High Priest answers Marocharim. Cost: None. Sucks.

First assertion: The State as a Product of Social Contracts

“We are led by institutions in the form of the State, the branches of Government, religion, family, and so on and so forth. The personality who leads these institutions will shrivel up and die, yet the institution remains relatively constant and permanent. Yet it is important to note that the relationship between leaders and the populace is not solely a relationship based on authority, but a relationship based on mutual agreement: suffrage, voting, democracy, whatever you want to call it.

The idea is NOT that people NEED someone to tell them what to do. The reality is that we are all of different interests, and that for us to exist in peace and harmony - with our best interests in mind both as individuals and social beings - there is an apparent need for Government. That's its purpose: that's the social contract. In a nutshell, I voluntarily surrender some of my rights (i.e., lead myself in the affaird of government) to reap the benefits of being a member of society. People need someone to look for their interests.

The fact that Government still exists shows that, everywhere, people demand that their best interests - the common good - be looked forward to by those on the other side of the contract.”

My dear Jedi, this concept has been demolished already by such eminent theorists as Max Weber, Karl Marx, C.W. Mills, even W. Domhoff. This Lockian theory has been rendered inaccurate by later philosophers, since state formation or development is not a product of social contracts. Rather, states are formed through coercion, most especially by the ruling elites or cliques.

In fact, if we are to go to the fallacy being promoted by Mr. Marocharim, we will all be in a very stupid position. Did anyone of you, people in the web, signed a social contract the very minute you were born? Could you show me a copy of such “social contract”?

Social power rests in the control of key societal institutions—corporation, executive branch of government, the economy, the state and the military.

In reality, elites rule in their own interest, with the incompetent, apathetic and untrustworthy masses as their constituency. Elites are from the upper class and perpetuate themselves through selective recruitment and socialization to Elite values.

W. Domhoff, in his analysis of the US state model (which you so espouse in your piece) argues that even in the US, there is a corporate upper class that owns major business assets and controls the bulk of wealth, including major banks, corporations; major newspapers, radio, television and other mass media; elite universities; foundations; important advisory groups and organizations e.g. Council of Foreign Relations and Committee for Economic Development; executive branch of government, cabinet, judiciary, military and the regulatory agencies

This class by virtue of its economic power, also controls and influences important departments and agencies of the state and in this way becomes a governing class – the American business aristocracy. So, this is not a dreamy concept such as this “social contract”. I’m merely reflecting Philippine reality, which, my dear apprentice, has failed so badly to appreciate.

Second Assertion: Continuity is bad because of the record of the incumbent, citing economic figures.

Mr. Marocharim asserts that history demolishes the concept of continuity since PGMA allegedly did more harm than good. In his distorted logic, he says, to wit:

"What's so wrong with continuity? Simple: history. I believe that those who drafted the Constitution were gifted with enough foresight to realize that:

1. We do not want a repeat of Marcos in the 1969 elections.
2. We recognize the democratic right to suffrage (which is, in fact, part of the core of it).
3. We recognize that for this country to move forward, a change of leadership is necessary.

I'm all for working for the welfare of the people, but let's look at GMA objectively:

> 62% self-rated poverty from 2001-2003 (Mangahas, 2004: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/9thncs/papers/poverty_sws.pdf)
> 7.4% unemployment rate and 21.0% underemployment rate in July 2008 (http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2008/lf0803tx.html)

Let's look at more UN data in GMA's term as President:

> 91th in the world in terms of public expenditure on health, 1.4% of our GDP (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/50.html), compared to 0.9% in military expenditure (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/186.html) and 10% in debt servicing (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/188.html)
> Only 72% of our population uses improved water sanitation (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/60.html)
> 32,875,000 Filipinos are unemployed (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/200.html)
> 16.2 million Filipinos are without electricity (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/211.html)
> 120,000,000 people are internally displaced (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/254.html)
> 89,639 people are in prison (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/264.html)

I'll let the data speak for itself. If we look at these very objective numbers, then our country damn well sucks under the leadership of this President. If, in her seven years in Malacanang, we still have these problems and get beaten by Barbados, I don't know what is wrong. There is something wrong with how our Government runs this country, and there's something wrong with how the President runs this country. These are issues closer to the heart of the Filipino people even more than Ate Glo, and it's a damn shame that you support her while millions of people are unemployed, dying of dysentery for lack of an adequate water supply, and so on and so forth.

It is not a lack of confidence in the President that drives our country in the dumps. Rather, it is a lack of leadership: our hardworking President makes so many decisions about economies and recessions and yet, she insists on dividing our nation, push for the Great Debate on Charter Change or what, and fail - grossly - those who, by virtue of popular vote or trickery, voted for her in 2004.

Do you want these continuities to happen?

Now that I've shown you some of the statistical data at hand, please show me data that proves why the President should stay. I await your answer.

To answer this, let me compare the record of the previous administration (Erap’s) with that of PGMA.

Prior to 2001, economic growth has stagnated and at a negative growth. Political instability was widespread. Poverty incidence was at its all-time high. There was chaos and disorder. Foreign investments left in a hurry, leaving the country with so much deficit. Foreign and local loans ballooned to an astounding rate. I don’t need to cite all these figures to buttress the fact that from negative economic growth, we are now enjoying positive growth rates.

Last year, we saw 7% growth with a manageable inflation rate. Next year, despite the expected global economic slowdown, ADB and the WB projected a 4.3% economic growth. Not bad for a country that is export-oriented and import-dependent.

Don’t tell me that all of these things, these economic accomplishments were the handiwork of a weak president? And don’t even go telling me that “ our country in the dumps?” My dear young Apprentice, we’re not in the dumps. For if we are, you would be seeing negative growth rates. In truth, we’re not in the red.

Why do I say that PGMA should continue her administration? Simple. Because we need a strong president. If we had a weak one, such as Erap, we could have, indeed be in the dumps right now. All of these things were accomplished despite constant destabilization attempts, smear campaigns etal against PGMA. With the interest of the nation at heart, PGMA and the rest of her team just pushed on, oblivious of all criticisms. That’s a good president for you. That’s strong leadership for you. That’s PGMA for you.

Oh, answering your question did’nt even cost me one stub. Sucks. Next...