Democracy is a Function of the Economy

One of the most discerning epistles on the current crisis I've recently found is in Edwin Lacierda's website. Now Mr. Lacierda, from what I've gleaned from his other posts, seems determinedly against the current occupant of Malacanang. Nonetheless, his letter, although apparently intended to explain and recruit support for Arroyo's ouster, would (taken another way) confirm and support the positions held by those he opposes. I've therefore taken the liberty of quoting and commenting on his assertions, for the purpose of further clarifying where both camps stand. As the chances of ever reaching a consensus diminish by the day, this will I hope give an understanding of why that is so.

"...democracy is more than putting food on the table or seeing the peso appreciate against the dollar..."

This is a fundamental statement of values and priorities. Some would beg to differ. In which case it would be useless to argue any further.

"If it were so, Cuba would have been one of the best democracies in the world, since it is reputed to have one of the best health care systems in the Southern Hemisphere."

Wrong example. Cuba may excel in healthcare but does well in nothing else. (Ok, cigars. But that's it!) As it is, they've sacrificed democracy for nothing*. The model we're looking at is more along the lines of Singapore, or Hong Kong before Chris Patten, or Taiwan under the Kuomintang, or South Korea under Park and Company, or Augusto Pinochet's Chile. Even Mahathir Mohammad's Malaysia, or the so-called People's Republic of China. But please, not Cuba!

* There are Cubans who would dispute this, and claim their "democratic socialist revolution has achieved the workers' paradise", or somesuch communist, er, national democratic drivel. Indeed, it could be argued that Castro's victory was populism's triumph.

"If your friend's child was murdered and you know who murdered the child, do you tell your friend, 'think positive and move forward'? Will your friend not go the extra mile and see that the murderer be brought to justice?"

Without further flogging the dead horse that a murderer must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and without going into the fact that the prescribed process for removing a sitting president (impeachment) is essentially political and meant to be so (so it's no use crying over its result), I think the difference between us is the degree in which we are affected by the supposed misdeed.

You compare it to murder. Heavy stuff. That's your prerogative. I see it as something just a little bit more serious than Totoy looking at a codigo during the finals. I'm really not prepared to give Totoy the death penalty for this. In fact, I might even forgive him for it if it was to forestall a 'greater evil' (say, his dad was going to flog him or something for failing the exam). More even, if it was on my behalf (like keeping Erap or FPJ from the presidency). There, I've said it. Again, a unbridgeable difference in values and priorities. Useless to argue.

"If the country is doing badly economically, will one agree with those who go out to the streets, justify the political noise, and pray for her reign in government to end?"

Oh yeah, definitely! We'll beat you to the barricades, even! And if you want proof, just look at Edsa Dos. Don't get any ideas, though. We can smell economic sabotage a mile away.

"...who is the greater fool? The fool who insists on the truth, or the fool who puts blinders on his eyes and trusts this present government to do what is morally right?"

We do not trust this government to do what is morally right. We trust this government to do what would ensure its self-preservation. Namely, to manage the economy competently. Sort of like China, where the ruling class' legitimacy derives from its being able to maintain a high growth rate. That would be the ideal. If ever Arroyo (or any other President, for that matter) falters, through her own fault and not through circumstances beyond her control (like oil prices and opposition stunts), then I'm quite prepared to eat my words and, as I've said, march in the barricades.

"In essence, to summarize the position of the silent majority, democracy has become a function of the economy..."

Thank you for acknowledging our position as the majority's. Very generous of you.

Personally, I view democracy as a means to an end, which is economic progress and, consequently, a decent standard of living for everyone. It is also, when judiciously implemented, generally the best mechanism to ensure a political economy's long-term stability and, therefore, its long-term growth. However, I suspect its local implementation, reflected by our political culture, has long ago turned malignant, and its current manifestations hinder rather than help the end for which it exists. In other words, the exercise of our version of democracy prevents rather than facilitates our economic progress. As I do not support democracy as an end in itself, it means either that it must be totally replaced, or radically revamped (read: Chacha). I'd rather we do a radical revamp instead of junking it entirely, for the purpose of long-term stability. But that's just me.

"Sounds very practical but, unfortunately, very amoral. What does that teach our children? And, again unfortunately, what does that speak of our values?"

Our values, and our children's values, have been changing since even before Arroyo came into Malacanang. Look at how many have voted with their feet and left the country. Look at their preferred destinations: vibrant economies with jobs aplenty. Some of them are even functional democracies. But ask the would-be emigre why he or she chose that particular country. Chances are, it's not because of the right of suffrage, or the lively parliamentary debates, or the multitude of political parties. It's because of the strong economy. "Mataas ang sweldo!" Fact: People vote with their pocketbooks. Bill Clinton got this. "It's the economy, stupid!" he said. His Georgetown classmate, and a lot of her countrymen, apparently get it too.

Arroyo is the product of our values, not the other way around.

As for myself, all I can say is, I wasn't alive when Japan left us in the dust. I was too young to care when Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea overtook us. I've seen Thailand and Malaysia pull away further and further in my lifetime. But I'll be damned if see Vietnam or, heaven forbid, Cambodia do it as well. Hell, no!

"Indeed, apathy and indifference, former sins, are the new virtues of this age. They are the weapons of mass distraction foisted by the government. That notwithstanding, Dante has reserved the apathetic and the indifferent to one of the lowest rungs of hell."

It would be foolish to misconstrue support for this government as mere apathy and indifference. I think quite a lot of people are going in with their eyes wide open, and casting their lot with her nonetheless.

As for Dante, I think he placed those who were neither for nor against God (which JFK very liberally interpreted as neutrality, not apathy or indifference) in a special region near the mouth of Hell. The lowest part of Hell, if I'm not mistaken, was specifically reserved for traitors.

So there. It could be just me, but the overall effect I got on reading it was a clearer enunciation of my own position, and its affirmation as well. It also convinced me there was little or no chance for compromise, as fundamental differences in values and priorities are evident. At least hostilities are confined to polemics. That's something.