias na lang ito, sabi pa nga sa sociology. Hay naku, galing na ako riyan. Sa advertising industry, ang liit ng tingin namin sa masa (kasama na ang well-educated masses), madali mong mabilog sa pamamagitan ng mainstream at guerrilla media sa ngalan ng "katotohanan".

photo from loyarburok.com

AWAY NG MALALAKI VS. MALILIIT?

NGAYONG narito na nga tayo sa usapang AEC, sasabihin ba natin na tila biktima pa rin dito ang maliliit na tao na may mga buhay na nasawi at kailangan pa rin silang tulungan? Teka nga muna, sino bang maliliit, ang mga tao ni Kiram? Kung sasabihin nating ang AEC ay panaginip lamang ng mga malalaking industriya para sa kanilang mga sarili, thus an issue between people in power or big business and ordinary people like the Kiram warriors na namamatay sa sagupaan, hehehe, sino ba itong latter na tinutukoy natin? Ano ba ang interes nila? Di ba big oil business din para sa kanilang amo?

      Mas mainam na tanungin kung sino ang caught in the crossfire, sino ang kawawa. Inisip ba ni Kiram ang maaaring mangyari sa kanila, silang mga undocumented workers na Tausug sa Sabah, pag nakipagbakbakan siya sa Malaysian forces? Ano ang pakialam niya sa mga aliping Tausug na hindi miyembro ng royalty, ang interes niya ay ang claim niya sa oil reserves. Wala siyang pakialam sa maaaring mangyari sa kanila, pero ang nakakatawa, lumabas sa media na siya pa ang champion ng Tausugs. Ang micro-journalism nga naman, oo, at ang kanyang profitable na anecdotal factualizing at conclusions from one premise.

     Iyan ang nakakalungkot kapag puro facts ng politics on the ground and on Facebook walls ang kina-cover ng media, hindi ang facts ng geopolitcs behind the curtains na maaari sanang magbigay-linaw sa tao kung sino ang tunay na kakampi nila at sino ang huwad na champion. Lumabas na champion si Kiram ng mamamayang Pilipino at traydor ang sabwatang Pilipinas-Malaysia. Subalit sino ba ang magpapaganda sa buhay ng nakararami at sino ang mangingiwan lang sa maliliit sa tabi? Kaya lang kasi, ang mga usapang ganyan, PTV-4 lang ang nagcocover, boring.

     So, global conspiracy kaya itong AEC ng mga malalaking industriya? Subalit ang "global conspiracy" na ito ay transparent, lahat ng dokumento tungkol dito sa ASEAN Economic Community na ito ay available online. Pero magkakainteres ba ang ABS-CBN News o ang GMA 7 dito? Walang tensyon e. Syempre do'n sila sa mabenta. Isang babaeng ni-rape ng Malaysian police, kahit hindi kumpirmado at sinubo lang ng Kiram party o ng anti-Aquino part ng media, gagawing geopolitical reading. Nagsasaya ang opposition propaganda.

photo from http://www.prolanguage.co.th/

AEC LABAN SA AWAYAN

KUNG interesado sana ang media sa dapat ipinapaalam sa tao, o kung interesado sana ito sa konsepto na hindi dapat parating government-averse fourth estate ang media, at kung di rin sanang masyadong matatakutin ang government sa pagsiwalat ng tunay na impormasyon, disin sana ay matagal nang malinaw kung bakit inapura (as against “minadali”) ng Aquino government ang mga bagay-bagay tulad ng K-12, Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, etc.

      Kung may gagawa ng dokumentaryo tungkol dito, mainam sana kung ito’y all about the preparations for the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community launch, mga preparations mula pa sa panahon ni Fidel Ramos o beyond hanggang kay Arroyo kung kelan ito finally pinirmahan noong Nobyembre 2007, at hanggang sa Aquino period, kasama na ang pag-apura sa K-12, ang RH BIll (kasi kelangan kang magpakita na may interes kang magbawas ng liability para sa regional welfare fund), ang Bangsamoro treaty, airlines development at airport plans para sa ASEAN Single Aviation Market, etc., etc. Isama mo na rin diyan ang pagluwag ng Burmese government ke Aung San Suu Kyi, ang takot ng China kaya pinalibutan niya ang Spratlys at Scarborough Shoal, etc.

      Subalit kailangang i-brainstorm ng mga producers sa Ma Mon Luk iyang dokumentaryo na yan. Alam mo naman, sa network may awayan ang programming people tungkol sa topic, tungkol sa market, tungkol sa profit. At madalas nababasura ang usapang maganda ng geopolitics laban sa madalas na nananalong tensyong bigay ng micro-journalism, tulad ng bakbakan at iyakan. Sa Philippine news television, maliban sa PTV-4 at ABS-CBN News Channel talk shows, tila walang may gusto ng Discovery Travel and Living programming kung saan ang usapan ay umiikot lamang sa mga nakaraan nang labanan habang nagsasalo ang lahat sa mainit pang super-siopao. [END]

Another Lousy Day for Heroes, Part II (Oppressions Birth Heroes, Corporations Breed Gods)

Read Part One here: Another Lousy Day for Heroes (Counter-Reifications)

MARTIAL LAW.
     Yesterday, the media marked the 39th anniversary of Ferdinand Marcos' declaration of such a rule in the Philippines on September 21, 1972, a hardy rule that would officially remain until 1981. Clearly, media was trying to serve us a historical lesson towards stating a renewed "never again" slogan. And under the government of Noynoy Aquino, this commemoration had more than just an "official" context. Just a month ago, the government and media remembered the August 21, 1983 assassination and death of Benigno Aquino Jr., with tributes and quasi-tributes, while weeks previous to that, the birth of Corazon Aquino was celebrated, all this under the happy watch of the Noynoy Aquino government. Now, notice that in the time of Gloria Arroyo's corruption-tainted and subtly oppressive government, media outlets commemmorated the martial law declaration and Ninoy Aquino tribute events with a clear warning (to both government and ourselves) that seemed to be embedded in the message of the remembrances. A "never again" warning context. This time around, media is playing along, entertaining the Aquino overkill that seems to jive with its previous "never again" cause.
     (Though somewhere else this week, not covered by television, certain parties were also commemorating the assassination and death of the leftist leader Leandro Alejandro on September 19, 1987, a date only over a year into the transition centrist/coalition government of Corazon Aquino.)
     But on the 21st of September, 2011, a Marcos supporter was stating a certainty on TV, viz., that Marcos' martial law was a necessary part of history, as if to push an apology for future conditions wherein a "never again" slogan might have no weight, perhaps might even be an insult to a real hero that saved us all from communism. And perhaps he's right on a point. For, after all, like all devices available to governments, martial rule is a valid option for governance. Gloria Arroyo's February 4, 2006 Proclamation 1017 declaring a state of emergency was a quite recent though short-lived quasi-use of this option. But now-a-senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr., also interviewed for his take, said his father's recourse to the state of martial law for the Philippines is all in the past now, is all history, and the nation needs to move on. No claims on his pop being a hero there.
     Now, to a citizenry, or a group opposed to its own government, martial law goes beyond being a mere encyclopedic dot on the calendar of history. It is likewise a state of collective emotional agitation replete with dynamic action, with individual as well as communal stories attached to the tensive atmosphere such a declaration brought into the indefinite timeline of its revolution. And so, the "never again" slogan continues to carry with it the viscerality of a felt funerary song.
     But now comes the question. What if all these people who've experienced Marcos' martial law are to all grow old and consequently die soon? What happens to history? Will Proclamation № 1081 be but an encyclopedic dot to Bongbong Marcos' version of necessary history?
     How will the social causes managing their anti-Marcos and anti-martial rule positions manage their hero-symbols? Will those symbols stand the test of time?

CONSIDER THE present.
     Despite the emotional portrayals of martial rule, and despite present time being under the reign of Noynoy Aquino's supposedly social liberal government, Martial Law is but now a phrase that looks so distant to Mega Manila's Generation Y and Generation Z (the latter sometimes informally referred to as the Business Process Outsourcing generation), almost a mere segment or part in a two-hour semi-fictional entertainment movie.
     Still, because that movie segment was part of history, there will be people who would see the necessity of portraying hero characters for that segment period. Hero characters they would be qua individuals rising above the rest in the pursuit of liberty from Ferdinand Marcos' governance of impunity.
     Thus we continue to celebrate today the names of Benigno Aquino Jr., Lorenzo Tañada, Jose Diokno, Jovito Salonga, Gerardo Roxas, among many others, and later-part anti-Marcos elements of the resistance continuum, including Edgar Jopson and Corazon Aquino.
     So much has been written about these people who have supposedly sacrificed a lot. Paeans, tributes, and---finally for the already deceased---eulogies. Public markets have been named after them. And notice that those who were with them but fell from grace under Corazon Aquino's government have been downgraded to mere mentions. Until, of course, they could come out of the wreckage, such as People Power Revolution hero Juan Ponce Enrile, seeming to regret their prodigality from Father or Mother Society. All this is understandable.
     All this is understandable because heroes, after all, are measured not just by their contributions and their forgivable flaws, but just as importantly by their symbolic significance to the times, their continuing affiliation in the eyes of those who need to appreciate that symbolic affiliation. . . .
     Always in relation to the times.

HEROES.
     Like all nations in the world, we champion our heroes qua symbols of our resistance and courage within our physical or philosophical territories.
     Heroes are a vital part of the maintenance of nationhood (and countryhood). They are also a vital part of governments and governance. They would even be of use to the advancement of a certain image for products circulated in consumerist society and the business sphere.
     And so it is natural for nations---and the spin doctors of ruling groups---to elevate heroes of the day or of a period of reign to hero worship status.
     And since heroes are a vital part of governance as well as governments' marketing slogans, press releases, press conferences, and ceremonies, governments allocate budgets for heroes who have to be accorded necessary spotlights, billboards, TV documentaries, books and newspaper columnist odes as well as holidays in the calendar.
     Social liberal governments have their heroes, political conservatives likewise celebrate their own. All of these heroes, dead and living, complete with awards and prizes and honorary degrees and tribute books, are placed in our social altars of ideological struggles. Communist countries, too, have their big Che Guevaras and lesser heroes (e.g. the comrade who gave more than the state's fair share of the harvest during a state of food crisis).
     We, in our day, continue to have our own sports heroes (individuals and teams). Economic heroes (whoever started the "OFWs as modern-day heroes" concept had a political philosophy in his head). Champions in the broadcasting world. A religion would have its saints that advance its own avowed virtues and achievement foci. And as comfort to the inaccesibility of certain dreams, or as tools for the catharsis of anger, or as inspiration for certain dreams that need to be elevated to the status of demigod dreams, society is advertently or inadvertently provided its superheroes and quasi-superheroes by dreamer graphic novelists and cinematic aesthetes.
     Quasi-superheroes? They're the ordinary products of a pseudo-realism portraying ordinary people who could nevertheless survive bullets of enemies with the help of agimats and simple prayers.

IT IS good to have heroes. But it is better to be aware of why they are there.
     Records of heroes in ancient struggles, as well as status quos, can be seen today in the tracts of ancient tribes and city-state civilizations.
     The Greeks advanced their own religious demigods of the Greek hero cult. Laying aside the Rastafarian Jah, present-day equivalents would be what we celebrate today as the more realistic saints. They are individuals in our faiths with human but extraordinary records supposedly unattainable to most of us who might be placed in similar extraordinary circumstances. Well, at least this is what we are told repeatedly, as if it is impossible to witness the heroism of an entire army corps placed in an extraordinary situation of fulfilling a war mission. You can't make demigods out of 40,000 men landing on a beach defended by enemy machine guns, can you? A figure or figures must stand for the collective as a sort of synecdoche for focus. A thousand posthumous medals would have to do. A dozen would be better. One would be best.
     Attached to the cult hero is the notion of self-sacrifice. And so, like the Son of Man who died for our sins, Jose Rizal and Ninoy Aquino purportedly "died for the Filipino people", with emphasis on this slogan being made to mean that their deaths were half self-planned. We will be constantly told that Rizal had no "selfish" motives in everything he did, no "childish" emulation of big brother Paciano's "heroics", no love for the "cool rebel" tag or no anger at what the Spaniards did to his mother and the Rizals' properties, no literary and other ambitions for accolade, no, none of those theories. Or, even assuming the factuality/veracity of some of those, there's hardly need to mention them. Everything he did was for the Filipino people, even his being sent away to Madrid in 1882 by the "political rebel" Paciano---to spare Jose, perhaps, from the crackdown on males during a time of a burgeoning nationalism after the Cavite Mutiny in which young Paciano was being suspected of having played some part---was not for the family but to prepare Jose for a future wherein he will serve country and people. This is the grand narrative being sent our way that, for me, bawdlerizes Rizal, the nationalist movement, and the extent of the oppressions that Rizal already felt when he was asked to drop Mercado from his family name upon enrolling at the Ateneo Municipal de Manila.
     Another highlighted mark in cult heroism is courage. Again with Rizal, the doctor's volunteering to be exiled in Cuba instead of in quiet Dapitan is not deemed worthy of much mention. On his way back to the Philippines after the order for his arrest was served by the coup of Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda, he may have refused opportunities to escape, truly a mark of courage, but how this may have a connection to his signing a manifesto disavowing the Katipunan while in jail at Fort Santiago is also not discussed much, for certainly the courage element must not be contaminated with impurities. It is as though soldiers who march to war have nothing but anger in their hearts, with nary a gram of fear.
     All this is understandable, of course, for the cult of personality is the modern alternative to ancient as well as modern-religious apotheosis. Definitions of cult of personality agree that it arises when an individual---or his top manager---utilizes mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to project an idealized heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Notice also that almost all book definitions of the phrase associate it with dictatorial personalities. The definition of personality cult itself among Western books seems to contravert democratic media's power to create personality cults within the bounds of marketing subtlety, whether advertent or sub-advertent. The preferred Western terms would be Max Weber's more neutral "charismatic authority" or otherwise the more pop-culture-friendly "celebrity". It is as if celebrities are not managed by people, and as though charismatic authority is not itself manage-able to form a cult following from it.

"HERO" COMES from the Greek word heros, meaning "protector".
     Before Joseph Campbell presented his monomyth system, there was FitzRoy Somerset, 4th Baron Raglan. In his The Hero, he systemized hero myths and proposed the unusual requisites for a hero's conception---culling from the Biblical Moses story (which in itself has parallels in Mesopotamian and Babylonian literatures), Raglan drew that firstly, in the shaping of a heroic myth, there's an attempt made by a powerful male at the hero's birth to kill him; then he is spirited away; then he is reared by foster-parents in a far country. Later, after a series of achievements of value to society, he meets some mysterious death, often at the top of a hill, and his body is not buried, and he leaves no successors, and finally he has one or more holy sepulchres.
     Rizal owned the sword of Damocles early in life. Threatened by his Mercado family name, he was told the story of the moth who gained the luxury of knowledge but was in the process burned. Rizal was soon spirited away to Madrid and "reared" by his brother Paciano and friends in Europe, the Philippines, and inside the Philippine government and the Church. Later he met his "mysterious" arrest, and equally "mysterious" death sentencing under Nozaleda's instructions (commencing in his execution at the edge of the Bagumbayan field [now Rizal Park] facing the sea). Rizal's son died in Dapitan. Rizal's mother looked for Rizal's body after his execution. He has a number of statues in so many municipal plazas, his sepulchres.
     Ninoy Aquino's story does not fit very well into this design, but there had been many attempts to kill his ambition; he was spirited away to prison, and much later to the US, with Marcos himself as his jailer and foster parent. With foster-parent and fraternity-mate Marcos intermittently ill from a lupus disease, Aquino was mysteriously assassinated (on top of a plane stairway, dropping to a runway tarmac). His dead body's bloodied face was not washed and was displayed in a church for everyone to see. Salvador Laurel was not deemed a perfect successor. Aquino's display in church led to the public beatification of a folk Joan of Arc in the person of his wife Cory Aquino, his living sepulchre, which would birth a thousand more sepulchers.
     FitzRoy Somerset's systemization is almost an endorsement of the individual hero.
     But then came Hegel. Inspired by Johann Gottfried Herder, he proposed that a hero is a product of volksgeist, or the unique collective "spirit" all peoples and nations possess. This place-spirit is married to the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, the time-spirit. Émile Durkheim would have another phrase for this, describing a similar concept he called the "collective consciousness".
     In late 19th century, in reaction to such hero personifications as those presented by Thomas Carlyle's portraits of "heroes, hero worship and the heroic" in history, Karl Marx proposed that history was actually determined by social forces operating in "class struggles", certainly not by individuals. Even Herbert Spencer, who was a proto-champion of libertarianism and the classical-liberal individual, in his criticism of the state's patriots wrote that "You must admit that the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown. . . . Before he can remake his society, his society must make him."
     In late 20th century, Michel Foucault's philosophy on history described history as the science (or art) of the "sovereign" class or niche, a science (or art) which has to be reversed by popular discourse.
     There were others who would contend with the hyperbole accorded to individuals' roles as subjects in history---Lucien Febvre, Marck Bloch, Fernand Braudel, among them. In his take, Braudel gave proof that geography, economics and demography played a more decisive role in history than the feats of individual historical subjects. Foucault and Louis Althusser would provide more heterogeneous layers of factors determinant of history.
     In an essay by William R. Thompson titled "The Lead Economy Sequence in World Politics (From Sung China to the United States): Selected Counterfactuals", Journal of Globalization Studies, Vol. 1 (2010), num. 1, pp. 6–28, the author suggests that in developing counterfactual history, with its attempts to examine hypothetic scenarios of historical development, the hero attracts attention because of those scenarios' asking about what would have happened had the historical individual under scrutiny did not exist. This thus renders faith in a hero's heroism . . . how should I put it, via negativa.

TODAY, IN the face of eulogies concerning dead heroes, some of us may ask or may already be asking: What drives an institution, say the Church, to call someone a saint? What drives a hero's, say Corazon Aquino's, emotions to do the heroic? Why do we need saints and heroes? Why do they have to be from the upper class, at least in our literatures?
     I have no quarrel with the idea of Cory Aquino or Ninoy Aquino being acknowledged as leaders of a people's struggle. I have questions about their followers' obsession with the concept of sainthood and heroism, almost synonymously taken. It's similar to the obsession with slogans and symbols overwhelming all concern for the details. I could write a book enumerating the many ramifications of this shallowness. A eulogy to a hero may be commendable for being not without content, since many eulogies are, but for the present days---or for all days---we should trouble ourselves with more takes on the ingredients of every gram of content, and less with the packaging of heroes. Were some essays not eulogies or eulogy-looking, for all their good intentions they'd actually function as essays around a hero-person's packaging.
     Now, critics of heroes, on the other hand, may be critical of certain of these heroes' inaction on certain causes or issues or dates. But critical from what angle of a mission? Are their issues the mother issues? Is the Hacienda Luisita issue, for instance, really just about the Aquinos concerning Hacienda Luisita or about Hacienda Luisita itself as a national symbol? And aside from the Hacienda Luisita acquisition history and its accordant politics, the mother subjects are still blanket land reform, agrarian reform, progressivist takes on these issues, social liberal takes on these issues different from the progressivist approach, liberal economics' takes, post-reform scenarios, and so on, and these involve characters and polities more numerous than the Aquinos or Tarlac and other element-targets of a certain party out to merely destroy a set of heroes. The Aquinos as heroes and the anti-Aquino counter-hero's role in these issues ought to be judged according to our treatment of the several hypotheses concerning the issues. Sure, we can report on the details of a struggle, any struggle, as it progresses; that'd be exciting to read about. But what about the objectives of the struggle itself? What about the merits and demerits to the post-win scenarios themselves, post-win scenarios that would define the victorious heroes' staying power within significance and memory?
     Sure, a hero's critic may have demonstrated the hero's virtue or non-virtue from his critique's end, citing missionary projects of value or no value to the hero's civilization. And that'd be good (or bad) for the hero and us. But, again, what would be the objective of the critique? Is one's objective merely to take down notes, say, for Noynoy Aquino's "our hero" or "our champion" standing in the eyes of a public answering polls as per the demand of, say, a contending Nacionalista Party? Or is it to truly promote the cause of, say, human rights, out to fight any government's shortchanging the progress of the cause, whether that government is a social and political liberal or political conservative or progressivist or socialist or libertarian one? Journalism is good, but there's also such a thing as selective journalism, black propaganda journalism, latent advocacy journalism, not to mention bad journalism, that in the process of their practice could actually only be validating a process of hero-packaging by virtue of their opposition to pouring more attention to details, details of the issues and causes surrounding these heroes and anti-heroes who---in the first place---are only players in the quest for the triumph or defeat of causes and societies larger than themselves. Understand that heroes can either be a party's, a niche's, or a cause's.
     Consider the Nacionalista Party of Manny Villar that gathered progressivists as well as hauled in Bongbong Marcos to a coalition lineup of senatorial candidates. Definitely worth talking about, that one, for instance. And you'd wonder why no one among the critics of the Aquinos' heroism who were likewise sympathetic to the Nacionalistas did. And, sure, Pres. Cory Aquino may indeed have "self-limited her greatness. She ended her service to the Filipino people where the interest of her clan, friends and supporters began," as a Facebook view states it. That may actually be true. But should that be true, it should be nothing more than a manifestation of what could happen when emotional critics become leaders. Such leaders may have to look for an economic ideology on the job, sometimes finally finding one on their last week in office. That's one reason why we ought to rather read criticism that tackles details instead of those that paint abstracts we already know, or abstracts by way of selected specifics, likewise excluding oneself from the count. For the hero or non-hero (villain) ought not to be the issue, it's the issue that ought to qualify someone's heroism or non-heroism (villainy) within it. Otherwise, what will be offered society will be a battle of superheroes deriving from various parties' metanarratives that all avoid a higher view upon all the forces and prejudices and ambitions at play.
     For the hero on whichever side is never alone. The writer-critic is part of his heroism, if not the definer of that heroism. And, therefore, the critic must derive all his judgments from a confession of his causes as well as a confession of the sort of heroes he prefers to fight with him for his causes.

NOW, I for my part have no quarrel with the nationalism and patriotism of upper class elements. I say our beef ought to be with the very fact that the masses can easily be exploited, duped, conscripted. Some people's nationalism and patriotism are not going to be enough panacea for our masses' struggles, unless a niche wants to perpetuate a tradition of martyrdom for its niche-image and myth-making. I am talking about empowerment, wherein the educated upper middle class and upper class doesn't have to be the ones to always lead everyone, I'm talking about leadership that can derive from anywhere via collective heroism.
     Now, Marx and Foucault aside, is everything in life about class struggle? Well, in relation to what I wish to say and whether I'm talking about a class struggle issue or not, I'm going to say no and yes. For by empowerment I do not mean empowerment for acquiring leaderships. I mean the empowerment of followers via their access to an awareness and a knowledge of the issues around which their heroes and own heroism have operated and/or continue to operate. This is the reason why we ought to keep on harping on details, details, details. Without tackling the devil in the details, heroes---be they upper class liberators or rags-to-riches new liberals---will forever be tagged as heroes in a shallow way, with the effect of hiding the operative grand narratives and reifications on their persons. Without these details, heroes can---as indeed they often do---become emblems for power and cultural manipulations.
     Let me give you a final example. Manny Pacquiao is a Filipino sports hero. He has become a symbol of possibilities for the Filipino race. And yet, an examination of that simplistic grand narrative would birth questions. For instance, is he really representative of Filipino industry? Could it be that while he was struggling in the gym to be able to prove to everyone that he can rise in the sport, his gym-mates were laughing at him? If that was the reality of his history, then our symbolism should crumble. He has failed to become the symbol of average Filipino ambitions in the gym. And yet, should Pacquiao qua emblem be deemed usable, we will continue to be fed some corporate-driven lie that we can all make it in the boxing industry or any industry if we just work hard (sipag), if we have persistence (tiyaga), never mind the other details that we can just leave to luck and the employment and wage-slavery systems in our mainstream economics.
     So, to explain further my point on followers' awareness (or lack of it) of the issues and themes around a subject-hero or heroes and how this can be deemed a class issue by itself concerning hero-metanarratives (not necessarily upper-class vs. middle class), may I invite you to examine your own role among the social forces that were operating in "class struggles" (whether you belong to the working class or the small business entrepreneur class or the factory-owning class). What could have been if the likes of you had not existed or were in short supply? What could have been if your hero was not there? Or, what could have been if it was you placed in his/her position of privilege, the privilege to become a hero? Or are you a hero now?
     Conversely, what could have avoided your hero's martyrdom? What was your part among the social forces operating in "class struggle" that made that martyrdom or death or assassination possible? Despite that, are you a hero now still?
     Finally, are you a hero-worshipper or are you a part of a collective of heroisms?
     Whatever was/is your role, it will have played a part in an unfolding history leading to a future declaration of martial law. [END]


Photo of newspaper cover borrowed from http://www.gmanews.tv/story/172811/martial-law-activists-now-ready-to-tell-own-stories