RAISON D’ETRE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

RAISON D’ETRE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

What is politics? When we engage in debates and discussions about a particular issue, we are acting politically. Politics is a means to change society, and debates and discussions are the tools to bring about change under a democratic atmosphere. However, it is not an assurance that the debaters are ethical – meaning morally upright just because they are debaters.

In the Philippine context, what is being morally upright? It is upholding the interests and welfare of the Filipino people, insuring that they deserve, get and receive the benefits they truly deserve in order to live humanely, with dignity and with the capability to exercise all our human rights. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in our country.

Just recently, although we welcome contrary opinions opposing each other in the House of Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, yet we are wary of tacit wars that are occurring – the break between those whom we think represent the people, and those who represent vested interests. On the surface, we see members of the Congress as representing their so-called constituents and/or their political parties, but a deeper analysis would show that the divisions are actually a matter of economic and political interests of certain big political officials who are in power now or who want to gain or regain power. As this happens, we, the common tao are left to be spectators of a panorama of dramatic settings, one party being pitted against another, or one individual against a host of other individuals in political settings.

Yet, nonetheless, despite these seeming contradictions and brouhaha, we are still interested in what is going on because we care for our future, especially for the state of peace in our country. We cannot allow her to be in turmoil again, being a captive of one man or one political party which bribes its members to tow its line, no matter how corrupt and graft-ridden they are. We want her to remain a democratic state where everyone will be free to talk and discuss, and call a spade a spade in order to clear those questions that have long been lingering in our minds but which some of us are too tame to ask.

Some analytical quarters do not want to label the current opposing parties as a case of leftist and rightist opinions. I would add centrist too. Instead they marvel at the so-called smooth techniques of certain individuals to overcome any opposition to their rule and instead focus on the method, the technique of their maintaining public and perhaps mass media opinion on their side. But that is exactly the point: we can drown in the glamorous techniques of politicians yet fail to see beyond the mirage that they are creating in order not for us to see the veil of crass opportunism and urge for naked power that they represent.  I think that is the waterloo of democracy in our country or the beginning thereof, when we are made to see only the superficial and not the substance of debates.

When we look at debaters as “parang mga manok na nagsasabong,” then we are taking a stance of objectivity. We are not really taking an ethical stand, as it seems we do not want to hurt any party by taking sides. Viewing debaters alone and not forming ethical opinions afterwards is a case of being “manhid” or callous to the real needs of the people. By being so-called objective, we are actually siding with the rightists, those people who think and act that might is right, that being in power does not mean taking the sides of the people, but rather of the rule of law. “I was elected and given power and therefore I shall exercise it the way I see it.” No it does not matter to them  if that power emanated from the people who have specific and general needs to be met. “What is important is I am seated and I have the right to this seat of power.”

Actually, rightist thinking is akin to Machiavellian definition of power, a case of the end justifying the means, instead of the other way around. Rightists in our midst are the ghosts of martial law, of that era when freedoms of the people were set aside, stolen, and appropriated (or should it be expropriated?)  by an unelected few in order to rule this country. That was the time when the coffers of the country, and  our people – the so-called human resources according to managerial lingo – were made to think and act according to “their laws,”

Any official of the government who does not think that that era is a doomed setting for any group of people does not deserve any position at all. Instead, he/she should be made to vacate their posts and give way to those who have the proper ethical frame of mind to occupy them. Our youth should be able to define and analyze what is not a democratic state, why never should martial law come to our country or any other country for that matter. 

The problem in our country is that ethics is not really a popular word. It sounds “erudite” to be talking about ethics. Those who do are considered “nerdy,” too intellectual, too analytical, “matasa,” or even “makulit.” Yet ethics is in the heart of every human endeavor. Those who fail to view it as an important value to be imbibed by every individual is bound to be too compromising so that the real values to be upheld are no longer seen or felt.

Actually Congress has an ethics committee, a group that seeks to investigate cases of violation of ethical rules by representatives and senators. Yet the committee seems to be more of a fine and beautiful label rather than a living one that puts muscle and brawn to the tasks that it should perform. Has there been any member of Congress chastised for having violated ethical norms? I can only remember the young Singson but who was caught by the Hong Kong authorities carrying prohibited drugs and so that incident threw a black eye against Congress forcing it to declare his seat vacant. No other incident or case has been reported of any real decision on any member. Is it because the rest are covering up for them, or are guilty of similar offenses and so would rather clam up than be discovered to be one of the flock? We will never know. Senator Rene Saguisag during the time of President Erap vigorously pursued the investigation and came up with glaring conclusions about scams committed in the past administration. We know what happened to President Erap after that.

Coming from that angle, we want the same ethical push be created in Congress. We do not just want Congress to be peopled by those of various political parties, but rather of those who know and act so that ethical considerations are paramount in any and all aspects, spaces of Philippine life, and the world of course.

Ayaw na natin ng plastikan, o ng garapalan.  Ang gusto natin ay katotohanan, para kanino ka ba? Para kanino kayo? Sa taumbayan o kanino? Para saan at nasa puwesto kayo? Are you creating earthshaking policies or just so-so to show that you have done something while in office and receiving all the benefits and emoluments, plus commissions, and bonuses you can get? The time is ripe for cognition of the raison d’etre of genuine public service.