Mr. Marocharim's Dreams

Mr. Marocharim did not refute my answer to his post. Lest Mr. Marocharim forgets, this debate is not about “injustice”; nor about how “fractured” society is “along the lines of rich and poor,” “of (the) powerful” and “powerless”. No.

The core issue is about power, and the elite’s relationship with the governed (tsk,tsk, Mr. Marocharim, If i'm your Polsci teacher, I'll ask you to leave my class immediately and just plant kamote).

It is about state formation. It is about the relationship between those in government and the governed. What I cited are not fallacies; they are indeed, theories rooted in reality and in history.

I dispute his juvenile assertion that elites are not institutions. However, what I don’t understand is what he meant by this phrase “elites circulate”. Do you mean to say that elites are like “air” or the “wind”? My gulay, how “fractured” your logic is, my dear Padawan.

What you describe as “power” of the people is mere illusion. Your assertion that “the ruling class, by virtue of its economic power, will continually be in the struggle of those who oppose it…cannot resist the forces of change for long” is fallacious. Can you cite one successful people’s revolt which effectively dislodge the ruling class or the elites from power? Even in the Cuban Revolution of 1958 and that of Russia, they are all elite-led, even fostered a new clique after the Red Forces seized power. Did the “people” you described held some kind of power over the state and society? No. What power are you talking about? Probably, you’re talking about “liberties” which is a mile different from “power”.

And yes, I believe in what Foucault said that “when there’s power, there’s resistance” for surely, every thing in this universe has a dual quality. But, again, this is not the issue. Let me remind you that the issue is who holds the power and how this thing is being exercised.

Now, you cited the ballot as the physical manifestation of the social contract, yes? A contract is a meeting of the minds. Have you voted? When you placed the name of your candidate in that piece of paper, was there a Contract that was signed between you and your candidate? When you were writing, were you apprised of the terms of reference to govern the relationship between you and the candidate? Did you see any fine print there?

A ballot is simply an expression of an individual’s will. It is not an exercise of power; rather, it is an exercise of a right. You have the right to vote whoever you want. But if you tell me that exercise of a right is corollary to an exercise of power, that is erroneous thinking.

Laudable, but I respectfully disagree with the implications you raise. You did not answer my question, Sir; if the President should stay on the basis of a 7% growth rate last year, why is 7.4% of our people unemployed, 21.0% of our people underemployed, 16.2 million Filipinos are without electricity, 62% say they're poor, and parents eat their children's leftover chicken? It's been seven years; our people demand to "ramdam" the "kaunlaran."

With the data I have presented earlier, it is obvious that this positive economic growth does not - and cannot - justify the injustices suffered by our countrymen. The best barometer of economic growth is never numerical extrapolations from statistics, but actual situations that define whether or not the people enjoy the fruits of the economic growth you so hark.

Economic growth rates alone do not dictate development. A truly developed nation looks after the weakest of its members: trickle-down does not work You are stuck in a framework that as long as the graphs go up, it's all good. That is insufficient, HP. Yes, these economic accomplishments were the handiwork of a weak President given the fact that the few enjoy these benefits, and the many enjoy the scraps that fall from the table. The fact that we are an export-oriented, import-dependent nation is a cause for shame if GMA continues to develop stuff that are of little significance to the interest of the national polity, like call centers and memoranda of agreement to divide a nation.

On your last point:

"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."

The fact that your President is oblivious to all criticism - or so you claim - is a manifestation of weakness. Pushing on without regard to criticism is:

a) The illusion that nothing is wrong
b) The delusion that Madam President is always right
c) That the people - the very people who made Government possible - are not important and insignificant.

If you say that we need a strong President, then I demand a stronger one. I demand a President who will change things, someone who can confidently tell me without a blink in the eye that the future is here, that the future is now, and it's all good. The high incidences of poverty and discontent in the Philippines demand a change of leadership and direction and vision as our Constitution allows. The fact that you claim GMA disregards criticism is an insult to the public, since criticism is a demand for the interest of the public good. That if the interests of the nation are at heart, why are there still the hungry among us? The poor among us? The people who suffer the indignity of standing stark contrast to their fellow men,

That, to me - and I'm not afraid to say it - manifests the presence of a fascist who disregards the public good in favor of a hold on power. Not a President.

Again, a poor exercise of logic. We are not talking about your “dreams”, your “demands” nor your sympathy for the poor. We are testing the validity of your statements. 

You did’nt directly refute my answer to your assertions. You have resorted to rhetorics, the kind I hear from dumb-witted activists marching in the streets and not knowing why they did it.

About having hungry people around, well, that we can’t really adequately explain. Can you explain why poverty exists? No one can. There are so many reasons why poverty exists. And it’s not solely because of a disparity in relationships.

I'm enjoying this. More of Mr. Marocharim's warped logic:

“The fact that there is a struggle against the injustices of the oligarch is itself a manifestation of power. While you so reflect a vision of Philippine reality from one side, you fail to see the other side: the struggle against injustice. These "destabilization attempts" are manifestations of the struggle against injustice: strikes, worker's movements, student movements, blogging. People are not sheep; they respond, react, struggle, and resist. You fail to acknowledge the agency of the masses. The fact that there is vocal resistance against Gloria Arroyo is proof that we exercise our agency. I, at the very least, do not mindlessly follow the President around like bleating sheep following Little Bo Peep.”

Whew. That was long. Yet, short in logic. Again, this is not the issue and unworthy of debate. This is plain and simple rhetorical conjecture. A struggle is not a manifestation of power. It is a form showing how people would act against your so-called “injustice”. It is like saying that when you kill a pig, it squeals. Of course it would. But, right now, do you hear the people “vocally” resisting Mrs. Arroyo? No. Do you have millions of Filipinos squealing like pigs waiting to be slaughtered? No. So, what’s the fuss about “struggle”, “resistance” ? If you equate this with the concept of “power”, you’re quite mistaken. The least that these things are, they are merely activities as an exercise of the right to assembly. Is this power? No.

Next....Mr. Marocharim, when will you be able to convince me to light my Slims? I've been wasting my time, some 2 minutes, destroying your arguments. Who'll make me light a Slim?

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...