[ANALYSIS] Fulfilling the promise of a democracy

This is the second half of the speech delivered by lawyer Christian Monsod during Rappler’s #PHVote Dialogue on June 5, 2021. Read the first half here.

With your kind indulgence for a few minutes, I would like to use the heroism framework of Philip Zimbardo, author of “The Lucifer Effect,” in defining where we want to go.  

In times of division and turbulence, we are told that our country is badly in need of heroes. The problem is that the word “hero” is one of the most trivialized words in our culture – OFWs are hailed as heroes, a boxer knocks out his opponent and he is called a hero, a rich man with private charities is lionized as a hero, a soldier who dies in battle against insurgents is buried a hero. Indeed, we can say that what these people have done are exemplary in their own ways and they should be honored. 

But are they the kind of heroes that come to our minds when we say that our country needs heroes? 

“The core of heroism revolves around the individual’s commitment to a noble purpose and the willingness to accept the consequences for that purpose.” Zimbardo cites two kinds – “heroism in service to a noble idea” and “heroism that involves immediate physical peril….” 

Then there is the “Lucifer Effect” on the finding that no one is immune from it: Even “good apples” in a “bad barrel” can be corrupted. And people can be good or bad at one time or another because the line between them is “permeable.” There is also the “evil of inaction” that “supports those who commit evil by not acting to challenge them.” 

But just as there is a banality of evil there is also the banality of heroism – where we are all potential heroes waiting for our moments to perform heroic deeds. Not the superheroism of a Mahatma Gandhi or a Nelson Mandela or a Ninoy Aquino, but as ordinary everyday heroes – by the courage to expose fraud when we see it or to say “no” to complicity in wrongdoing or by the “hardiness to be different or difficult to do what is right when it is easier to conform.”

May I mention at this point the heroism of 500,000 NAMFREL volunteers in 1986 who guarded the ballot with their lives with no other agenda but the country. Most have passed into history, most of them unsung, content in their anonymity. Eight of them died for the cause, all of them from the poor.

So, in the context of this heroism framework, let’s go back to the earlier question on the chances of a Supreme Court ruling against the Anti-Terrorism Act. I believe that there is a better than even chance of a Supreme Court (SC) ruling against it or against specific provisions that on their face are open to abuse. There have been golden moments for the SC in our recent past – as when it ruled against the Ramos’ Pirma, and again against the Sigaw ng Bayan people’s initiative during the Arroyo regime when the 10 justices she appointed out of the 15 voted 5-5 on the issue on an 8-7 vote, or when the SC ruled for the farmers against Hacienda Luisita of President PNoy by a 13-0 vote including 3 justices he appointed. Let’s hope and pray for the banality of heroism to prevail in our justices with another golden moment against the ATA because it can make a big difference on the conduct and results of the 2022 elections.  

In addition to the ruling on the ATA, there are at least three other factors that could affect the elections. The first is media, both traditional and social media which has changed the communications framework.  The second is the spillover effect on the still high approval ratings of President Duterte. The third are possible constructive responses to the changing communications environment. There is fourth factor that is speculation at this time that I am not prepared to discuss today  – the possibility of the United States and China interfering in our elections. If any of you have already formed opinions about this, please share it with us later.

On media, traditional media is where many are engaging in self-censorship on the real situation either out of fear or favor, thus opening the door wider to government propaganda. Then there is the rise of social media with numerous trolls that act like echo chambers with people who eventually confine themselves to “news,” even fake ones, and on opinions that confirm their biases or confirmation bias. 

On the continuing high approval ratings of the President, a communications expert says:

Perhaps the current leader appears to be an enigma because many have taken the people out of the equation. We can understand leadership best from the perspective of the leadership dyad — that is, to analyze the relationship between the leader and his/her followers, not just a leader in isolation. A dyad is like a married couple where one party is considered an integral part of the other. If one party is abusive, the situation exists because the other party “consents” to the abuse through passive or ineffective behavior. We need to examine the traits and behavior of a leader in  the context of the traits and behavior of his/her followers.

He suggests a dyad matrix that might help us analyze the situation. I will touch on that later.

What should we do?

The first premise to an approach is that there is a statesman in every politician, and it is up to us to find it in every way we can. As long as there is a window of rationality, however small, it is worth the effort to try;

Second, democracy is about dialogue and compromise. There is very little space in the room for extremists or purists. But we all have a right to be heard;

Third, real change can only be achieved with a transformational leader and a transformational people. Any other combination of transformational and transactional people or leader has dysfunctional results: 

• Bargaining with power and money (transactional people/transactional leader, 
• A long march (transactional people/ transformational leader, or 
• Rebellion (transformational people/transactional leader.

Fourth, the poor I work with say that they prefer not to rely on politicians but only on themselves to improve their lives using people power in their communities. This is the changing paradigm of people power and a good omen for the future, but there is also the challenge that there is room for everyone in a democracy of our own making. Because we need a new generation of leaders who come from the poor if we are ever going to have real change.

To elaborate: 

When the social contract between the government and the people may be breaking, the communities should take it upon themselves to change the nature of the social contract. Advocating another set of leaders from the same breed perceived as “tradpols” will not work, with candidates who have repeatedly promised real reforms since EDSA and have repeatedly failed to deliver on those promises.  

The correct response to this new communications framework is social movements like the community food pantries. It is one of the most visible evidence of failures of governance and a powerful response of the people to help themselves – spontaneous, democratic, caring, inspiring, and done with humility and without drama.

Then there is the example of what Synergeia is doing in the education of children at the grassroots, where the barangays and the teachers are working with the parents, who are also helping one another, to improve the education of children. Synergeia is already in 426 municipalities successfully operating through changes of the national leadership. Their stories are inspiring – that people can be transformational in their communities regardless of who is in power. 

From these responses should come the leaders of tomorrow from the ground up. And the Church, as one of only three organizations with a national reach, can play a crucial role in nurturing the youth in this kind of awakening and commitment. (Incidentally, the two others are the LGUs and the military/police agencies.)

Eleksyon 2022 koalisyon and the pandemic

We are in the middle of a pandemic unparalleled in recent history. While there is no more question about our interconnected lives and the need for solidarity to address it, we are faced with a paradox of solidarity by separation because of lockdowns, physical distancing, and quarantines. It’s a complex situation for decision-making and unfortunately, our country’s performance in handling the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy have been among the worst in our part of the world. 

The resulting daily struggle of most of our people, especially the poorest among them, against infection, joblessness, and hunger, coupled with a fear generated by an often misdirected campaign against “communists” that covers even the “community pantries” have increased the feeling among our people of disconnection from and powerlessness in the “game of politics.”

This is evidenced by the slow rate of new registrants, not only of new voters of about four million who will be 18 years old by the 2022 elections, but also deactivated voters who did not vote for two election cycles.

Addressing these feelings of disconnection and powerlessness is the first order of the day. That is why we formed the biggest non-partisan coalition to urge those qualified to register and vote. We need to show that democracy can work in our country and not registering is losing by default their power to vote. Hence, the target of seven million additional registered voters by the deadline on September 30, 2021 and thereafter for a massive voter education program especially directed to the youth and the poor and marginalized could make a difference in the election results. 

The 2022 national elections can be a window of hope to the future of a country rebuilding itself despite a global pandemic and the failures of the past. There are already signs of that hope – like the many acts of humanity by those with the means to those who are in need, the electoral losses in 2019 of some formerly entrenched political dynasties and the rise of young incorruptible officials at the local level. We can help accelerate the groundswell for needed reforms by a big voter turnout in 2022.

This national transformation will take time. From empowering the poor in the barangay, then the municipalities, then the provinces, then the nation. But we must persevere like a long-distance runner from elections after elections after elections until we get the country of our vision.                     

In other words, we are also doing this for a long-standing advocacy for social justice and radical social change.

Deeper dimension of the 2022 elections

Beyond addressing the immediate problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is the deeper dimension of the 2022 elections. EDSA was not only the restoration of democracy it was also the promise to the poor of a new social order that every administration after EDSA has failed to fulfill. And those of us who have been in government share that accountability. That promise has moved farther from our reach as the twin problems of poverty and gross inequalities have worsened because of the pandemic and the economic recession, and because our institutions, especially the rule of law, have been weakened through the years. 

Hence the criticality of our choice of agents in government who will serve for the next six years after the 2022 elections.

In closing: everyday heroism is possible and can come in the form of registering and then voting for what one believes to be noble, especially if doing so is for the good of others, especially the poor and marginalized.

Our poor have been expecting the new social order for 35 years. History has not been kind to our poor, and neither has democracy been meaningful to them. Despite that, surveys show that they want social change achieved through peaceful democratic means – meaning free, fair, and regular elections – as opposed to a revolutionary government, a military coup, an open-ended provisional government, or a charter change to extend the terms of officeholders. Is that too much for them to ask for? That is why we have to show them that democracy can work in our country. 

Can we set aside self-interest and separate different causes to help them finally cross the biggest, most significant divide in our country – not of culture, or of territory, or identity but the divide between the rich and poor? 

Can we relive that historic moment of solidarity at EDSA that moved an international audience to tears by the nobility of its purpose?

The power is in our hands. To paraphrase Pulitzer Prize Awardee Alice Walker: “The most common way people give up power is by thinking they don’t have any.”  – Rappler.com

Christian Monsod served as chairman of the Commission on Elections during the Corazon Aquino administration. He founded the Legal Network for Truthful Elections and served as the honorary chairman of the coalition, and became a pioneer for National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). Monsod was also one of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.