What you don’t know won’t hurt you” is an adage that we’ve all grown up and old with. Not many have challenged this counsel. Is one truly better off in idyllic ignorance, whether on purpose or unintentionally? Conversely, is peace of mind a lost cause for those who are aware, awake and well- informed?
Well-meaning friends have often speculated on what is to be gained by being so involved in “politics.” Politics is their code word for anything objectionable that happens in the country. From dubious appointments, secret pardons, pork barrel, double insertions and assorted scandals — all that pandemonium is lumped together as “just politics.” And unless one is contemplating joining the ranks of politicians (involuntary shudder of disdain), there is no good reason to get too involved and agitated by the usual indiscretions of power. It is wasted energy, more productively spent on non-political endeavors.
But how is it possible to ignore what is so impudently in your face? Do we bury our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich? Should we turn away every time we see abuse of power, corruption, oppression and harassment, especially of the marginalized, and say it’s none of our business? Should we not get outraged that our leaders and their cabal steal shamelessly by overpricing infrastructure projects and diverting funds from basic social services? Or when whistleblowers are jailed instead of the plunderers?
I’m told it is possible to rise above it. To prove their point, someone professed that he only reads the business and sports sections of newspapers, omitting the main sections which are full of bad news anyway. Some claim that they have become too cynical to care. Others mouth the line that politicking is really the root of all evil in the country. Another one authoritatively stated, “They’re all the same. No matter who sits in power, they will eventually get corrupted. It’s just a question of degree.” One businessman shared his plan to send all his children abroad because, in his opinion, this country is a basket case. That way, he is not too “invested” and remains less exposed to its ups and downs. The more religious think we should just leave it up to God.
With these avowals, we all go our merry way preferring to leave the accounting of society’s ills to those who still care, those who believe they can make a difference and those who hope for change.
Then I get invited to a typical NGO forum. The causes range from reproductive health issues, good governance, corruption, electoral reform, education, environment, gender equality, children’s rights, agrarian reform and many others in a long, long list. Here, I marvel at the perseverance, grit and endless patience of the convenors. Despite the constant setbacks, failure and outright trouncing that these groups suffer at the hands of Congress, in their dealings with their counterpart government agencies and departmentsm, they go on with dogged determination. This demonstration of resilience and tenacity is often disparaged by their critics as rabid and pathetic. It is almost as if action is equal to outcome, and success is immaterial. The protest becomes the goal in itself. The struggle becomes the commitment. Defeat simply strengthens their resolve to go on and on, even if the prospects are dim.
Between the two polarized clusters is a big bloc of citizens who are concerned, but risk-averse. They compose the majority who express their stand through an array of actions that assuage their civic conscience, but do not push them out of their comfort zones. The moderates take the happy middle ground. This could range from financial contributions, writing good-citizen books, letters to the editor in support or against one thing or another, wearing a T-shirt, wristband, button, ribbon or a prescribed protest color, honking the horn, lighting a candle or praying in church.
A growing percentage also choose to sidestep government units and address society’s problems directly. They avoid having to deal with any bureaucratic red tape. Volunteerism is high among the moderates, offering aid to victims of calamity and taking on environmental projects like waste management. Many even do work with the indigent through church initiatives. Any act of concern that does not invite harassment from the authorities and/or endanger their physical and financial assets is tolerable.
Listening intently to what this literati circle is saying, I realize that there seems to be a continuum that represents the Filipino’s degree of engagement with government. On the extreme right is a state of induced stupor or passivity that results in total avoidance of anything “political.” It’s just too uncool and “hoi polloi” to worry about what government does. Finite energy is better expended on more productive activities like business or leisure.
On the extreme left is rabid militancy and rage at any action or issue considered provocative or conflicting with their organization’s vested interests or ideology. No cause is too small for street protest at the drop of a hat. The foot soldiers often come from the ranks of the empowered “organized poor” marching to the beat set by their acknowledged leader. Rallies are the favorite medium of expression. Their collective voice is heard through bullhorns and admonishment onstage or dramatized in hunger strikes.
At the center of the continuum are the moderates, who feel the need to voice their disapproval or concern in a manner that they deem as non-disruptive, enlightened and civil. NGOs and religious groups form the bulk of this faction, preferring less confrontational methods to make their point.
To view the continuum in more scientific numbers, this is what it would look like. According to the SWS study, “Surveying the Social Volcano,” only nine percent of all Filipinos and 16.6 percent in NCR have ever joined a rally in their entire life. Over two million determined marchers was all it took to mount the peaceful People Power before an awed world. In four days, the force toppled the Marcos regime that gripped absolute power for 21 years. In September 1997, about half a million demonstrators crushed the first attempt for Charter change during FVR’s time. Less than 200,000 protesters took down the Estrada administration in what is now called EDSA 2.
Three essential thoughts clearly emerge from this reflection.
1) There are 90 million Filipinos. But less than 10 percent have ever taken the time to join demonstrations to fight for a principle. But this is no cause for alarm because it was clearly proven in 1986 that even a pocket-sized force of two percent of the sum of the citizenry can oust a dictator, install the legitimately elected president and restore democracy! The other 90 pecent just leech off the hard-won victory.
2) Love for country can be expressed in many ways that need not be extreme. Whatever mode of expression is comfortable for each Filipino is better than cold unconcern. Just the token act of wearing a ribbon is a first step toward promoting a cause that’s bigger than yourself, and keeping the faith that you can make a difference — as corny as that sounds. A simple act of unselfishness is one route to selflessness.
3) Sociologist James Follows describes a damaged society as one where apathy and selfishness abound; where nurture is limited to oneself and family, and little or no consideration is given to the community and the country. No doubt, our society has all the symptoms of the malaise. Like swine flu, indifference and self-centeredness are highly communicable. Combine this mindset with the carrot-and-stick tactics of an oppressive regime and the situation is ripe for the rot to spread. Those who do not wish to get dirtied by “politics” are the highly contagious and cataleptic carriers of societal dysfunction. Maybe leaving their native land is not such a bad idea.
Edmund Burke said, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.” I say, those who do nothing are not good men. –Yoly Villanueva-Ong, Philippine Star
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
