My position on this one is: it doesn't matter. Debates regarding forms of government end up in a deadlock because these forms have their own harms and benefits.
Attempting to prove that another form of government is better ends up on the counterfactual argumentation (the question of "what if?") which is just impossible to prove because it is based on speculation. Even if you are to draw a trend by analyzing other countries, the argument still cannot work because each and every country has their own contexts and nuances.
What matters is the presence of good governance. No matter what the government framework is, you end up with satisfactory results with this principle.
Republic. It would be easier to unite the Filipinos under the banner of a democratic republic as the love for democracy is embedded to our people and is also always emphasized by the heroes we admire. The republic's way of giving the power to institutions rather than an individual is also seen as a good thing. Implementation and reestablishment of laws is the only major flaw I see here.
We could do a lot worse actually with or without the so-called "good governance". Imagine what will happen to the state if we forcefully removed democracy. No matter whether the leader is seen as a good one or not, the people especially the conservatives, which I think are a majority in our country, would always cry foul.
Well, I still stick with my original stance. I also need to clarify it: Republic is fine, so is an authoritarian one as long as we are under a good leader.
Just to offer a rebuttal on Filipinos on radical change in government - while this can be true on the short term, it is questionable if this will apply in the long term.
The moral on How to Train Your Dragon (2010) is that: do not hate what you don't understand. We can give Filipinos that time to show some dissent and opposition for a possible change in government but give them the chance to enjoy the benefits that come along with good leadership such as: increase of quality of life, poverty alleviation, economic progress, implementation of laws, etc. I seriously doubt that they will not be satisfied if these benefits are delivered to them.
We're talking in different pages me thinks. Are you being ideal or real?
Nevertheless, I'm also thinking on a long term basis.
1. It's just that no matter how I contemplate it, i would always doubt that there would be a complete succession of good leaders/governance on any society wanton any basis. A democratic republic would always ensure or rather offer a high probability that a peaceful solution such as the people power (which we are now famous)can be reached if, and if after a long succession of excellent leaders, the current leader failed. Whereas an authoritarian rule given that a failure of a leader, again with the succession of so-called excellent leader, wield the power, more or less he/she could exhibit a much much higher position of power both political and military which the citizen would have again a hard time to acquire. A bloody struggle or a civil war or in a worse case scenario, a foreign intervention had higher probabilities than a peaceful solution if the frequency of these happening in history can be considered as a basis.
2. It's not the incoming benefits of the Filipino that should be considered but the "spirit" of our nation. We couldn't just abandon and ignore the sacrifices that our citizens made to just obtain even a piece of the freedom that we are currently enjoying. I don't know but it seems like a hard blow to me that after centuries of continuous struggle for true freedom would come unto waste because we would choose to give the power to a certain individual and possibly his/her kin knowing that though they are good today, there is never an assurance that they would be good the next day.
3. Given these two reasons in consideration, I could say that given the same good governance, I would always choose a democratic republic over an authoritarian rule, mainly a good democratic republic will offer a good political and economic check and balance system while keeping majority if not all of the benefits an authoritarian rule would have.
But still maybe I'm just being overtly negative on the probability of a long-term good governance scenario. Peace out
Truthfully, i'd say a democracy, not because i think its the best form of government for this nation but because i think its the only one the filipino people would freely accept.
I agree with Miguel when he says that it doesn't matter. But, for me, it doesn't matter because the best form of government is one where the leaders are morally upright, competent to run the country, and motivated towards the good of the people.
I don't know if what I have to say has much weight due to the fact that I have not lived in the Philippines for that long; however, I also feel that government really does not matter. From a perspective from someone who comes from another country I think the Philippines requires a bit more of an authoritarian control over the people. While I was in the US, most of the things I always heard about the Philippines was that it was always corrupt. You could pay people to do things that you want. I think one of the first steps is to get rid of the people who commit these actions. If the people of the country (not all) easily fall to such actions then the type of government would not matter because it will never be what "the people" want. I think the Philippines needs someone who will be able to control all the people to do things the right way with no corruption. After that, then focusing on what type of government is best for the Philippines can be focused on.
Hopefully this does not offend anyone. This is just an observation I've made from the perspective of being from outside of the Philippines. ^_^
@ Niko: There seems to be some form of slight contradiction that occurred here. On your first point, you are operating on the assumption that good governance exists but then end up arguing that good governance would end up failing. There are several standards present for good governance: proper delivery of resources, proper use of power, etc. So on a long-term of fulfilling these standards, how can you say that this hypothetical government would fail?
On your second point, I doubt "spirit" gets to be that big of a factor. Something as small as littering on the sidewalk to something as serious as a good portion of our brain power going abroad are indicators that point that "spirit" isn't that strong. It may be true for you but I doubt it would matter to most people who would choose pragmatic over principle.
On your third point, like I said before: each form of government has their own costs and benefits. In most Political Science books, they keep editing their releases just to appear conscious of this. Best example is the Comparative Government and Politics (2007) authored by Hague and Harrop. This is because there is no such thing as a "best" form of government.
@Ticia: Yes :) This is what I am saying all along.
DO YOU CALL THIS A DEMOCRACY? WHAT IS YOUR CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY? MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SOCIAL SYSTEM WITHIN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS OPERATING. FOR AS LONG AS THE SYSTEM OF ELITE RULE (OR OLIGARCHY) PREVAILS, ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT WILL FUNCTION IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE RULING ELITE. DO YOU THINK THE KIND OF ELECTIONS WE HAVE PRODUCES MORALLY UPRIGHT, ETC. LEADERS? IT IS THE RICH AND GOOD LOOKING SCOUNDRELS WHO EXCEL IN ELECTORAL POLITICS.
ARE WE THAT UNIFIED AS A NATION, WITH AT LEAST THREE WELL ARMED MOVEMENTS IN MINDANAO SEEKING TO SECEDE FROM THE PHILIPPINES? DO MOST FILIPINOS REALLY THINK OF THE NATION RATHER THAN THEIR OWN LOCAL COMMUNITIES OR LINGUISTIC REGIONS? WHEN I VISIT CEBU AND MINDANAO, I HEAR A LOT OF RANTINGS AGAINST "IMPERIAL MANILA." IF YOU STUDY CLOSELY WHAT THEY MEAN BY "FEDERALISM", THEY ACTUALLY HAVE IN MIND THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE COUNTRY.
Number 1 is not really about failure of governance but rather a failure on the assumption that a leader and his successors will be always good (in the pretense of good according to the morals of a leader). I'm stating on number 1 (under the ruling that good governance needs a good leader to be achieved) the chances of a succession of good leaders are really low, and whereas a good leader had become bad, a democratic republic will offer more chances of a peaceful solution rather than an authoritarian rule.
Number 2. Though I can't defend the "spirit" thing because your argument really hold credit on this matter (which is really sad though) but the latter part of my argument wherein it states that for me, or in my perspective, it would really seem a hard blow that a series of continuous struggle for true freedom would be wasted because we would just give absolute power to an individual and his upcoming kin or successors is really my true feelings about this matter on the time that we were discussing government.
Number 3 is not really an argument but rather a conclusion of my statements. Like you, I know and recognize that all government have their own set of pros and cons but for me, we could just be fine with a true democratic republic.
We were "elevating the debate" again eh?
@Ticia and Miguel
I could, should and would also agree with both you on the any kind of government answer but wouldn't that be boring? :)) and Miguel beat me to it by posting the answer first so there you are. I'm taking another side. :)) Seriously. If we would just always support each others statements (me,you and miguel) This blog would just lose its heat :)).
I'm arguing on the assumption that good leaders (or morally upright) could exist but the chances of them existing continuously (replacing a good one into another good one) is really really low. That if good leaders can operate in any kind of government and will still yield positive results and I could choose a government that the good leader would lead, then I would choose a democratic republic simply because of my assumption that a good leader can always be succeeded by a bad leader.
Well for me, i'd say that we should just stick to our present government system. Though the country's current situation may be worse, a change in government would just lead to another problem for the nation and may find it hard to adapt to it.
Since we have three regions (L, V, M), I want a pair of President and VP (if there's such thing as sub-president and sub VP) for each. I want the leaders of the LGUs to remain, plus one President for the whole country, and one VP as well. Civilians (male or female) should be taught military techniques at the age of legalization. There should also be a maximum of 3 military people as Senators.
It is easy to hope but in reality, it is hard to reach what we aim for, especially if there are a whole lot of impediments.
I think it's best to say that there is no perfect type of government. What sets the standard is how we survived, survive, and will continue surviving the state we're in. As long as there are people who are willing to stand for change (positive change), there will always be a point for all the struggles.
@Niko in that case, I'd choose an authoritarian form of government. The country's current form of governement is, as my previous prof suggested, more of a mobocracy than a democracy. By a mobocracy he meant that people are constantly rebelling against the government, insisting on doing things their own way. They are rebelling against every single president, blaming them for the problems of the country. The problem is no longer the individuals, but the system that they work in. The system is corrupt, therefore, everyone who goes into it follow's the flow. I think what the government needs is to flush out both the corruption and the rebellion. This is much easier said that done, true. But the leader should probably begin with discipline. The Filipino people, obsessed with freedom, have abused it. Their freedom as a nation should have come with the responsiblity of making this nation as progressive or as stable as they could. Instead, each individual took his piece of freedom and helped himself to whatever he pleases - everything from spitting on the streets, to jay-walking, to the country's national budget. The country needs to be ruled with an iron fist. Unfortunately though, Marcos has ruined any chance of that by making his term traumatic for the people. At the slightest mention of martial law or restriction, the people rise in anarchaic rebellion. No one would take the time to realize that discipline isn't supposed to be a bad thing.
Ayun na nga. Just like what I commented on one post, what kind of unity is best, or most proper, for us? As a Nation? As a culture? As a small group of people with a common tongue? As a human race, and therefore, a world empire? Can, or should, we unite beyond diversity? Is the concept of unity an abstract ideal, or a utilitarian thing? If we can't, to what extent must people unite? In a democracy, there shall be seldom unanimity; indeed, the majority will always rule, and the minority, I don't know what they would think of doing. And yet, if one has to uphold that on every issue all of us will differ, must that mean an anarchy must exist (which I think is some kind of a government type too, an individualistic one)?
@Ticia: Para sa akin, hindi yung sistema yung problema kundi yung mga taong nasa sistema. Discipline can also be found in a democracy, and we don't have a mobocracy cause if mobs rule the country then the mob (majority and majority = poor folks) will always be happy when decisions are made because decisions were acted upon their wants. What we have now is a perverted form of democracy or rather a hybrid of democracy and autocracy. People have the political power (though they are often uneducated on how to use it propery), the right to vote, the right to protest and contest the government's path but the choice of leaders rarely left the elite class.
A good example of this can be shown with questions and my answers about the past presidential elections:
1.) Why did Noynoy win? Simple. The "majority" voted him and No, I don't believe he cheated, it's just fortuna favored him on that time. 2.) Why people believed Perlas has no chance to win? He doesn't have any resources to battle out the political giants (he is not from the elite class)
In my opinion, corruption (because people will always have the tendency to look for their self interest) and rebellion (externally or internally, you can't please everybody) can be alleviated but never completely flushed out, it's a part of the political cycle so for me, the success of achieving this in an authoritarian and a democratic system is just the same, the only difference here is the people have more of a say with this issue on a democratic system.
Machievellian-wise, I think given that the Filipinos are hostile with the rule of an iron hand (given the Marcos situation) it is unwise to use this on the present, maybe on the future when Filipinos forget the scar of martial law, but it is inadvisable for again Machiavellian wise, though it is more beneficial to the state for the leader to be feared than to be loved, however, the leader must take all measures to not turn the present fear into hate. Which is as I perceived not the case here.
So, my optimum solution, educate the people with their political strength, go away with this autocratic-democratic government and establish a true in essence and in its function a representative democratic republic.
Unity in terms of majority rule must exist to avoid anarchy for anarchy is total chaos and with Sir mentioning the absurdity of anarchism, it's for the best interest of everyone to avoid it as much as possible.
Diversity must exist not for anarchy to reign but to be a counteracting force to unity. If a united (majorly united) population is wrong, then the others can offer their help and explanation on why and where things have gone wrong. Diversity is not an adjective relating to individualistic battles but rather a factor on the process of achieving a better society.
However, diversity doesn't mean that the minority must always attack the majority. This is where compromises were made, people formed the social contract (Locke) because they want to benefit with the fruits of their cooperation and the benefits can only be spread with the minority and majority by using these compromises.
Is it better if we unite as a human race? It is good in words but aside from being idealistic (thought-based) than realistic, I only find its practicality in world issues such as environment, health and such but absolutely absurd in issues such as taste, preference, wants.
With this, I am proposing an idea concerning relation between the issue tackled with the supposed "size" of cooperation/unity. I am proposing that issue is directly proportional to the issue tackled (i.e. world issues - unity of human race, sovereign based issues - unity as a country etc.)
My position on this one is: it doesn't matter. Debates regarding forms of government end up in a deadlock because these forms have their own harms and benefits.
ReplyDeleteAttempting to prove that another form of government is better ends up on the counterfactual argumentation (the question of "what if?") which is just impossible to prove because it is based on speculation. Even if you are to draw a trend by analyzing other countries, the argument still cannot work because each and every country has their own contexts and nuances.
What matters is the presence of good governance. No matter what the government framework is, you end up with satisfactory results with this principle.
:)
thanks! :)
ReplyDeleteRepublic. It would be easier to unite the Filipinos under the banner of a democratic republic as the love for democracy is embedded to our people and is also always emphasized by the heroes we admire. The republic's way of giving the power to institutions rather than an individual is also seen as a good thing. Implementation and reestablishment of laws is the only major flaw I see here.
ReplyDeleteWe could do a lot worse actually with or without the so-called "good governance". Imagine what will happen to the state if we forcefully removed democracy. No matter whether the leader is seen as a good one or not, the people especially the conservatives, which I think are a majority in our country, would always cry foul.
Cheers.
Well, I still stick with my original stance. I also need to clarify it: Republic is fine, so is an authoritarian one as long as we are under a good leader.
ReplyDeleteJust to offer a rebuttal on Filipinos on radical change in government - while this can be true on the short term, it is questionable if this will apply in the long term.
The moral on How to Train Your Dragon (2010) is that: do not hate what you don't understand. We can give Filipinos that time to show some dissent and opposition for a possible change in government but give them the chance to enjoy the benefits that come along with good leadership such as: increase of quality of life, poverty alleviation, economic progress, implementation of laws, etc. I seriously doubt that they will not be satisfied if these benefits are delivered to them.
We're talking in different pages me thinks. Are you being ideal or real?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I'm also thinking on a long term basis.
1. It's just that no matter how I contemplate it, i would always doubt that there would be a complete succession of good leaders/governance on any society wanton any basis. A democratic republic would always ensure or rather offer a high probability that a peaceful solution such as the people power (which we are now famous)can be reached if, and if after a long succession of excellent leaders, the current leader failed. Whereas an authoritarian rule given that a failure of a leader, again with the succession of so-called excellent leader, wield the power, more or less he/she could exhibit a much much higher position of power both political and military which the citizen would have again a hard time to acquire. A bloody struggle or a civil war or in a worse case scenario, a foreign intervention had higher probabilities than a peaceful solution if the frequency of these happening in history can be considered as a basis.
2. It's not the incoming benefits of the Filipino that should be considered but the "spirit" of our nation. We couldn't just abandon and ignore the sacrifices that our citizens made to just obtain even a piece of the freedom that we are currently enjoying. I don't know but it seems like a hard blow to me that after centuries of continuous struggle for true freedom would come unto waste because we would choose to give the power to a certain individual and possibly his/her kin knowing that though they are good today, there is never an assurance that they would be good the next day.
3. Given these two reasons in consideration, I could say that given the same good governance, I would always choose a democratic republic over an authoritarian rule, mainly a good democratic republic will offer a good political and economic check and balance system while keeping majority if not all of the benefits an authoritarian rule would have.
But still maybe I'm just being overtly negative on the probability of a long-term good governance scenario. Peace out
Cheers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, i'd say a democracy, not because i think its the best form of government for this nation but because i think its the only one the filipino people would freely accept.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Miguel when he says that it doesn't matter. But, for me, it doesn't matter because the best form of government is one where the leaders are morally upright, competent to run the country, and motivated towards the good of the people.
I don't know if what I have to say has much weight due to the fact that I have not lived in the Philippines for that long; however, I also feel that government really does not matter. From a perspective from someone who comes from another country I think the Philippines requires a bit more of an authoritarian control over the people. While I was in the US, most of the things I always heard about the Philippines was that it was always corrupt. You could pay people to do things that you want. I think one of the first steps is to get rid of the people who commit these actions. If the people of the country (not all) easily fall to such actions then the type of government would not matter because it will never be what "the people" want. I think the Philippines needs someone who will be able to control all the people to do things the right way with no corruption. After that, then focusing on what type of government is best for the Philippines can be focused on.
ReplyDeleteHopefully this does not offend anyone. This is just an observation I've made from the perspective of being from outside of the Philippines.
^_^
@ Niko: There seems to be some form of slight contradiction that occurred here. On your first point, you are operating on the assumption that good governance exists but then end up arguing that good governance would end up failing. There are several standards present for good governance: proper delivery of resources, proper use of power, etc. So on a long-term of fulfilling these standards, how can you say that this hypothetical government would fail?
ReplyDeleteOn your second point, I doubt "spirit" gets to be that big of a factor. Something as small as littering on the sidewalk to something as serious as a good portion of our brain power going abroad are indicators that point that "spirit" isn't that strong. It may be true for you but I doubt it would matter to most people who would choose pragmatic over principle.
On your third point, like I said before: each form of government has their own costs and benefits. In most Political Science books, they keep editing their releases just to appear conscious of this. Best example is the Comparative Government and Politics (2007) authored by Hague and Harrop. This is because there is no such thing as a "best" form of government.
@Ticia: Yes :) This is what I am saying all along.
DO YOU CALL THIS A DEMOCRACY? WHAT IS YOUR CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY? MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SOCIAL SYSTEM WITHIN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS OPERATING. FOR AS LONG AS THE SYSTEM OF ELITE RULE (OR OLIGARCHY) PREVAILS, ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT WILL FUNCTION IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE RULING ELITE.
ReplyDeleteDO YOU THINK THE KIND OF ELECTIONS WE HAVE PRODUCES MORALLY UPRIGHT, ETC. LEADERS? IT IS THE RICH AND GOOD LOOKING SCOUNDRELS WHO EXCEL IN ELECTORAL POLITICS.
FN
ARE WE THAT UNIFIED AS A NATION, WITH AT LEAST THREE WELL ARMED MOVEMENTS IN MINDANAO SEEKING TO SECEDE FROM THE PHILIPPINES? DO MOST FILIPINOS REALLY THINK OF THE NATION RATHER THAN THEIR OWN LOCAL COMMUNITIES OR LINGUISTIC REGIONS? WHEN I VISIT CEBU AND MINDANAO, I HEAR A LOT OF RANTINGS AGAINST "IMPERIAL MANILA." IF YOU STUDY CLOSELY WHAT THEY MEAN BY "FEDERALISM", THEY ACTUALLY HAVE IN MIND THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE COUNTRY.
ReplyDeleteFN
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ miguel.
ReplyDeleteNumber 1 is not really about failure of governance but rather a failure on the assumption that a leader and his successors will be always good (in the pretense of good according to the morals of a leader). I'm stating on number 1 (under the ruling that good governance needs a good leader to be achieved) the chances of a succession of good leaders are really low, and whereas a good leader had become bad, a democratic republic will offer more chances of a peaceful solution rather than an authoritarian rule.
Number 2. Though I can't defend the "spirit" thing because your argument really hold credit on this matter (which is really sad though) but the latter part of my argument wherein it states that for me, or in my perspective, it would really seem a hard blow that a series of continuous struggle for true freedom would be wasted because we would just give absolute power to an individual and his upcoming kin or successors is really my true feelings about this matter on the time that we were discussing government.
Number 3 is not really an argument but rather a conclusion of my statements. Like you, I know and recognize that all government have their own set of pros and cons but for me, we could just be fine with a true democratic republic.
We were "elevating the debate" again eh?
@Ticia and Miguel
I could, should and would also agree with both you on the any kind of government answer but wouldn't that be boring? :)) and Miguel beat me to it by posting the answer first so there you are. I'm taking another side. :)) Seriously. If we would just always support each others statements (me,you and miguel) This blog would just lose its heat :)).
I'm arguing on the assumption that good leaders (or morally upright) could exist but the chances of them existing continuously (replacing a good one into another good one) is really really low. That if good leaders can operate in any kind of government and will still yield positive results and I could choose a government that the good leader would lead, then I would choose a democratic republic simply because of my assumption that a good leader can always be succeeded by a bad leader.
Cheers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell for me, i'd say that we should just stick to our present government system. Though the country's current situation may be worse, a change in government would just lead to another problem for the nation and may find it hard to adapt to it.
ReplyDeleteSince we have three regions (L, V, M), I want a pair of President and VP (if there's such thing as sub-president and sub VP) for each. I want the leaders of the LGUs to remain, plus one President for the whole country, and one VP as well. Civilians (male or female) should be taught military techniques at the age of legalization. There should also be a maximum of 3 military people as Senators.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to hope but in reality, it is hard to reach what we aim for, especially if there are a whole lot of impediments.
I think it's best to say that there is no perfect type of government. What sets the standard is how we survived, survive, and will continue surviving the state we're in. As long as there are people who are willing to stand for change (positive change), there will always be a point for all the struggles.
@Niko
ReplyDeletein that case, I'd choose an authoritarian form of government. The country's current form of governement is, as my previous prof suggested, more of a mobocracy than a democracy. By a mobocracy he meant that people are constantly rebelling against the government, insisting on doing things their own way. They are rebelling against every single president, blaming them for the problems of the country. The problem is no longer the individuals, but the system that they work in. The system is corrupt, therefore, everyone who goes into it follow's the flow. I think what the government needs is to flush out both the corruption and the rebellion. This is much easier said that done, true. But the leader should probably begin with discipline. The Filipino people, obsessed with freedom, have abused it. Their freedom as a nation should have come with the responsiblity of making this nation as progressive or as stable as they could. Instead, each individual took his piece of freedom and helped himself to whatever he pleases - everything from spitting on the streets, to jay-walking, to the country's national budget. The country needs to be ruled with an iron fist. Unfortunately though, Marcos has ruined any chance of that by making his term traumatic for the people. At the slightest mention of martial law or restriction, the people rise in anarchaic rebellion. No one would take the time to realize that discipline isn't supposed to be a bad thing.
Ayun na nga. Just like what I commented on one post, what kind of unity is best, or most proper, for us? As a Nation? As a culture? As a small group of people with a common tongue? As a human race, and therefore, a world empire? Can, or should, we unite beyond diversity? Is the concept of unity an abstract ideal, or a utilitarian thing? If we can't, to what extent must people unite? In a democracy, there shall be seldom unanimity; indeed, the majority will always rule, and the minority, I don't know what they would think of doing. And yet, if one has to uphold that on every issue all of us will differ, must that mean an anarchy must exist (which I think is some kind of a government type too, an individualistic one)?
ReplyDelete@Ticia: Para sa akin, hindi yung sistema yung problema kundi yung mga taong nasa sistema. Discipline can also be found in a democracy, and we don't have a mobocracy cause if mobs rule the country then the mob (majority and majority = poor folks) will always be happy when decisions are made because decisions were acted upon their wants. What we have now is a perverted form of democracy or rather a hybrid of democracy and autocracy. People have the political power (though they are often uneducated on how to use it propery), the right to vote, the right to protest and contest the government's path but the choice of leaders rarely left the elite class.
ReplyDeleteA good example of this can be shown with questions and my answers about the past presidential elections:
1.) Why did Noynoy win? Simple. The "majority" voted him and No, I don't believe he cheated, it's just fortuna favored him on that time.
2.) Why people believed Perlas has no chance to win? He doesn't have any resources to battle out the political giants (he is not from the elite class)
In my opinion, corruption (because people will always have the tendency to look for their self interest) and rebellion (externally or internally, you can't please everybody) can be alleviated but never completely flushed out, it's a part of the political cycle so for me, the success of achieving this in an authoritarian and a democratic system is just the same, the only difference here is the people have more of a say with this issue on a democratic system.
Machievellian-wise, I think given that the Filipinos are hostile with the rule of an iron hand (given the Marcos situation) it is unwise to use this on the present, maybe on the future when Filipinos forget the scar of martial law, but it is inadvisable for again Machiavellian wise, though it is more beneficial to the state for the leader to be feared than to be loved, however, the leader must take all measures to not turn the present fear into hate. Which is as I perceived not the case here.
So, my optimum solution, educate the people with their political strength, go away with this autocratic-democratic government and establish a true in essence and in its function a representative democratic republic.
Unity in terms of majority rule must exist to avoid anarchy for anarchy is total chaos and with Sir mentioning the absurdity of anarchism, it's for the best interest of everyone to avoid it as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteDiversity must exist not for anarchy to reign but to be a counteracting force to unity. If a united (majorly united) population is wrong, then the others can offer their help and explanation on why and where things have gone wrong. Diversity is not an adjective relating to individualistic battles but rather a factor on the process of achieving a better society.
However, diversity doesn't mean that the minority must always attack the majority. This is where compromises were made, people formed the social contract (Locke) because they want to benefit with the fruits of their cooperation and the benefits can only be spread with the minority and majority by using these compromises.
Is it better if we unite as a human race? It is good in words but aside from being idealistic (thought-based) than realistic, I only find its practicality in world issues such as environment, health and such but absolutely absurd in issues such as taste, preference, wants.
With this, I am proposing an idea concerning relation between the issue tackled with the supposed "size" of cooperation/unity. I am proposing that issue is directly proportional to the issue tackled (i.e. world issues - unity of human race, sovereign based issues - unity as a country etc.)