WHAT IS A STATESMAN/STATESWOMAN?
Wilhelmina S. Orozco
Once a person decides to
join the government then he or she is required to act like a statesman or
stateswoman. What is that?
A highly respected man or
woman, respected and influential leader who is devoted to public service. In
Pilipino, we would say that such a person is called maginoong tagapaglingkod sa
bayan, in short, “katulong ng bayan.: PNoy called the people, “boss ko. Kayo
ang boss ko,” he said. I have heard no other official say that. “I am just a
public servant,” or “I am serving the people.” What I hear is, “I serve at the
pleasure of the president,” or “I am an employee of the government.” Whenever I
even hear the word, “Public servant,” it is rather said in derision, not even
with pride. Why because a public servant connotes a servile individual who
works even on unholy hours for a pittance, except for those nearest the
powers-that-be.
One day, nearing Christmas,
I dropped into a police station and smelled an awful odor, a kind of fecal odor
which happened to be those of pigs and such other animals. The police, in
celebration were cooking “isaw” a native delicacy that incorporates ingredients
from the innards of animals. And what do you expect to get but such a foul
smell that filled up the whole station.
I talked about the ills of
eating such as it could cause arthritis, strokes and eventually lead to
paralysis. A policeman told me, “Ma’am, handa po akong mamatay kahit na anong
oras.” I was shocked to hear that, and so I replied, “You must die in the line
of duty not because of papaitan,( the
food they were cooking.).
How many of our government
servants would really think of dying for the people? I read about Ninoy Aquino
saying, “The Filipino people are worth dying for,” and he did rather
carelessly. He knew that he was about to be killed and he had chosen to face
his enemies head-on without any back-up defense. It was good that our People
Power occurred and so his memory has come down in history as a heroic martyr
who sacrificed his life for the good of the people.
Was he the spark that
ignited the people to wake up to the realities of a gangster-like regime that
would eliminate his opponents with bullets? Actually, before Ninoy’s arrival,
the people’s movement was already on the go. We had been holding in-door
rallies questioning the legitimacy of Marcos. In fact, I was attending many of
them and speaking out to raise the issue of women’s liberation.
When Ninoy was going to be
buried and there would be funeral cortege, I joined the throngs of people and
came out with a small leaflet about the solutions to the problems of the people
being innate in our country. They are not available anywhere else but in the Philippines
The rest is history, and
Cory, albeit a homemaker, became the
first woman president of the country.
I mean to say that being a
statesperson requires sacrifice, integrity and
credibility but also being scheming and wise to outwit the opponent. It
is not enough to be able to demonstrate in the streets but also to show to the
people what will happen should one get installed.
Once installed, of course
there the problem begins. Although one may exhibite statesmanship or
stateswomanship qualities in the beginning, “the proof of the pudding is in the
eating.”
Three factors would define
the qualities of such a person:
- how they handle power;
- how they handle conflicts between and among the
officials around them;
- what services and goods, and how they deliver
them, to the people.
There maybe more factors but
I want to focus on these three as I think they are the most important in
looking at, in assessing the achievements of this administration and the
succeeding ones. Some sectors choose to believe the surveys which ask the
people, “how would you grade the president?” I don’t really agree with that
because it only whips us feelings which are not helpful at all in directing the
country’s activities. I would rather ask the people “What do you think are the
most pressing problems that the president should focus on?”
If this question is
answered, then we are actually asking the people to have the power to confront
the president if he is addressing the needs of the people. Is he exercising the
correct powers now, by addressing what the people want him to?
That is what is called
handling power. How does the president handle his power? Is his power
benefiting the people or only a few? Why? What is he doing with that power? By
answering those questions we are shaping the directions of this country to what
should be what the people need and want.
If we get say so much
percentage who answer that “food” is the number one priority, or “cheap transportation,”
or “responsive barangay and not capitalistic which would charge the people for
mediating in the conflicts among the constituents, as our barangay does over
here,” then we are making him address what is closest to our hearts. That is
giving significance to “People Power”
now.
Yes, to handle power is to
realize what “People Power” which we launched in 1986 is. Power is to continue
that “People Power” this time in the bureaucracy. And to have and administer
that power is to make the government less bureaucratic, less corrupt (like
impeaching the likes of the CJ) and more speedy in addressing the people’s
problems, especially hunger. That is real political power.
Some people think that “People
Power” is finished, ended and gone after 1986. No, it should not be. It means
continuing that as a never-ending goal. We need the power of the people in
government. It means, making this government geared more towards establishing
one that is welfare-driven, not profit-driven. Leave profits to the capitalists
and businesses, but the government has to do its part – to give services to the
people.
This is why the officials,
officers, and employees are called
public servants. They are not supposed to make money out of the functions
inherent to the positions they were voted in and/or appointed. To do otherwise
is to change the label of our government as “undemocratic,” Or “oligarchic,”
meaning, rule of the few.
Way back in the latter part
of the 60’s, we were being by activists to stop the ruling of oligarchs and
these included the Lopezes, Osmenas, and all other wealthy families, among
others. The end of that movement was the inastallation of martial law by Marcos
who fashioned himself as the savior of the people from the chaotic political
scene,
But was it really chaotic?
It was only made so because the term of Marcos then was ending and so he could
not run anymore. Hence, he had to create a society that was on the verge of a
revolution in order to justify his militaristic rule. Many of the political
leaders fled to the United
States Philippines
Hence, Ninoy had to come
home, sadly, only to die in the hands of the military whom he knew would do him
in.
Now how come, we still do
not know who masterminded the killing of Ninoy? Was it Marcos, Imelda or his
henchmen? How ironic, but it would do good to close this issue if PNoy could
finally bring the soldiers who got incarcerated to speak up and confess who had
ordered them to kill Ninoy. That is using power that has a historical
significance.
Talking about such power, it
would be good if PNoy could stop all kinds of bureaucratism in the conferment
of the National Artist Award to Dolphy. He and all the Filipino people owe
Dolphy that sacrifice to stick to a medium that is full of intrigues, scandals,
and killing competition in order to make the people happy.
Yes it is no joke sticking
to the movie industry. Dolphy was able to surmount all kinds of conflicts there
and survived, even laughing and making us laugh all the way to the boob tube.
Tingnan mo lang si Dolphy matatawa ka na. And when he delivers his line, the more you will laugh because he can
say his funny dialogues with a poker-face.
Hindi aral ang pag-aartista
ni Dolphy unlike some comedians who dish out but fail to make us laugh with
their dialogues. Why because, they come out either doing a swardspeak (as if to
speak like gays is to be funny) or trying to elicit laughter through
incongruous costumes or gestures.
Dolphy is just Dolphy, the
funny man period, without frills.
To give him that award,
which I don’t really give too much value now as it had been tainted by the
inclusion of a questionable awardee, is to make his soul happy and contented
that our society has finally arrived at giving him what he wants.
Dolphy deserves that
award but how I wish it would be one
with another set of awards also. It should be the National Cinema Artists
Awards.
We should create that and
Dolphy should be its first awardee. The cinema has a variety of roles for those
wanting to join it –cinematographer, scriptwriter, director, assist d, make-up
artist, cameraperson, lights person, artistic director, props assistants, caterer,
gaffer, and many, many more. By having
this set of awards, we would be able to credit many of those who are sticking
it out in this highly conflict-ridden industry.
We would even be able to see
also as to who are more deserving of awards, those who remain in the commercial
industry or the independent movie movement.
Hay naku, ang daming problema pagka nasa itaas talaga. Buti na lang wala tayo ruon. Kung hindi, araw-araw
batalya. We would be debating and
arguing with those in power as to why our ideas are more acceptable than
theirs.
Say, Folks, fancy applying
as candidates for the 2013 elections?
I shall tackle the two other
factors in my next articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment