M. Scott Peck, in his book People of the Lie, discussed the evils of specialization in terms of groups. He said that specialization had led to the pass-the-buck mentality, freeing us from accountability, since we can always say, “orders from above”. He used the US military during the Vietnam War as an example.

He recounted that the anti-Vietnam War sentiment in the US began in 1965, but only began snowballing in 1969 onwards, when the draft became required. He said that the Americans at that time didn’t care about Vietnam and the war since it didn’t affect them directly. They had decided to form a specialized group – the military – to handle these things, without even thinking if it was doing things right. Peck said that the people only began to react when the issue hurt them directly.

He said:

For the reality is that it is not only possible but easy and even natural for a large group to commit evil without emotional involvement by turning loose its specialists.

The current perceived apathy in the so-called middle class jives nicely with what Peck had described. The apathetic middle class chose to be apathetic because the issue does not affect them. Also, since the issue is political, they leave the mess to the politicians, a specialized group of people to do specialized work – politics. So they say they don’t care about the mess, without even thinking if they are even responsible for the mess we are in. When the politicians lie, cheat, and steal, the people are not even outraged, precisely because they had made politics specialized.

We have made politics so specialized, that even Chino Roces once said that no honorable person will dabble in politics. Since we have failed to make our leaders accountable due to our apathy, politics has become a dishonorable profession that is best left for those who are inclined for it.

I think we are too lazy to even make our leaders accountable. And digging deeply, we don’t like to hold ourselves accountable. For in a democracy, we entered into a social contract, formed a government, and selected our leaders. These decisions and choices are ours; by refusing to hold them accountable, we are also refusing to hold ourselves accountable for our choices and decisions.

Peck also discussed the danger of a specialized group. Again, using the US military as an example, he posited that leaving the military to a specialized group is dangerous for various reasons. He began by describing the profile of a person who would likely volunteer into military service. The profile calls for a male who is somehow physically aggressive. So the person who fits the profile either joins the police force or the army. Since specialization calls for individuals inclined and has the skills to do the job, the military tends to get similar-minded persons.

At peacetime, a soldier is idle. He can only go far if he can prove his mettle. And he can only prove his mettle if there is a war. At peacetime, promotions are not that available, and sometimes soldiers got stuck with their ranks, with their payscale not moving up. So, a soldier at peacetime would consider war as a better alternative. If the generals who make policy think the same way, God knows what could happen next. And the people wouldn’t even care, since it doesn’t affect them.

Peck called for a draft army instead of a volunteer army so that this danger of specialization can be avoided. Specialization tends to foster exclusivity and thus prevents entry of fresh air. A draft army will get people who doesn’t fit the profile, brings in fresh air, and forces the people to care.

So the people say politics is dirty. It is dirty because we, the people, let the politicians make it dirty. It is high time we begin making it clean again.

THE NEW YORK TIMES Editorial for April 5, 2006

Dark Days for Philippine Democracy

Filipinos thought they had put an end to electoral chicanery and governmental intimidation when they overthrew the Marcos dictatorship two decades ago. Unfortunately, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has completely lost touch with the ideals that inspired that 1986 “people power” movement.

Mrs. Arroyo is no Ferdinand Marcos, at least not yet. But this onetime reformer is reviving bad memories of crony corruption, presidential vote-rigging and intimidation of critical journalists. Unless the Philippine Congress and courts find ways to rein in her increasingly authoritarian tendencies, democracy itself may be in danger.

This was not the outcome people expected five years ago when Mrs. Arroyo, then the vice president, was swept into power on a wave of popular discontent with her discredited predecessor, Joseph Estrada. In those days, Mrs. Arroyo, a professional economist, was seen as an earnest reformer. She won further credit by pledging not to run for a new six-year term in 2004.

But then she changed her mind, and her style of government as well. Her narrow re-election victory became tainted after a tape revealed her discussing her vote totals with an election commissioner while ballots were still being counted. She survived an impeachment attempt over that incident. But she was forced to send her husband into exile over charges that he took bribes from gambling syndicates.

Earlier this year she briefly declared a state of emergency in response to allegations of a coup threat that others disputed. Since then she has been intensifying pressure on a wide range of political critics and especially on the press. Government officials have warned news outlets that they will be held to restrictive new guidelines, the justice secretary talks darkly about a journalistic watch list, and the staff members of a well-known center for investigative journalism have been threatened with sedition charges. No Philippine government has made such efforts to muzzle the press since the Marcos era.

President Bush has repeatedly hailed Mrs. Arroyo as an important ally against international terrorism. He now needs to warn her that by undermining a hard-won democracy, she is making her country far more vulnerable to terrorist pressures.

The Press Secretary yesterday urged the Senate to stop inquiring about a dead issue and instead deal with pressing matters. If it is a dead issue, why is the Fortress by the Pasig so conscious of pointing that is a dead issue? If it’s dead, it’s dead. If the others think otherwise, so what? It’s dead anyway.

Is it possible to insert an amendment – via people’s initiative – that calls for a snap elections? Would that constitute an amendment or a revision?

One letter sender in the Inquirer asked, “Who want Arroyo out?“. His answer was irritating, illogical, and purely ad hominem. Take for example his second and third paragraph:

I believe they are the non-taxpayers, power-hungry politicians, turncoats and deposed presidents and ex-presidents who have nothing better to do.

And the bulk of these non-taxpayers are being paid to go against the President with tax money or “earnings” from corrupt and greedy politicians. What a pity.

What a pity that the Inquirer had wasted paper in printing this letter (poor trees). Anyway, respect the other’s rights to express what they feel. I just wish that letter writers like these are responsible enough to write logically and backed up with evidences and without resorting to implied ad hominem, generalizing, and non sequitur arguments.

And this gets my beef:

With all the bickering and finger-pointing, it’s not surprising that people (taxpayers at that!) are leaving the country. And I did. And how glad I was that I finally did.

Aha! I had argued on this point, and I will argue again: if you choose to leave because you think the situation is not to your liking, then you lose the right to tell us – those who have decided to stay – what to do. I’m sick and tired of those who escapes the problems of the country, then gleefully points at those who were left behind (specially those who consciously decided to stick around), call them names, accuse them of grossly-unfair accusations, as if they were any better. They accuse those who left behind of finger pointing, and look who are pointing their fingers? What a pity.

On an another topic, the Comelec said it needs at least 6.5 billion pesos for the plebiscite in case the Arroyo’s people initiative holds. The answer by the Fortress by the Pasig is to use the President’s Continget Fund. Is that a technical malversation? Also, the Budget Secretary says 2.1 billion pesos ready for plebiscite. Then, it became 2.6 billion pesos.

But that’s not the big issue here. If it can find a way to fund a plebiscite, why can’t it find funds to pay the war veterans, which the government owes 42 billion pesos? Then, the Juvenile Justice Act was passed and is due to be signed by Arroyo. Will the government find funds to implement that said law?

Why do people long for power? Atty-at-Work posted a speech by a former president of the former Czechoslovakia. As far as I have read it, he thinks it’s because of idealism, pride, and greed:

In the first place, people are driven into politics by ideas about a better way to organize society, by faith in certain values or ideals, be they impeccable or dubious, and the irresistible desire to fight for those ideas and turn them into reality.

In the second place, they are probably motivated by the natural longing every human being has for self-affirmation. Is it possible to imagine a more attractive way to affirm your own existence and its importance than that offered by political power? In essence, it gives you a tremendous opportunity to leave your mark, in the broadest sense, on your surroundings, to shape the world around you in your own image, to enjoy the respect that every political office almost automatically bestows upon the one who holds it.

In the third place, many people long for political power and are so reluctant to part with it because of the wide range of perks that are a necessary part of political life — even under the most democratic of conditions.

Read it.

DJB has a very interesting take on surveys. Read it too. He said that

the audience for surveys has matured as people have developed a healthy skepticism towards the surveys, while giving the same benefit of the doubt that they give to other journalists that report, analyze and interpret the vast and ever-changing entities called Current Events and the Public Opinion. Another survey? Hohum, most people say.

I have to add my take. Since Arroyo is unfazed by the survey results, why should it matter to the people? It is not a popularity contest, the Fortress by the Pasig says. So the general public treats surveys as measurement of popularity. Which is wrong.

I thought we are a popular democracy. If she is unfazed by the dissatisfaction of the people about her performance, what does that tells us? That the people doesn’t matter to her anymore? That what the people – the very people who she claims had elected her – thinks is irrelevant?

And lastly: Ellen Tordesillas recounted the sorry incident of a Filipino-American businesswoman who complained to Arroyo about Mike and Iggy Arroyo, calling them as liabilities to Gloria. I recall a much clear recollection of this event, but I can’t recall where. Are they pertaining to Loida Nicolas-Lewis?

This, in effect, is what the Comelec chair Benjamin Abalos said, when he dared Chacha and initiative critics to hail them to the Supreme Court. In the same vein, Gabriel Claudio challenged Senator Aquilino Pimentel et al to go to the SC. Goes to show who Abalos is working for.

So blatant is the Comelec’s contempt for Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec, that it makes my belief stronger that the SC will not do anything on this matter. Sure, it doesn’t have to overturn the said ruling. All it has to do, like what it has done to other constitutional issues of the day like EO464, Proc. 1017, and CPR, is to drag its feet and wait until it’s already fait accompli.

As an ordinary citizen, I am already seeing the futility of going to the SC. The Arroyo administration has shown its contempt on the justice system; and I can’t really help but think that the SC is under influence of whoever. After all, the Administration’s ready answer to all challenges is to bring them to the courts; and the SC obliges by how? By taking its time, dimwit. Then the government withdraws, making all challenges moot. That is the pattern. That’s the reason why I think Arroyo and her ilk are smug about things.

Of course, we cannot discount the fact that he is just bluffing. If so, it will be a costly one – it might cost him days in jail (oh how I wish, we really need a good example of how justice deals with those who treat the law with contempt).

What is clear is that Abalos’ appointment in the Comelec is a political one, and he now shows he is really a partisan.

More about this issue from Atty-at-Work. Atty. Lacierda explains more about Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec here.

In another vein coming from the same issue, Manuel Quezon III sees the Speaker of the House as another victim of assassination with a smile – that, like his former benefactor, Fidel Ramos, he is slowly being relegated into irrelevance, all because of his quixotic dream that is Chacha. While it remains to be seen if that would be the case, it is utterly believable, given the character of Arroyo.

Also, John Marzan believes that the Chacha is not win-win for Gloria Arroyo for the following reasons, and I quote:

Because I see the CHA CHA as a referendum for Arroyo. A defeat for Cha cha will be seen as a defeat for Arroyo.

The defeat in a referendum is not an option for her. She has the machinery and the people to ensure the win for Chacha. She did it before; she can do so again, what with the apathy of the center.

The 1987 Constitution is ARroyo’s worst enemy. If you notice, Arroyo is getting weaker and weaker under this old contitution, because her hands are tied most of the time, and it takes a lot of rule-breaking to get away with some of the stuff she’s trying to pull (like EO 464, Proc 1017, CPR). And when you are caught breaking the rules, it doesn’t look good, let’s just say that. 😉

And while she is caught breaking the rules, she is not put to justice. Hence, even if Chacha fails, she can circumvent the 1987 Constitution since the majority of the apathetic center will allow her to do so. The Constitution is not a restraint for her. So even if the Chacha fails, she still wins.

If she loses this fight, I expect her to lose more allies in the House and in the media (or their asking price to continue supporting her will increase). Nobody will respect or fear her anymore. I don’t see her surviving much longer under the anti-dictator 1987 constitution.

She will not lose allies if Chacha loses; the congressmen will. For the failure of Chacha means the congressmen fail to deliver, so they cannot gloat on her and abandon her. Besides, she has the resources; it’s just like the 2005 impeachment. The biggest losers in Chacha are De Venecia and Ramos.

As I have said, this is just a clear diversion, and I still maintain that it’s a win-win one for Arroyo.

Earlier this morning, I was suddenly disturbed from sleep by some people shouting. Sure, there are nights when people shout, but it was different earlier. First, the shouts were louder, and more fierce; second, they were more threatening than the usual. So, I woke up.

Then came the crashing of the projectiles, mostly rocks and beer bottles, coupled with running people and shrieks of fright. I could still hear the crashes on the metal gate at the shop nearby. More shouting, and more flying objects after a few second’s lull. It seems it will not end at that time. The shouting and the throwing ran unabated (I was beginning to wonder where are those fools getting their beer bottles).

And then there were three shots. Every one was scrambling for their lives. Even those who were not affected by the earlier commotion took notice. The shouting stopped, and those throwing projectiles ran for their lives. Cowards.

The aftermath is surreal. A neighbor was sweeping some bits of glass, even though their house is meters away from the scene of the crime; our house is nearer. Goes to show the power of the cowards. Mom took a look at 6AM; no blood, no glass bits, no broken rocks, except on the gate where some of the projectiles landed. And the usual reasons, circulated through the usual rumor mill, are the usual suspects, drunk and out of control and out of their minds. Drunk with stupid anger and feinted bravery, in the end they are just useless cowards, running with their tails between their legs.

I’ve never had the taste for alcohol. I have seen the ill effects of uncontrolled drinking, and I am always abhorrent of drunkards. I used to remember a drunk who was terrorizing my cousin. It was raining at that time and the drunk was wearing white pants, so I took off my wet and muddy slippers, and you know what happened to the white pants.

I really cannot understand people drinking a lot only to throw up later. What’s the use? It was an awful waste of money.

And what saddens me is that most of my former students, most of them younger than me, are already adept at drinking alcohol. I was wondering if they would end up like other victims of alcoholism, or they would get over it. One did, and it was because of health, when it was almost too late.

The future, just beginning to show promise, is now being drowned by alcohol. Dreams wallowing in the depths of drunkenness. Sad.