Ignorance, they say, is bliss.

And right now, the better option for us is to ignore a stratum of discussion on the Philippines that is not about Pacman and Donaire, Chiz and Heart, our victorious beauty queens (are they named Rizzini and Janine?) and whatever is trending at the hollow bottoms of our social media networks.

Why spoil the fun and the general sense that 2012 was not a bad year and 2013 would be better than last year?

Did we not get the nod of the rating agencies? Are we not supposed to be a choice investment destination on this side of the region? Are we not, theoretically, possessed of a demographic sweet spot that would adequately staff whatever business that locates or relocates into the country? Did not our exchange zoom to a record transaction?

Are we not defying the lethargic growth trend of the usual economic powers and posting decent GDP growth rates?

Really, we have to ignore the discussions going on elsewhere. Because it would break out hearts. Because what is being discussed dredges up things about the recent past that are at the root of our present struggling nationhood. Our travails as a nation. Our flaws and failures, the weakness of our institutions. Our malaise.

Because what is being said in the discussions truly resonates and truly hurts.

The rise of Park Chung-hee’s daughter to the presidency of South Korea (I don’t know if PSY has done a take on this to complement his take on the residents of elitist Gangnam), resurrected studies comparing Marcos with Park.

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, authors of the book “Why Nations Fail,” recently posted articles which essentially stated the parallel paths to power that Park and Marcos took. Marcos and Park both assumed absolute powers to rein in the profiteering oligarchy and build from their wreckage a strong industrial foundry, which would be the anchor of an export-driven economy.

Acemoglu and Robinson note that while Park succeeded and South Korea is now a First World nation and an economic might, the Philippines is still on a laggard status, with its workers diaspora as the single most reliable breadwinner.

The difference between the Marcos and Park experiences, according to Acemoglu and Robinson, is that while the latter was a huge economic success, the first collapsed in an “orgy of rent-seeking and looting of the state.” Why the difference, they ask.

In our hearts, we know the difference. The academic studies and research work of Acemoglu and Robinson pales in comparison to our first-hand knowledge of the authoritarian years of Marcos and the brutal and corrupt dynamics. Those who suffered always have the best view of the sordidness of it all. And fresh from the 40th celebration of the declaration of martial law we, men and women of a certain age, meaning people in my generation whose period of awakening was the 60s, are also fully aware of the human cost of Marcos’ authoritarian regime.

Not only that. What direction should the Presidential Commission on Good Government take, after its long and mediocre record of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and his cronies, is now a topic of currency and importance. This does not make us forget about Marcos.

Suddenly, we cannot escape from our ghastly past. And we cannot escape from Marcos and Park—and their impact on their respective countries. So, what is our option to get past this sad exercise of dredging up the past and staring at our monumental failures?

First, get an amnesia.

Second, shut off all the discussions on the “what ifs” or what could have been the fate of the country had Marcos led like Par Chung-hee. Then, tune in into the more positive things, light and easy, as they say: Pacman and Donaire, Chiz and Hearth, Rizzini and Janine—our triumphant beauty queens. Or, PNoy’s love life, if there is one. (Oh, Grace Lee, Psy and Park are of one country.)

One diversion from the topic of Park and Marcos is a discussion of our 97.7 million population. What do we do with it? Is it a bane or boon? Is this a blessing or a curse?

To Mr. Bas, our esteemed editor, the 97.7 million assures us of the demographic sweet spot that would not have been present had we had a One- Child policy, or a rigid population control program. Mr. Bas is an earnest intellectual, he has been all over the region to write and edit. From this 97.7 million, this is the view of the anti-RH intellectuals, we have the choicest cut of the population that can fill up anything in the globalized economy—be this a barista or young techie working on embedded technologies.

For many of us living in a less ideal world, those of us struggling to make a living in the rural areas, we have a different take.

Around my small farm are colonies of squatters that were once migrant sacadas, or migrant workers for the small aggregate makers. They have procreated prodigiously. Without small farms to plot and jobless most times of the year, what they do is sneak into my small farm at night to steal the copper of the electric wires, piglets, goats—anything that could be made into money very quick.

In 2012, they have sneaked in seven times. Once, they even hogtied the young workers—and kicked them around.

I am tempted to do tit for tat, an eye for an eye, hunt them down like stray dogs. But like Mr. Bas, I am a deep believer in prayers and mercy.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.