I also like the idea of representing our country and showcasing to the world our own Philippine culture. In fact, I collected a lot of Philippine books which I could bring with me to the foreign lands so that the foreigners would be able to read books that are written intelligently by Filipino writers.
However, Marcos changed all that. I despised the idea of representing his dictatorial regime to the other countryfolks. In fact, when I was in Europe in the 80's, I was telling my friends, i am here only because I like the idea of openness, whereby I could read any book I want, including Marxist books, and be with different strangers who have radical principles coming from Nicaragua (which had just liberated herself from a dictator then), El Salvador, Chile (under Pinochet then) and even Africa. In other words, I experienced the melting pot of different political colors all advocating for emancipation of their countryfolks from tyrants and despots.
And so, the idea of representing our country was sidetracked in favor of helping to find out how to restore democracy in our country.
And so, when I read that Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Emmanuel Macron of France were going to meet with the illegitimate president of the United States, I was aghast. I could not imagine them seeing a person who could overturn the electoral rights of the American people through the help of the Russian President Vladimir Putin without any feelings of remorse.
How would they look at him without showing him that they know what he had done, that what he had done was contrary to the principles of democracy?
A, compromise, that's part of diplomacy is it not? The tariff game of the US questionable president, makes them see beyond his democratic transgressions and rather view the needs of their constituents.
But is it really true, that the various countries would fall should they lose the American market? Tit-for-tat is it not? They could also put up barriers in the trading with the United States.
But that does not seem to be the case.
Now the more I see that to be a diplomat requires having many kinds of methods of dealing with the intricacies of politics.
Question: how long will these entanglements last?
I really admire the capability of the American people to tolerate their situation now.
Worse of worst, the sitting president aims to join the next elections again for a second term.
Everyday that passes by for me if I would live in the United States, is like a stab in an open wound. That was like the same experience when we had Marcos and the fake president.
It is really difficult to be in politics.It is meant for people with great stamina for not looking beyond the physical situation at hand.
Despotism
The term despotism refers to a system of governance where a single entity rules with absolute power at its disposal. This single entity may be an individual like autocracy or a group of people as oligarchy. Despot, originally Greek word means a person with absolute power. The term has been used to describe different kinds of rulers in history, from local chieftain, tribal leader to king or emperor. In despotism, despot has all the powers to rule over others who are considered inferior or subsidiary. Despotism is best described by early statehood, like Pharaohs of Egypt.
Tyranny
According Plato and Aristotle tyranny refers to a system where the tyrant ruled without any law to fulfil his own interest without any concern for the subjects and used unethical and cruel tactics to torture the subjects and used foreign mercenaries as soldiers. In ancient Greece tyrants came to power supported by peasants and growing middle class. Although they had no legal right to rule but they were preferred to aristocracy.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/what-is-the-difference-between-tyranny-and-despotism/
No comments:
Post a Comment