At my birthday party, a friend of mine asked me: "Why do you have do be so nationalistic? ... Don't you understand that the people who try to make a difference in the Philipines get shot or beaten down by the sheer weight of stupidity and avarice of others?"
Not only has this particular friend known me since I was in pigtails, she also reads my blogs (yes, all of them). Her question is valid, and in fact, echoes the sentiments of two great Filipino heroes in recent history: Jose Diokno and Teodoro Locsin, Sr.
Diokno voiced the concerns of many Filipinos when he wrote:
"Why be honest, when it pays to be dishonest? Why fight for others when they won't fight for you? -- or even for themselves? Why think for yourself when it is easier to let others think for you?"
Teddy Locsin Sr. questioned another great man who endured seven years and seven months of imprisonment. He narrates their conversation this way:
"I was very shocked, disgusted... the Filipino people did not seem to care. There were no demonstrations against martial law. Nobody gave a damn. The businessmen were happy. Nobody seemed to value liberties. What kind of a people are we? There was even that American Senator who was reported to have said that the Filipino people consisted of forty million cowards and one son-of-a-bitch. It was very hard not to agree with him.
But Ninoy said, 'Teddy, don't take it like that because you will remember what Rizal said, that a man who would lead his people must learn to forgive them'"
Rizal and Ninoy have much in common. They were both privileged. Those who would criticize either man will always be suspicious -- if not spiteful of the goodwill and conscience of the rich. Both men had a compulsion for knowledge. Ninoy was obsessed about being a statesman. He was a technocrat with flair and the common touch. I'd even go as far as saying that Ninoy was made of the same stuff that the Kennedy's were. For all these men had a passion for the killer speech and the grand gesture.
Most importantly, Ninoy and Rizal knowingly made the final sacrifice -- because from an early age they had the conviction -- or even the arrogance -- to believe that they were meant for extraordinary things.
I think of Ninoy now, on the anniversary of the revolution he started but we have never finished. I was too young when it happened. I wasn't touched by his life or his death until I was in my 20s. I wasn't one of those people who, in the words of Butch Dalisay: "shuffled towards the coffin, paused, prayed and then, perhaps, resolved to be -- in Ninoy's words -- a Filipino worth dying for".
I can only understand martial law and EDSA from books and documentaries -- the kind of products that languish on the shelves of the local bookstores or are consigned to gather dust in warehouses.
Was Ninoy really a great man? I don't think we'll ever know for sure. He certainly was irascible, abrasive, and boastful. He certainly had communist leanings. But it cannot be argued that he did a great thing.
Today, Washington Sycip leads the growing number of Manila's modern illustrado in advocating a "benevolent dictatorship". Others say that a bloody revolution is inevitable where the poor finally get fed up and kill all the rich people -- regardless of guilt or innocence.
Putting aside the example of EDSA, one must also remember the sins that were commited in the name of benevolence. As Shirley Bassey said, it's all just a little bit of history repeating.
Not to mention that the qualities such an individual must possess-- if Tony Abaya is to be believed -- are hardly grounded in reality:
To be acceptable to the middle class, the Benevolent Dictator must be morally clean, knowledgeable of the national issues, free of any connections or loyalty to the trapos, has real leadership potentials [sic], and must be genuinely popular with the broad mass [sic] so that he or she can institute revolutionary changes in our society that will knock the wind out of the communist revolution.
Instead, let's be realistic.
Ain't nobody going to be free of connections and morally clean. Our political system isn't set up that way and no amount of fiddling with the charter will change that. I have no idea what Mr. Abay was trying to refer to when he talked about "real leadership potentials" but I have to agree that he'll need that same combination that Ninoy and Rizal had: knowledge and panache.
This combo is already hard to find, but to have someone instigate "revolutionary" changes? Don't get me wrong, we definitely need strong progressive policies in this country. However, to propose and implement them is tantamount to political suicide.
What you need, therefore is not a benevolent dictator, you need a figure-head and a de facto dictator... a benevolent power behind the throne. One who realizes that:
Where the very safety of the state depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. Putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be, "What course will save the life and liberty of the state?" (Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy)
On a smaller scale -- say in business --- it's easy enough to align incentives via the hope for profit and the fear of litigation. But on a national level? How in the world would we get the puppet/master combination in place without resorting to bloodshed?
I guess we will never know what Ninoy would have been as a president. One thing for sure is he had the gift of gab and knew how to use it. I had always been inspired by his speeches. But would he have been a good president? Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by: rolly | 18 May 2005 at 09:03 PM