|
THE present crisis of leadership, due to allegations of widespread
corruption infecting the highest reaches of government, has once
again convinced the morally indignant that resort to institutional
processes such as elections is a woefully ineffective means to
attain good governance and that resort to people power is warranted.
This argument has some validity. In my previous
article, “The moral crusade of Father Panlilio,” I argued that
his election as governor of Pampanga, does not as much prove the
possibility of a morally upright man to be voted into office as show
how difficult it is.
I mentioned two arguments. First, he obtained
not a majority but a mere plurality of the votes cast. Second, as a
priest, he enjoyed the presumption of honesty, an advantage
unavailable to the lay politician.
A third reason concerns the need for vast
financial resources to assume and remain in office, so as to require
the support of rich businessmen. Even if he fully intends to be
honest, he would be compelled, at some point, to give in to their
requests contrary to the interests of his constituency.
The indispensability of financing is rendered
more telling by the fact that most voters, being poor, expect to be
bought; in fact, they look forward to the elections precisely for
the extra income needed to augment their meager salaries.
Given these obstacles, only an honest man, whose
moral integrity is unquestioned like a priest or who is
independently wealthy, stands a reasonable chance to be elected.
Despite the above, I maintain that institutional
processes should not be abandoned. For people power mischaracterizes
morality, is socially, morally and politically harmful, and inflates
morality’s importance in achieving good governance, themes partly
developed previously. (“Lessons from Edsa 1,” Feb. 23 and March
1, 2008).
First, people power gives rise to myopia.
Morality is not simply an issue of black against white. This ignores
the complexities of human choice and trivializes moral problems.
Moral agents often undergo anguish in determining what the right
thing to do in a given situation.
As a result, it leads to hypocrisy. In so
classifying issues, people power moralists demanded from officials a
moral standard they do not themselves possess nor intend to live up
to. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
For example, the claim that the end never
justifies the means has freely been bandied about. And yet, the
acclaimed moral authority and beacon of People Power 1, Jaime
Cardinal Sin, saw nothing wrong in the widespread practice of
selling votes so long as citizens voted according to conscience. The
Catholic Church accepts money whatever the source, be it from
jueteng or some other illegal enterprise.
People power, thirdly, repudiates fairness or
impartiality. Many of its supporters did not consider moral
principles to be self-applicable. They conveniently ignored the
golden rule: “Do unto others as you would want others to do unto
yourselves.”
Fourthly, the euphoria in the victory of people
power occasions not just pride but arrogance, sowing further
division in society. The moralists forgot that the losers had their
own supporters which may even have outnumbered theirs and strutted
about as if the losers were wrong, were ignorant or did not count.
Fifthly, the moral indignation fueling people
power breeds intolerance. The dangers of moral indignation ought
never to be underestimated. It has led to religious persecution,
wars and fundamentalism, sins which the Catholic Church, at some
point in its history, has egregiously committed.
Sixthly, the blind trust the leaders of the new
regime enjoy from its followers facilitates corruption, even
increasing its magnitude and dimension.
Finally, it inflates the importance of morals
at the expense of political acumen and competence. This is because
former regimes have ingeniously used legal and political processes
to avoid accountability.
Plato, whose political philosophy propagated
benevolent dictatorship as the solution to political ills, stressed
the opposite. The philosopher-king must first and foremost be wise,
but institutional safeguards must be put in place to guarantee his
morals.
It was precisely because this is unlikely in a
dictatorship that democratic institutions—such as limited
government, separation of powers, checks and balances, electoral
processes and the rule of law—were in time considered
preferable.
In that regard, the Philippines, by its pride in
and continued dependence on people power, has actually retrogressed
politically. The lessons of history, as preached by Sir Karl Popper,
must not be ignored. He argued that it is folly to “proceed from a
doctrine of the intrinsic goodness or rightness of a majority.”
The “welfare of the state ultimately (is not) an ethical and
spiritual matter, depending on persons and personal responsibility
rather than on the construction of impersonal institutions.” To
him, “it appears madness to base all our political efforts upon
the faint hope that we shall be successful in obtaining excellent,
or even competent, rulers.”
|
