"The ruling elites know who their enemies are,
and their enemies are the people, the people at home and the people abroad.
Their enemies are anybody who wants more social justice, anybody who wants to
use the surplus-value of society for social needs rather than for individual
class greed, that's their enemy."
– Michael Parenti, (1933-present)
"Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon, hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!" --Apolinario Mabini, La Revolucion Filipina (1898)
The continuing past of mass generational poverty with its dire consequences to the native Filipino majority is perpetrated by this historically recurring merger of the ruling class and ruling elite. Overall, generations of underdevelopment and even regression in recent decades have been our national predicament.
Further deterioration in the quality of our Filipino kind of politics came with the:
- the influx of a new breed of incompetents who glibly talked, fooled, or bought the votes to join the ranks of the ruling elite, thanks to their manipulation of the illiterate and impoverished native Filipino majority;
- the influx of a new breed of competence but emulating the existent ruling elite, and
- the ostrich-like "head-in-the-sand" mentality, attitude, and behavior of our so-called educated --the dwindling native Filipino middle class which seems to be characterized by "I am OK, I do not care if you are not OK" and probably planning, linking, and wishing to join the ranks of the ruling elite.
All these realities are compounded by the ruling elite's anti-nationalistic and /traitorous dealings with their alien supporters (residents or companies) who in turn serve their own personal/economic interests. Not even mentioning similar behavior in their negotiations of foreign policies, foreign trade agreements, military agreements, ad nauseam.
We native Filipinos for several reasons do not know, do not understand "what's going on" and are kept continually ignorant --in the dark like mushrooms-- by the ruling elite, their ilk, and foreign allies. So we native Filipinos can not see the forest from the trees:
- getting lost in the symptoms of our "weak state" i.e. daily and repeated cases of corruption in government and private business,
- of not recognizing the real roots of such,
- of continually wondering why a change in governing faces does not result in real changes for national development.
From what we have seen in our Asian neighbors and elsewhere who started behind and now have left our country and us native Filipinos "in the dust," developmentally speaking, this eradication of illiteracy can be realized within a generation, IF the will to do so existed.
Witness the eradication by our neighbors who have brought cultural changes, in fact, even a cultural revolution as during the early 1970s China, by Mao Tse Tung who encouraged the questioning of the non-progressive aspects of Confucian teachings, i.e. feudalism, elitism, male chauvinism, etc.; By how Mustafa Ataturk modernized Turkey from the 1920s through programs of cultural reforms, compulsory education, lower taxes to the peasantry, etc.
But again, (regarding the IF) since in our case the ruling elite do not identify with the impoverished native majority and they go on their own merry ways, what do you think we native Filipinos should do? Furthermore, we native Filipinos can not and should not expect and believe foreigners to come and help us despite their declared good intentions, as Pilosopong Tasio warned us. Our national history bears witness repeatedly.
Below is a brief essay on the history of our dominant "cacique or elite democracy," that is, a democracy that works only for the rich and powerful minority.
Witness the eradication by our neighbors who have brought cultural changes, in fact, even a cultural revolution as during the early 1970s China, by Mao Tse Tung who encouraged the questioning of the non-progressive aspects of Confucian teachings, i.e. feudalism, elitism, male chauvinism, etc.; By how Mustafa Ataturk modernized Turkey from the 1920s through programs of cultural reforms, compulsory education, lower taxes to the peasantry, etc.
But again, (regarding the IF) since in our case the ruling elite do not identify with the impoverished native majority and they go on their own merry ways, what do you think we native Filipinos should do? Furthermore, we native Filipinos can not and should not expect and believe foreigners to come and help us despite their declared good intentions, as Pilosopong Tasio warned us. Our national history bears witness repeatedly.
Below is a brief essay on the history of our dominant "cacique or elite democracy," that is, a democracy that works only for the rich and powerful minority.
*****************************************
NOTES TO READERS:
NOTES TO READERS:
1. Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles. Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, etc. THANKS!!
2. Instantly translate to your preferred language using the sidebar on the right column. Native Filipinos can choose either Cebuano or Tagalog.
3. Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:
4. The postings are oftentimes long and a few readers have claimed being "burnt out." My apologies...The selected topics are not for entertainment but to stimulate deep, serious thoughts per my MISSION Statement and hopefully to rock our boat of ignorance, apathy, complacency, and hopefully lead to active citizenship.
" Fear history, for it respects no secrets" - Gregoria de Jesus (widow of Andres Bonifacio)"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965)
*************************
LET US NOT KEEP OUR HEADS IN THE SAND
REMINDER: March 3, 2022. The total number of postings to date =578. To access, refer to the right side column under PAST POSTINGS, Click LABEL (sorted by the number of related posts), or random keywords or names that come to your mind to access.
CACIQUE DEMOCRACY. DEJA VU.
WE NATIVE FILIPINOS LEFT BEHIND IN ASIA.
***
From the time of our Katipunan revolutionaries fought and died against the Spanish rule, and against American interference and colonization then, our society has been administered by a "cacique, " the socio-economic elite in cahoots with foreigners against their fellow native Filipino majority, kept them poor, illiterate, and thus ignorant.
A socioeconomic and political system designed to perpetuate a class-defined society, a class-conscious country, divided and never really becoming a nation.
We are schooled heavily about political democracy but do not know that economic democracy is a prerequisite to fully realizing it. We have been conditioned to believe that mere and regular election makes a democracy; an illusion in reality.
We native Filipinos keep ourselves ignorant of history, of “what’s really going on” in our homeland then and now; and thus, by default, never learn.
We continue to be lost -having failed or refused to look in the mirror- believing in fate rather than about us people causing the cliche “history keeps repeating itself” true and valid.
That is why it's Deja vu every time.
- BMD
#primaryposts
****************************************
OUR NATIVE "CACIQUE DEMOCRACY" aka "ELITE DEMOCRACY"
- Started with a Collaborative (Quislings) Philippine Leadership
The most important step in establishing a new political system was the successful coaptation of the Filipino elite--called the "policy of attraction." Wealthy and conservative ilustrados, the self-described "oligarchy of intelligence," had been from the outset reluctant revolutionaries, suspicious of the Katipunan and willing to negotiate with either Spain or the United States.
Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, a descendant of Spanish nobility, and Benito Legarda, a rich landowner, and capitalist had quit Aguinaldo's government in 1898 as a result of disagreements with Mabini. Subsequently, they worked closely with the Schurman and Taft commissions, advocating acceptance of United States rule.
In December 1900, de Tavera and Legarda established the Federalista Party, advocating statehood for the islands. In the following year, they were appointed the first Filipino members of the Philippine Commission of the legislature. In such an advantageous position, they were able to bring influence to bear to achieve the appointment of Federalistas to provincial governorships, the Supreme Court, and top positions in the civil service.
Although the party boasted a membership of 200,000 by May 1901, its proposal to gain statehood had limited appeal, both in the islands and in the United States, and the party was widely regarded as being opportunistic. In 1905 the party revised its program over the objections of its leaders, calling for "ultimate independence" and changing its name to the National Progressive Party (Partido Nacional Progresista).
The Nacionalista Party, established in 1907, dominated the Philippine political process until after World War II. It was led by a new generation of politicians, although they were not ilustrados and were by no means radical. One of the leaders, Manuel Quezon, came from a family of moderate wealth. An officer in Aguinaldo's army, he studied law, passed his bar examination in 1903, and entered provincial politics, becoming governor of Tayabas in 1906 before being elected to the Philippine Assembly the following year. His success at an early age was attributable to consummate political skills and the support of influential Americans.
His Nacionalista Party associate and sometime rival were Sergio OsmeƱa, the college-educated son of a shopkeeper, who had worked as a journalist. The former journalist's thoroughness and command of detail made him a perfect complement to Quezon. Like Quezon, OsmeƱa had served as a provincial governor (in his home province of Cebu) before being elected in 1907 to the assembly and, at age twenty-nine, was selected as its first speaker.
Although the Nacionalista Party's platform at its founding called for "immediate independence," American observers believed that OsmeƱa and Quezon used this appeal only to get votes. In fact, their policy toward the Americans was highly accommodating. In 1907 an understanding was reached with an American official that the two leaders would block any attempt by the Philippine Assembly to demand independence. OsmeƱa and Quezon, who were the dominant political figures in the islands up to World War II, were genuinely committed to independence. The failure of Aguinaldo's revolutionary movement, however, had taught them the pragmatism of adopting a conciliatory policy.
The appearance of the Nacionalista Party in 1907 marked the emergence of the party system, although the party was without an effective rival from 1916 for most of the period until the emergence of the Liberal Party in 1946. Much of the system's success (or, rather, the success of the Nacionalistas) depended on the linkage of modern political institutions with traditional social structures and practices. Most significantly, it involved the integration of local-level elite groups into the new political system.
Philippine parties have been described by political scientist Carl LandĆ© as organized "upward" rather than "downward." That is, national followings were put together by party leaders who worked in conjunction with local elite groups--in many cases the descendants of the principalĆa of Spanish times--who controlled constituencies tied to them in patron-client relationships.
The issue of independence, and the conditions and timing under which it would be granted, generated considerable passion in the national political arena. According to LandƩ, however, the decisive factors in terms of popular support were more often local and particularistic issues rather than national or ideological concerns. Filipino political associations depended on intricate networks of personalistic ties, directed upward to Manila and the national legislature.
The linchpins of the system created under United States tutelage were the village- and province-level notables--often labeled bosses or caciques by colonial administrators--who garnered support by exchanging specific favors for votes. Reciprocal relations between inferior and superior (most often tenants or sharecroppers with large landholders) usually involved the concept of utang na loob (repayment of debts) or kinship ties, and they formed the basis of support for village-level factions led by the notables. These factions decided political party allegiance.
The extension of voting rights to all literate males in 1916, the growth of literacy, and the granting of women's suffrage in 1938 increased the electorate considerably. The elite, however, was largely successful in monopolizing the support of the newly enfranchised, and a genuinely populist alternative to the status quo was never really established. The policy of attraction ensured the success of what colonial administrators called the political education of the Filipinos. It was, however, also the cause of its greatest failure.
OsmeƱa and Quezon, as the acknowledged representatives, were not genuinely interested in social reform, and serious problems involving land ownership, tenancy, and the highly unequal distribution of wealth were largely ignored.
The growing power of the Nacionalista Party, particularly in the period after 1916 when it gained almost complete control of a bicameral Philippine legislature, BARRED THE EFFECTIVE INCLUSION ON NON-ELITE INTERESTS in the political system. Not only revolution but also moderate reform of the social and economic systems were precluded.
Discussions of policy alternatives became less salient to the political process than the dynamics of personal-ism and the ethic of giving and take.
Source: US Library of Congress
******************************************
Recommended book:
******************************************
Recommended book:
"We must confront the privileged elite who have destroyed a large part of the world".- Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan President (Nov 1999-March 2013)
"As to the source of leadership, we native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos still look up and limit ourselves to the same socio-economic-political elite, the same prominent dynasties, many of whom were of the collaborationist and mendicant variety. There is potentially good leadership, maybe still unknown, OUTSIDE the selfish, morally bankrupt, and oftentimes subservient elite. When we have done away with our massive ignorance, we native Filipinos can surely find and actively ensure that only individuals -with courage and strong nationalism- earn respect; thus who will successfully propel the people to fight, and finally win for the common good” – Bert M. Drona
See also for more about our elite:
http://www.thefilipinomind.com/2013/09/the-filipino-elite-how-they-became.html
No comments :
Post a Comment