Too much freedom

Yoly Villanueva-Ong

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Too much freedom
In the end, it’s the people who make the system work or fail. And the people only become more discerning if they are taught how to be more discerning.

In a trip to Singapore some years ago, I chanced on a chatty, voluble driver who immediately asked where I was from. When I answered “Philippines,” he launched an animated conversation comparing his country with ours. Evidently, he had been to Manila.

In distinctive “Sing-lish,” he began innocuously enough with the weather, which he opined was similar but that it was more humid in Manila. Then he moved to the subject of quaint pedicabs and quainter jeepneys that messed up the bad traffic even more in our narrow, potholed streets.  

At this point, we were traversing the wide, smooth, manicured expressways at the mandated speed monitored by a bell that tingled whenever the speed limit was about to be breached. 

From narrow, potholed streets, he turned to the subject of street demonstrators waving red flags at a protest rally that he witnessed. I tried my best not to feel defensive and managed to be polite but curt, wishing we could get to my hotel sooner.  

Then came the dreaded unsolicited advice: “ I think Filipinos have too many freedom. In Singapore, if people want 10 things, the government just give six. Only what’s good for us. Filipinos want 10 things from government and not happy if they don’t they get all. Too many freedom not too good.”

Some erudite political/socio-economic analysts share the taxi driver’s insight. They favor a more commanding and authoritative leadership style, like that of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammad. 

They cite the progress of the two countries as the outcome of a strongman’s imposition of discipline and control over a willful citizenry. Some even assert that perhaps the Asian culture and democracy are too eastern and western, and “never the twain shall meet.”  

Independence Day

Commemorating our country’s 116th year of Independence from Spain, it’s an appropriate time to reflect whether democracy is indeed misplaced in our neck of the woods. 

In a discourse by Viberto Selochan entitled, “The Military and the Fragile Democracy of the Philippines,” he wrote, “The Philippines became the first independent democratic country in Asia, adopting a political system modeled on that of the United States. With strong leadership and a weak central state as the hallmarks of Philippine politics, the author questions whether democracy will continue to flourish in the post-Cold War era.”

Another treatise, Origins of Democracy in the Philippines, noted:  “The ideology of American ‘democracy’ which emphasized the limitation of state power was very different from the philosophy of the French in Indo-China, the Dutch in the Indies and the British in Malaya. It played into the hands of the elite to whom the Americans, always ambivalent colonial rulers, proceeded to hand over political power as soon as possible.” 

The 1935 Constitution was adopted on July 4, 1946, providing the framework for the development of a democratic nation. “The American-style democracy exported to the Philippines was bound to encounter problems: ‘Except in rare instances, democracy does not work when foreign models are imposed, and many features of American democracy are ill-suited to poor, unstable and divided countries.”

So what’s better than democracy?

Winston Churchill declared, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” 

From the time of the monarchy and theocracy, to fascism, communism, socialism, oligarchy and dictatorship – all have failed. But for democracy to work better, the voting public must be knowledgeable. They must find out about issues and determine which candidate offers the best course of action. 

Even the most skeptical concede that reaching a consensual decision where everyone is happy with the result, is not impossible, but highly improbable. 

As New Yorker’s humorist, EB White said, “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.”

Democraticunderground.com theorizes that perhaps a meritocracy where more “reliance is given to those who get things right,” would be better than democracy. They submit that all men are NOT created equal. There are those who are not fit to vote, while the more insightful ones should count for more than one vote. Give more weight to voters with education, and bar incompetents from running for office along with the corrupt and scandal-prone candidates. 

But in the same breath they acknowledge that if democracy is difficult, meritocracy is next to impossible.

“It’s harder to come up with a rational system to give the more competent bonus votes. And how do you keep the privileged class open to entry from the newly meritorious and prevent them from keeping the economic benefits for themselves?

The corporate world appears to be a meritocracy. They reward intellect and ambition. But the CEO class have shown that no matter if they got there on merit or on connections, they intend to take the lion’s share of the benefits.”

In the end, it’s the people who make the system work or fail. And the people only become more discerning if they are taught how to be more discerning. An earnest voter education campaign remains one of the most doable options.

When the garrulous cabdriver was almost at the hotel driveway, he asked one final question. “You have payapo in the Philippines?” He had to repeat the question thrice before I finally understood. I answered, “Oh pineapple? Yes we have a lot of pineapples in the Philippines.” He had a longing look.       

Finally, I had one over him. – Rappler.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!