Weekly Brief
In highly-polarised Philippine politics, what lies in between?
In review and in prospect
As the political discourse in the Philippines gets increasingly polarised with both sides digging themselves increasingly deeper into an unproductive trench warfare wherein each side shells and snipes at the other from a distance rather than engage in close-contact combat, the landscape is once again left wide-open for true and independent punditry. The key here is for these true and independent pundits to elevate themselves above the stalemated trench warfare being waged by the Dutertards and the Marcostard-Yellowtard camp and way above the intellectually-bankrupt arguments of choice such as “Why should I listent to you, you’re a […]-tard?”
True pundits should focus less on polarising the debate and more on clarifying stuff — clarify the issues, clearly-define the problem, evaluate options, and recommend clear pathways. When there is an increase in focus on clarity, we can expect an increase in focus of inclusiveness in the discourse. At the moment, there is none of this sort that can be seen in the way the Marcos/Yellowtards and Dutertards conduct themselves. Indeed, the division they are causing is not just between the two camps but, most acutely-observed in the former, also within their respective camps.
Seeing all this, it is evident that Filipinos in general haven’t really yet become the independent-minded and skilled thinkers that are essential for a society to thrive in a full embrace of Western liberal democratic ideology. The lip service paid to “equality”, “people power”, and “rule of law” serve well as fodder for the cocktail and latte-sipping classes’ pretentious conversations in their quaint soirées but, unfortunately, these lofty concepts break down in the broader Philippine setting where beholdenness to personalities rather than ideas is more the rule.
To be free and responsible in the use of democratic “freedom” requires intelligence and foresight. The latter is important because the ability to think several steps ahead and visualise the different scenarios that could branch out over that horizon is key to making the right decisions. Also as important is framing the problem properly. Not surprising, therefore, is the reality that faces us; that the Philippines is basically a society that is the result of the wrong solutions being implemented on the back of ill-defined problems.
In such a society, one would be better off cautious about espousing too much “freedom” on the assumption that people to whom this will be afforded will apply enough personal accountability to wield it well. That’s the Philippines in a nutshell, basically. It is a society begging for a dictatorship but fatally-convinced it is entitled to enjoy liberal Western democracy. Note that this is a strong unifying premise that describes the current bipolar condition of the Philippine national “debate”. The challenge is to discover what lies between.
Last week’s blog posts
(none)