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.  

RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE BESIEGED

	Jan 12 (5 days ago) 2013

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

Life can be very cheap. You may lose it in the street or in your home.
Does it really matter if you are dead already? Your family, that is
most of the families, would feel sorrowful should you die. But to
some, death could be a way of reducing economic problems – less mouth
to feed, clothe and shelter. But if the dead is the breadwinner then
that makes a lot of difference.

The spate of killings in the country is very alarming – starting with
those caused by natural disasters (or misguided environmental and
development plans); and those that are politically motivated. Then
there are those also caused by mentally deranged individuals who are
given the chance to get hold of high-powered arms.

Death could be viewed as an entrance to another level of life, to some
people. But then that is only passable if the individuals have lived
fully on earth, meaning they have fully expressed their talents, they
have lived a successful life not only for themselves but also for
others. In other words, we qualify life that has meaning not only to
oneself but also to others.

Yet nowadays, we cannot even require that death be qualified. Some
people just die without their willing it. Others are collateral damage
in an encounter. As the election period is nearing, we are witnessing
this increase in killings in places that are far from the seat of
political power.

How come, it is so difficult to build up and strengthen democracy
without too much cost to lives? Why can’t people just go to the polls
and say, “Oh, I will vote at ten a.m. and my vote will be counted
after 3 p.m. Great. Elections will be over soon.”

The democratic exercise should be taken as one of the activities in
our lifetime. It should not be the be-all and end-all of a person’s
attention. Sure, we must be politically motivated to help our country
move forward but then, there are many ways to do that as well –
through business, through engagement in the arts, through education,
and many others.

Redefining political power
By making that political exercise as the steppingstone to social
power, to perhaps economic power, then all the other fields are being
reduced to secondary, or even tertiary roles. An artist has a lower
social rank than a senator in our present day. Not even a national
artist will be considered higher in stature. A musician would be a
lesser being than the president. And should the president be a
musician, then that would not be a most qualifying talent at all even
if the individual could compose and sing songs that talk of how this
country can be made equal to all the superpowers of the world. I
cannot imagine a Havel, the dramatist becoming president in an Eastern
European country, happening here at all.

By the way, this is why I am awed by a famous local mayor, who is
still engaging in filmmaking, despite his being busy as a political
official. You see filmmaking is a difficult field – very demanding.
The filmmaker has to open all his and her senses – hearing for sounds,
sight for visuals, emotions to make the characters have humanity,
etcetera. But come to think of it, did he sacrifice his film art
before he became an official --not engaging in it till he had reached
that highest post in local government?

Not political office alone
 Let me repeat what I said in the past. Our society has to 
create rewards and awards for all the fields,
make them really credible as worthwhile activities not for the
monetary component alone if there is any, but for that reason that one
is cut out for this and that field. (Oh please, delete boxing as a
talent. So gross.) And excelling in those fields is equal in
importance to holding a political office.

In other words, we can acquire power and fame, through our talents not
by necessarily becoming a politician, but more by engaging in what we
think is the best that we can do. Of course, it is important to love
our country, to participate in whatever manner. In fact, we can voice
out or express our political views through the arts, literature and
music which then should be considered as noble as sitting in office.

Of violence-inclined officials
When individuals, in office or not yet in office, start using violence
in order to stay or acquire power, that I think is already a sign that
they are not cut out to be leaders of our country. In fact, their use
of violence is bracketing the people’s minds into thinking that to be
politically powerful is to be armed.

Violent persons – covert and overt – should have no space in our
society. We must be very strict about that. We cannot allow ourselves
to be hoodwinked into thinking that the strong person is the armed,
and not a sewer, a handicraft maker, a domestic helper, or one holding
a paintbrush, a pen, or even a laptop. Every individual has his or her
strength in one or in many aspects. Strength does not mean being able
to hold a political office alone.

Refocused aspirations
Refocusing the minds of our people into the many other endeavors in
life could actually prolong their lives. Why because there is less
competition or the competition is manageable in those areas, whereas
in our political reality, competition is not only cut-throat but also
deadly. I guess the many non-government organizations engaged in
social movements, have to help in this endeavor. They must raise the
aspirations of the people, not just to become political in attitude
but also artistic, business-minded, etc.

Well, as elections are the best way for us to have good and committed
leaders, I would grant that we should accord this exercise great
attention also. At this time, we should already start campaigning:
“Walang bentahan ng boto.” We should mark those candidates who are
inclined to vote-buying as not worthy of being in office.

Vote-buying and vote-selling are actually the highest crimes, next to
killing in the election period. DELIBERATELY MIISCOUNTING AND TAMPERING WITH THE RESULTS SHOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS CRIMINAL ACTIVITES BECAUSE THE PERPETRATORS ARE STEALING THE VOTES OF THE PEOPLE. 

When people vote for a druglord or druglady because 
they had received “lagay” then we are building a gangster
land, no longer a democratic country. Vote-buying and vote-selling
make a mockery of our electoral powers. It is putting a price on our
vote which is not the fundamental reason why we have that right of
suffrage.

We must emphasize to the people that the right of suffrage is sacred,  ours to
use to select and elect leaders, men and women, who will devote their
body, mind and emotions into public service, who will be morally
upright all throughout their term who will lead, LEAD us into a more humane
and prosperous life.

Thus, we must have morally conscious voters. They must be able to
distinguish a true from a fake candidate for a political post.

Conscience voting is the most sacred thing we can do in our lifetime –
putting up individuals as officials who will serve selflessly all
throughout without expecting any monetary return. 

This should make sure that our right to vote will no longer be under siege .

Now how do we choose which candidate is worthy of our votes? Then, we
must have standards for voting a local and a national official. The
standards should be concrete, not abstract, say : this candidate has a
history of this and that activity. Is this good or bad? Is he or she
moral, meaning knowing and practicing good acts that redound to the
healthy development of the country?

Am I being an idealist? Not really. I am for preparing and the hearts
and minds of the people – voting is one aspect of our political life.
And we must do it conscientiously. At the same time, we need to
inculcate in the people the idea that  being in a political office is
just one avenue for a person to serve the people, the country and of
course, the earth