The Essence of Democracy
By: Mr. Gerry A. Marcelo
The Philippines is known as the earliest democracy in Asia, whose democratic institutions were established in the light of the democratic principles of governance. Equality is the byword in a democratic society. It is frequently invoked whenever there are assumed violation of the principle of freedom. It seems very easy for Filipinos to speak of democracy and equate it to equality in any democratic circumstance they are into. The government and the opposition exchange heated arguments whenever there is a new issue at hand. Whether it be the doling out of five hundred pesos to the poor or making peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Mindanao, be it the MMDA removing the vendors from their sidewalk posts or relocating them to remote places where they can’t find any job, be it the rich accumulating so much wealth or the poor not having anything to eat for the day. We speak of equality and freedom everyday of our mundane lives, as if we really understand the nature of these two great principles of democratic societies. Democracy is desirable. It is a condition most, if not all people, across the globe dream of. We boast of our democratic way of life and scorned when Lee Kuan Yew commented that EDSA 1 was a mobocracy and to prove him wrong, we had another one in 2000. We cherish the moments when we choose our government officials in the process of general elections but we are also elated when we remove them in revolutions. We boast of participating in multifarious political activities, ranging from elections to collective actions such as rallies and street parliaments but our voices remain unheard by the same government that we elected into office. We pride ourselves of the manner by which we process politically motivated issues in the Congress and in media. We disdain other countries when they “undemocratically” process political issues. We laugh at Singapore because it imposes harsh (it’s relative) laws that we consider curtailing the political rights of its citizenry. All of these we consider democracy. Our own brand of democracy!
Has our brand of democracy worked for us? Has our brand of democracy brought us the economic, social and political stability we long aspired for? Has our brand of democracy allowed each individual citizen to develop his potentials and become a good member of the society? Has our socio-economic and political principles fitted and suited to our cultural and traditional roots? These and other questions related to the society will be addressed to provide a basis for the brand of democracy suitable given our cultural and traditional development.
Although democracy allows the individual to express himself in manners which he deemed beneficial for himself and his interests, he is still a member of a greater society. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Lock suggest that the making of a society began in the forging of social contract between and among individuals to ultimately protect themselves against each other. Augusté Comté assumed that the society is real and the individual subjects himself in it. These ideas endow the individuals the knowledge that though each is given freedom to do what he wishes to do in the society, he remains a member of the society and is presumed to exercise these freedoms not to ultimately elevate himself above all others but to contribute to the general welfare of the society. In this light, individual freedom is not defined with the intention of elevating oneself above everybody else in the society but contribute to help others elevate themselves to a level where human individuality (such as talent and skills and morality) is given its true expression. Individuals who are not elevated to this level will not be able to fulfill their destiny and worth as members of human society. The society was not created so that the strong and those endowed by nature with superior intellectual competence are given the arena to express their superiority in such a manner that they devalue others who were not given the same gift by nature. The state as a conglomeration of individuals and as a superior entity than each of the individual persons within, is expected to ensure that freedom of expression (by freedom of expression here I mean, the freedom to manifest human individuality (such as talent, skills and morality) for the welfare of the society) is guaranteed and protected so that the whole society benefits from its fruition, because there is no pride and humanity in the expression of individual freedom whenever it deprives others of the avenues to express theirs. The individual is free only so long as he acts, serves and becomes an instrument (by instrument, I mean, the pride of being of service to others with the aim of helping them develop their individuality and become of service to others too) for the development and expression of others freedom.
The State
What in this light is the role of the state and its manifestations like the government and other state institutions? The government is created as a manifestation of the willingness of each individual within the state to subject themselves into the control of everyone else. The state is the collectivity of morality and the collective expression of the spirit of humanity and individualism. Individualism can only be more pronounced whenever it acts in the context of collectivity. Therefore, individuality loses its individualism if it goes against the will of the collectivity and expresses itself contrary to the collective morality of the society.
The state is the active manifestation of individuality. Its role is to ensure that individuals do not destroy each other for individual survival. It is the common manifestation of the control each one in the society wishes to curb greed and evil. One area the state should manifest people’s control is the distribution of wealth. By distribution of wealth, I do not mean that the state through its government and other institutions impede the ability of the individual to enrich himself using his skills, but that the state through its government, restrain the greed and evil individuals might manifest whenever they have accumulated wealth beyond their own needs and luxuries. Karl Marx as well as Max Weber somehow agreed that wealth allows for the construction of social classes. Social classes if not restrained will wield itself inimical to the welfare of the entire society. This is the reason why Karl Marx advocated for the destruction of social classes. Classes must be seen also as an articulation of collectivities and individuality and ultimately freedom and equality.
It is the function of the state to guarantee the welfare of everyone in the society. I do not assume that absolute equality can be attained. There will always be some degree of differences (not degree of inequality) to satisfy human cravings so that he feels he is making progress and still improving his quality of life. Thus, it is imperative that the state limits the gap between the poor and the rich (haves and haves not) so that poverty is eliminated and exploitation discontinued. Being poor or rich is relative to the distance between these two classes. The greater the gap between them, the poorer the poor feels and becomes and the richer the rich feels and becomes. I consider it dysfunctional for agencies of the state as well as other institutions in the society not to be able to alleviate the condition of the poor and provide them with avenues to redeem themselves from the quagmire they’ve been long into. Public or private institutions, secular or religious groups or whatever its form is, each must aim to assuage the condition of the members and therefore partake into the larger and greater function of the society to eliminate poverty and discontinue exploitation. But if these institutions promote the antitheses, they must be debunked.
The state is there to function as an earnest for the realization of human potentialities, not to dwarf them, by promoting laws and policies advantageous to their development. Taxation, economic policies, and social policies must be designed to attain just this. Political parties should be in moral opposition with each other and not opposing each other to promote and sell themselves to the electorates. The state should epitomize the general and superior will of the people and should manifest this in policy making and economic decisions. The qualification of the government to intervene in the economic freedom of business dwells in the morality of its leaders and sincerity of its intention to guard the welfare of those who may not have the economic capability to extricate themselves from their enslaving condition. The kind of society a people create depends on the people’s social construction of what true freedom and equality is.
Freedom and equality is not the absence of classes but the presence of decent food in a family’s table, the availability of decent jobs, the financial capability to provide medical health care for the members of the family, the availability of quality education whether private or public, the happiness to work locally and live with one’s family comfortably. The absence of line for NFA rice, absence of paupers along the community’s streets, absence of houses without water supply, without electricity, without food, etc. These are the cravings of Filipino families. Thus if freedom and equality is the presence of these, and that democracy is the bulwark of freedom and equality, therefore, the Philippines is one of the most undemocratic societies in the world, because it is characterized by the absence of these desirable experiences and conditions.
The state as the amalgamation of the people’s will and aspiration should create a society where everyone is given equal opportunity to develop and improve his/her skills, not only to live comfortably with his/her own family but to manifest the true essence of their humanity and morality.
The Church
The church is tasked to strengthen the morality of the people sharing the same society. Moreover, it is tasked to enlighten the people’s spirituality and complement it with material and social life. I presume that material conditions determine the quality of social life and level of spirituality a person or even a people might attain. Just like what Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it is expected that the satisfaction of material requirements be accomplished initially before social and spiritual needs can be attended to. It does not mean that the church, as an agent of socialization and the spiritual guide of the people is relegated to the end of the line but must be given primacy in pursuing the material affluence of the citizenry, because the attainment of spiritual completeness is dependent on the fundamental requirement of a dignified life – material and social needs. The church, true to its role, pursues activities that will help the government and the state to accomplish its functions. Social structures are not created to stand on their own, entirely separate and distinct from others, but are systemically interrelated and interdependent. Institutions are designed to structurally function, to collectively realize their functions so that the society attains stability. Some may even argue that the presence of the poor is functional. I argue that the presence of this class only shows the inability of the different structures to collectively reach stability. Structures only become dysfunctional when individuals and class who manage these structures become so engross with their own well-being and greed rather than the welfare of the society as a whole. The church being the bulwark of morality serves as a beam to provide light for the society to see its path clearer as it pursues to give people their desired quality of life. The success of the church can only be measured when its members are not only spiritually full but also materially satisfied. The church should cease to be the spiritual guide if it does not contribute to the material welfare of the people. It should cease from ignoring the primacy of material well being of the people and should begin to re-evaluate its role in the society. It is an injustice when people are expected to be spiritually strong when their stomachs are aching due to hunger, when the children are working for their own food, when families are degraded due to poverty. It is not godly to expect a high degree of spirituality from people who cannot even provide for a meal. Spirituality though considered a personal responsibility, should also be the concern of the state. Unless the state and the church pursue the same goal of uplifting the quality of life of the people, spirituality can be remotely achieve.
To be continued…….
By: Mr. Gerry A. Marcelo
The Philippines is known as the earliest democracy in Asia, whose democratic institutions were established in the light of the democratic principles of governance. Equality is the byword in a democratic society. It is frequently invoked whenever there are assumed violation of the principle of freedom. It seems very easy for Filipinos to speak of democracy and equate it to equality in any democratic circumstance they are into. The government and the opposition exchange heated arguments whenever there is a new issue at hand. Whether it be the doling out of five hundred pesos to the poor or making peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Mindanao, be it the MMDA removing the vendors from their sidewalk posts or relocating them to remote places where they can’t find any job, be it the rich accumulating so much wealth or the poor not having anything to eat for the day. We speak of equality and freedom everyday of our mundane lives, as if we really understand the nature of these two great principles of democratic societies. Democracy is desirable. It is a condition most, if not all people, across the globe dream of. We boast of our democratic way of life and scorned when Lee Kuan Yew commented that EDSA 1 was a mobocracy and to prove him wrong, we had another one in 2000. We cherish the moments when we choose our government officials in the process of general elections but we are also elated when we remove them in revolutions. We boast of participating in multifarious political activities, ranging from elections to collective actions such as rallies and street parliaments but our voices remain unheard by the same government that we elected into office. We pride ourselves of the manner by which we process politically motivated issues in the Congress and in media. We disdain other countries when they “undemocratically” process political issues. We laugh at Singapore because it imposes harsh (it’s relative) laws that we consider curtailing the political rights of its citizenry. All of these we consider democracy. Our own brand of democracy!
Has our brand of democracy worked for us? Has our brand of democracy brought us the economic, social and political stability we long aspired for? Has our brand of democracy allowed each individual citizen to develop his potentials and become a good member of the society? Has our socio-economic and political principles fitted and suited to our cultural and traditional roots? These and other questions related to the society will be addressed to provide a basis for the brand of democracy suitable given our cultural and traditional development.
Although democracy allows the individual to express himself in manners which he deemed beneficial for himself and his interests, he is still a member of a greater society. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Lock suggest that the making of a society began in the forging of social contract between and among individuals to ultimately protect themselves against each other. Augusté Comté assumed that the society is real and the individual subjects himself in it. These ideas endow the individuals the knowledge that though each is given freedom to do what he wishes to do in the society, he remains a member of the society and is presumed to exercise these freedoms not to ultimately elevate himself above all others but to contribute to the general welfare of the society. In this light, individual freedom is not defined with the intention of elevating oneself above everybody else in the society but contribute to help others elevate themselves to a level where human individuality (such as talent and skills and morality) is given its true expression. Individuals who are not elevated to this level will not be able to fulfill their destiny and worth as members of human society. The society was not created so that the strong and those endowed by nature with superior intellectual competence are given the arena to express their superiority in such a manner that they devalue others who were not given the same gift by nature. The state as a conglomeration of individuals and as a superior entity than each of the individual persons within, is expected to ensure that freedom of expression (by freedom of expression here I mean, the freedom to manifest human individuality (such as talent, skills and morality) for the welfare of the society) is guaranteed and protected so that the whole society benefits from its fruition, because there is no pride and humanity in the expression of individual freedom whenever it deprives others of the avenues to express theirs. The individual is free only so long as he acts, serves and becomes an instrument (by instrument, I mean, the pride of being of service to others with the aim of helping them develop their individuality and become of service to others too) for the development and expression of others freedom.
The State
What in this light is the role of the state and its manifestations like the government and other state institutions? The government is created as a manifestation of the willingness of each individual within the state to subject themselves into the control of everyone else. The state is the collectivity of morality and the collective expression of the spirit of humanity and individualism. Individualism can only be more pronounced whenever it acts in the context of collectivity. Therefore, individuality loses its individualism if it goes against the will of the collectivity and expresses itself contrary to the collective morality of the society.
The state is the active manifestation of individuality. Its role is to ensure that individuals do not destroy each other for individual survival. It is the common manifestation of the control each one in the society wishes to curb greed and evil. One area the state should manifest people’s control is the distribution of wealth. By distribution of wealth, I do not mean that the state through its government and other institutions impede the ability of the individual to enrich himself using his skills, but that the state through its government, restrain the greed and evil individuals might manifest whenever they have accumulated wealth beyond their own needs and luxuries. Karl Marx as well as Max Weber somehow agreed that wealth allows for the construction of social classes. Social classes if not restrained will wield itself inimical to the welfare of the entire society. This is the reason why Karl Marx advocated for the destruction of social classes. Classes must be seen also as an articulation of collectivities and individuality and ultimately freedom and equality.
It is the function of the state to guarantee the welfare of everyone in the society. I do not assume that absolute equality can be attained. There will always be some degree of differences (not degree of inequality) to satisfy human cravings so that he feels he is making progress and still improving his quality of life. Thus, it is imperative that the state limits the gap between the poor and the rich (haves and haves not) so that poverty is eliminated and exploitation discontinued. Being poor or rich is relative to the distance between these two classes. The greater the gap between them, the poorer the poor feels and becomes and the richer the rich feels and becomes. I consider it dysfunctional for agencies of the state as well as other institutions in the society not to be able to alleviate the condition of the poor and provide them with avenues to redeem themselves from the quagmire they’ve been long into. Public or private institutions, secular or religious groups or whatever its form is, each must aim to assuage the condition of the members and therefore partake into the larger and greater function of the society to eliminate poverty and discontinue exploitation. But if these institutions promote the antitheses, they must be debunked.
The state is there to function as an earnest for the realization of human potentialities, not to dwarf them, by promoting laws and policies advantageous to their development. Taxation, economic policies, and social policies must be designed to attain just this. Political parties should be in moral opposition with each other and not opposing each other to promote and sell themselves to the electorates. The state should epitomize the general and superior will of the people and should manifest this in policy making and economic decisions. The qualification of the government to intervene in the economic freedom of business dwells in the morality of its leaders and sincerity of its intention to guard the welfare of those who may not have the economic capability to extricate themselves from their enslaving condition. The kind of society a people create depends on the people’s social construction of what true freedom and equality is.
Freedom and equality is not the absence of classes but the presence of decent food in a family’s table, the availability of decent jobs, the financial capability to provide medical health care for the members of the family, the availability of quality education whether private or public, the happiness to work locally and live with one’s family comfortably. The absence of line for NFA rice, absence of paupers along the community’s streets, absence of houses without water supply, without electricity, without food, etc. These are the cravings of Filipino families. Thus if freedom and equality is the presence of these, and that democracy is the bulwark of freedom and equality, therefore, the Philippines is one of the most undemocratic societies in the world, because it is characterized by the absence of these desirable experiences and conditions.
The state as the amalgamation of the people’s will and aspiration should create a society where everyone is given equal opportunity to develop and improve his/her skills, not only to live comfortably with his/her own family but to manifest the true essence of their humanity and morality.
The Church
The church is tasked to strengthen the morality of the people sharing the same society. Moreover, it is tasked to enlighten the people’s spirituality and complement it with material and social life. I presume that material conditions determine the quality of social life and level of spirituality a person or even a people might attain. Just like what Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it is expected that the satisfaction of material requirements be accomplished initially before social and spiritual needs can be attended to. It does not mean that the church, as an agent of socialization and the spiritual guide of the people is relegated to the end of the line but must be given primacy in pursuing the material affluence of the citizenry, because the attainment of spiritual completeness is dependent on the fundamental requirement of a dignified life – material and social needs. The church, true to its role, pursues activities that will help the government and the state to accomplish its functions. Social structures are not created to stand on their own, entirely separate and distinct from others, but are systemically interrelated and interdependent. Institutions are designed to structurally function, to collectively realize their functions so that the society attains stability. Some may even argue that the presence of the poor is functional. I argue that the presence of this class only shows the inability of the different structures to collectively reach stability. Structures only become dysfunctional when individuals and class who manage these structures become so engross with their own well-being and greed rather than the welfare of the society as a whole. The church being the bulwark of morality serves as a beam to provide light for the society to see its path clearer as it pursues to give people their desired quality of life. The success of the church can only be measured when its members are not only spiritually full but also materially satisfied. The church should cease to be the spiritual guide if it does not contribute to the material welfare of the people. It should cease from ignoring the primacy of material well being of the people and should begin to re-evaluate its role in the society. It is an injustice when people are expected to be spiritually strong when their stomachs are aching due to hunger, when the children are working for their own food, when families are degraded due to poverty. It is not godly to expect a high degree of spirituality from people who cannot even provide for a meal. Spirituality though considered a personal responsibility, should also be the concern of the state. Unless the state and the church pursue the same goal of uplifting the quality of life of the people, spirituality can be remotely achieve.
To be continued…….
Posts
