BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
12/15/2012
The greatest tragedy of our time is catalyzed by that most pathetic role of our politicians to give in to the demands of every sector in our society. It is a tragedy as it is essentially wrong much that the mandate we gave to our elected officials is not anchored on that system of accommodating the various interests of people in a pluralistic society.
It is from this standpoint why through the years our political values have deteriorated, and badly. Such was bound to happen because we have overblown our understanding of freedom. We could no longer establish boundaries between freedom and mandate, which undoubtedly are indivisible to our understanding of the mechanics of democracy. We say this because we embraced the Western concept of freedom as unbridled.
From that point of view, we began to accept that equally wrong postulate of mandate as wholly emanating from the people, and not as something that needs some kind of political quantification. For instance, our conventional notion of a mandate begins in our understanding that it is the people that bestowed it upon our elected officials based on that stereotype notion called "democratic process".
Thus, when we begin to disagree with the policies of our elected leaders, especially on the laws they legislate, readily we feel justified in withdrawing our mandate either by not electing them in the next election or by booting them out of office. It never crossed our mind that the mandate we extended to our elected leaders is based only on that exclusive privilege to freely elect them. We never entertained the thought that our mandate could metamorphose to one of authority for them to fix and synchronize all the interests of the people so we would end up having a harmonious and progressive society.
This now explains why most of them fail to come out with laws designed to put order to our society. The thinking of both the executive and the lawmakers has been canalized to one of accommodating and satisfying the wishes of the people. Such emasculation and/or diminution of rights invariably trigger conflicting claims. Often, we wrongly take the dominance by one class as a vested right for, as usual, we equate their assertiveness as representing the majority. The great majority of our people have now been cowed down by this unconventional notion about our power. To question that would amount to an intrusion to one's freedom such that to regulate their interest now becomes taboo.
Since our elected officials are foremost politicians, the laws they legislate is now principally geared towards accommodating every sectoral demand. This in turn encouraged the most outrageous practice of "epalism" or the habit of wanting to be known to the public as responsible for the enactment of that law or for the accomplishment of that project. The race to accomplish something unwittingly caused many of our lawmakers to act as executive officials, forgetting that they were elected to enact law. They all want to implement and execute the laws dealing with projects or in protecting the rights of certain segments, hoping that come election day, the people would repay their gratitude by reelecting them.
Politicians will find every conceivable way to be known or to be identified with the project as though the money spent came directly from their pocket, and not as taxpayers' money. Any proposed laws are narrowed down to what will serve to advance their interest, and any law that is hinted of seeking to impose discipline for the purpose of putting order to society is most abhorred.
The effect is the moral and political decay of society. Our politicians tremble at the fear of not being elected; that in their attempt to please their constituents, they come out with hodgepodge approach all meant to superficially please their constituents. Thus, aside from living up to their role as politicians, they act like showbiz personalities or some kind of clowns.
Of course, there are exceptions to these self-serving laws their legislate. These exemptions include revenue raising laws and imperialist-dictated laws. Politicians would never budge to the demands of the people to lower taxes or to scrap existing ones. Even if at times if might trigger adverse reaction, revenue-raising bills are vital because they enable them to remain in power. The pork barrel generated by those laws is mainly intended to cater to the parochial demands of their constituents. After all, people easily forget that the taxes and fees imposed on them is the one politicians use to fray them. And then there are those so-called imperialist-dictated laws. It is not the money or their positive effects it will have on our people, but of the politicians' fear of being politically isolated by powerful pressure groups controlled by the US.
Good cases are those laws that dismantled all forms of subsidy, laws that deregulated the prices of goods and services, laws that increased taxes to assure payment to our international debt obligation, laws on population control including the now controversial reproductive health bill, our enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and our ratification of the International Criminal Court.
These are laws that have no immediate impact on our people. Nor could they help improve their economic well-being. Just the same, they are legislated for fear of possible retaliation from the US which has the power to single out politicians known for their anti-imperialist stand. This explains why through the years, the kind of laws our politicians have legislated have deteriorated. They have become so callous, and their political instinct have all but been reduced to just measuring whether their proposed bills would serve to promote their ambition to institute their own political dynasty.
rpkapunan@gmail.com
It is from this standpoint why through the years our political values have deteriorated, and badly. Such was bound to happen because we have overblown our understanding of freedom. We could no longer establish boundaries between freedom and mandate, which undoubtedly are indivisible to our understanding of the mechanics of democracy. We say this because we embraced the Western concept of freedom as unbridled.
From that point of view, we began to accept that equally wrong postulate of mandate as wholly emanating from the people, and not as something that needs some kind of political quantification. For instance, our conventional notion of a mandate begins in our understanding that it is the people that bestowed it upon our elected officials based on that stereotype notion called "democratic process".
Thus, when we begin to disagree with the policies of our elected leaders, especially on the laws they legislate, readily we feel justified in withdrawing our mandate either by not electing them in the next election or by booting them out of office. It never crossed our mind that the mandate we extended to our elected leaders is based only on that exclusive privilege to freely elect them. We never entertained the thought that our mandate could metamorphose to one of authority for them to fix and synchronize all the interests of the people so we would end up having a harmonious and progressive society.
This now explains why most of them fail to come out with laws designed to put order to our society. The thinking of both the executive and the lawmakers has been canalized to one of accommodating and satisfying the wishes of the people. Such emasculation and/or diminution of rights invariably trigger conflicting claims. Often, we wrongly take the dominance by one class as a vested right for, as usual, we equate their assertiveness as representing the majority. The great majority of our people have now been cowed down by this unconventional notion about our power. To question that would amount to an intrusion to one's freedom such that to regulate their interest now becomes taboo.
Since our elected officials are foremost politicians, the laws they legislate is now principally geared towards accommodating every sectoral demand. This in turn encouraged the most outrageous practice of "epalism" or the habit of wanting to be known to the public as responsible for the enactment of that law or for the accomplishment of that project. The race to accomplish something unwittingly caused many of our lawmakers to act as executive officials, forgetting that they were elected to enact law. They all want to implement and execute the laws dealing with projects or in protecting the rights of certain segments, hoping that come election day, the people would repay their gratitude by reelecting them.
Politicians will find every conceivable way to be known or to be identified with the project as though the money spent came directly from their pocket, and not as taxpayers' money. Any proposed laws are narrowed down to what will serve to advance their interest, and any law that is hinted of seeking to impose discipline for the purpose of putting order to society is most abhorred.
The effect is the moral and political decay of society. Our politicians tremble at the fear of not being elected; that in their attempt to please their constituents, they come out with hodgepodge approach all meant to superficially please their constituents. Thus, aside from living up to their role as politicians, they act like showbiz personalities or some kind of clowns.
Of course, there are exceptions to these self-serving laws their legislate. These exemptions include revenue raising laws and imperialist-dictated laws. Politicians would never budge to the demands of the people to lower taxes or to scrap existing ones. Even if at times if might trigger adverse reaction, revenue-raising bills are vital because they enable them to remain in power. The pork barrel generated by those laws is mainly intended to cater to the parochial demands of their constituents. After all, people easily forget that the taxes and fees imposed on them is the one politicians use to fray them. And then there are those so-called imperialist-dictated laws. It is not the money or their positive effects it will have on our people, but of the politicians' fear of being politically isolated by powerful pressure groups controlled by the US.
Good cases are those laws that dismantled all forms of subsidy, laws that deregulated the prices of goods and services, laws that increased taxes to assure payment to our international debt obligation, laws on population control including the now controversial reproductive health bill, our enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and our ratification of the International Criminal Court.
These are laws that have no immediate impact on our people. Nor could they help improve their economic well-being. Just the same, they are legislated for fear of possible retaliation from the US which has the power to single out politicians known for their anti-imperialist stand. This explains why through the years, the kind of laws our politicians have legislated have deteriorated. They have become so callous, and their political instinct have all but been reduced to just measuring whether their proposed bills would serve to promote their ambition to institute their own political dynasty.
rpkapunan@gmail.com
