The Primary Question - March 26, 2006

The Primary Question
26 March 2006

It is the expectation that after going over our admittedly belaboring lectures, all of us are now armed with the critical language to understand ourselves from the rubric of modern social philosophy. What we essentially did was to trace the origins of modern individualism with the rise of capitalism and relate this to contemporary postmodern persuasions championed by the likes of Foucault and Rorty. The simple thesis being that the primacy that modern and postmodern social philosophy has placed in the individual agent which sometimes manifest itself in the various socio-philosophical depictions of the Self is a product of a historical moment in capitalism’s development. Thus Hobbes and Locke’s regard for the individual’s political and economic rights must be understood as an ideological defense of the rights of the new property class. And ultimately the same can be said for the more complex formulations of contemprary thinkers like Foucault and Rorty. Amidst the seemingly circumspect and nuanced regard for the tragic yet empowered modern individual, these post/modern thinkers espouse either a defeatist politics or a celebratory stance that herald liberal democracy as the end of history.

Borne of the same modern imperatives but dissatisfied with capitalism, Marx presents a depiction of the Self that is inextricably bounded and dialectically related to political and economic realities. He believes that individual freedom within the confines of capital is a false freedom. This idea was pursued by Althusser in his discourse on the ideological reproduction of capitalism. Unlike Foucault, however, Althusser maintains that there is an escape from this capitalist prison and that is socialist revolution. These marxist persuasions thus challenge the false autonomy of modern individuals and insist that personal liberation is only possible when we have freed the productive forces from the domination of one class.

These ideas provide the theoretical underpinning of the class for the whole semester. Their relevance is in providing us with the theoretical tools to problematize how it is to be a young citizen of a third world country such as ours. In case you missed it, but this has been the question that has been posed to us throughout the whole semester.

Answering such question intelligently means confronting the theoretical dilemmas posed in class. They maybe distilled to these two questions:

1) Do we accept the freedoms that liberal democracy and its economic logic, capitalism, offer to us as sufficient? In which case, it is possible to become an adherent of Locke, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Foucault or Rorty. These thinkers may not exactly espouse the same ideas but they are similar in either acceptance of capitalism to the point of celebration (in the case of Locke, Hobbes, and Rorty) or acceptance because of capitulation (such as the case of tragic Foucault) . 2) Or do we reject the way things are, challenge the taken-for-granted realities in our midst, understand the political and economic circumstances of our third world existence and consequently resist? This stance would ultimately point you to a Marxist understanding of the world. Thus, this would entail a critical regard towards the kinds of freedom we enjoy as individuals in recognition of the poverty, injustice and exploitation in our midst. These are difficult questions to answer. Hopefully, the subsequent reports in class helped you determine your convictions.

The reports were meant to provide a broad survey of Philippine social realities. Allow me to summarize some of them. We tackled our problematic past and found heart-breaking narratives of elite betrayal and colonial plunder. Our past is like a recurring nightmare and there seems to be no immediate reprieve in sight. And one persistent nightmare is the destitute poverty of many of our people in the midst of the few who enjoy the good life. However, this wide class divide is not a dream. It provides the very basis for the dynamics of our social, political, cultural and economic life in the past and the present. A quick assessment of contemporary social institutions would betray this truth. One need only to listen to the stories of pain and suffering that the OFW Filipino family experience as they endure separation just to secure a decent living. This economic pressure also results to acts of desperation among the poorest of the poor as indicated by spectacular crimes and suicides. One wonders if the church remains a source of strength for people in these trying times. Mass media seemed to have replace the church in this regard. Television has become the primary conduit for the transmission of a dangerous consumerist culture. TV has flooded their consciousness with products, lifestyles, narratives that deadens their sensitivity and lust for a meaningful life. The current political administration reflects the worse of these symptoms. Arroyo represents a body politic in crisis because of the failures of decades of elite rule. It is in this context that we should address questions of how it is to be a citizen.

Given the options stated above, what does it mean to be a citizen of a nation in perpetual crisis? Will you accept the freedoms that are offered to you by the present political and economic system? Or will you struggle to engender new political and economic arrangements so that all especially the poor can finally partake of these freedoms?

Beyond Rorty and Foucault - Feb. 18, 2006

Beyond Rorty and Foucault
18 February 2006

From the standpoint of a hopeful marxist practice discussed from the previous entry, we are now ready to assess contemporary social perspectives.

At the forefront of contemporary intellectual thinkers is the French philosopher Michel Foucault. His ideas best reflect the social tensions that beset contemporary society. While he is a worthy heir to the critical tradition of social analysis that Marx pioneered, he departs from its political promise completely. Instead he locates his politics in a post-socialist era.

Foucault's seminal work Discipline and Punish may be seen as a contemplation of the dynamics of capital and the disciplinary mechanisms it deploys. Of course he would deny any direct attack against capital later on since he would disavow such a centered and top-down regard for power. Nevertheless, his insightful take on the regimented, panoptic operations of capital through the creation of modern subjectivities can be considered a continuation of the phenomenological and critical persuasions belonging to the Marxist tradition (C. Wright Mills, Berger and Luckmann). Like these contemplative thinkers, Foucault problematized how our hearts and minds are captured by social imperatives that are external to us. In his case, his lucid take on the materiality of ideas as they are channeled through social discourses is but one of his many insightful contributions to sociall analysis. However, unlike the promise of social liberation that always informs the analysis of the critical tradition, Foucault cynically concludes that all of us are inmates of a prison that is society and there is no escape.

What could possibly drive this cynicism which seems outrightly antithetical to the social hope that drives critical social philosophies? Foucault's writing became relevant at a period when many activists and academics were suddenly disillusioned with the apparent defeat of socialism (that is why we refer to this as the post-socialist era). Sensing no political future beyond capital, Foucault withdrew to a politics of the Self and used the arcane ideas of another German thinker who once gained a mistaken notoriety as a proponent of Nazism. The anti-philosophy of a self-absorbed Nietzsche was compatible with the new found preoccupation of many of these disillusioned marxists with the mysteries of their persons. Since they have eschewed the perfectibility of society, as a testament perhaps to bourgeois luxuries they enjoy, they turn instead to the practice of self-perfection. Foucault was similarly enamored by these poststructural sensibilities although with a more realistic pathos. Through his sisyphus-like ethos of transgression, Foucault presents a personal political ethic. We cannot change the world whom we are at odds with constantly (the notion of biopower). We can only escape it momentarily and without certain success by challenging its impositions through our futile solitary acts of resistance.

There are many variants to this political cynicism. Some of them even package their formulations differently employing a more amiable vocabulary that ultimately functions to pacify and accept capitalism as the end of history. Richard Rorty is one such thinker. Unlike Foucault whose pathos towards life was obvious in his philosophy and biography (he was one of the first gay celebrities to have died of AIDS), Rorty is an optimistic American who offers redescription as a recourse to personal and social troubles. He elides the individual-society dilemma by treating the public and the private as separate spheres. Of course, this idea is outrightly rejected by those who believe in the dialectical and inextricable link between individuals and society. The belief in the capacity of people to wield such public and private ethics presupposes the existence of strong social institutions made possible by dominant economies that protect the liberal agenda. These conditions are of course impossible in third world nations whose institutions and economies are weakened by patronage and imperialism.

So where do we draw our hope as individuals who are members of a society such as ours? You should also get out more often (To the streets! To the mountains!).

More on Marx - Feb. 18, 2006

MORE ON MARX
18 February 2006

It has been awhile since my last entry and we have covered quite a lot of ground since then. There are reasons for this delay of course. While the remote control and internet are equally guilty in keeping me from writing this blog or going out of my room (remember, they use to refer to my demographic as belonging to the slacker generation, the disenchanted not-so-young incapable of mustering enthusiasm for anything), I would have to confess that I have been hesitating in writing this entry. It is a daunting task writing about marxism.

For one, marxism is very much a contested body of thought. There are many groups who refer to themselves as marxists and each one of them is quick to contradict the other. Based on their divergent philosophical interpretations of marx's ideas and their take on the social condition in question, they assume different political positions. However, they are unified by the basic marxist unity that things must change. The continuing critical debate among marxists which is a testament to the perspective's relevance in the supposed postsocialist era we inhabit. These impassioned debates are not just informed by intellectual rigor (yes, marxists are a foolhardy lot). But what informs their passion, more often than not, is their deep commitment against social injustice. The best examples of humanity I have encountered within and outside the university were displayed by marxists. Their genuinie compassion and sacrifice for others are a continuing inspiration to others like us who have higher standards for being human. Thus, marxism does not just seduce our intellect but it also worms its way inside our hearts.

It is these twin traits that make marxism so appealling and also so difficult to explain. Should one talk about the brave and refreshing certainties that marxism so (arrogantly?) defends amidst the cynical and fence-sitting character of contemporary thought? Or should one highlight the unrelenting humanism that underlies all marxist revolutionary movements? On the one hand, marxism and the many intellectual bastards it has spawned stand as the singular philosophical system that offers a comprehensive understanding of almost everything from religion to sex, from politics to popular culture. Beyond offering such a sweeping understanding of the dynamics of the world, it also provides us with a map to change it. This trait of marxism has been the object of many criticisms from those who have problems with the arrogant certainties which characterizes marxist thought. That is why it becomes important to clarify and in the process resolve the dilemma posed above, that such necessary certainties should be understood in the light of marxism's other trait .

Marxism is also a political movement borne out of people’s suffering. It is not just an intellectual movement which can be understood according to the quaint standards of philosophers and those who seemingly have a natural abhorrence for the truth. It is also a political movement of the rejected, downtrodden, and the plain dissatisfied. Peasants, workers, the urban poor have rallied around Marx’s basic ideas on the basis of a shared hope that things will change. It is not because Marx's musings are essentially true and will remain so forever but its because the world continues to exclude many people from the fruits of their labor, the land that they till, the realization of their true potential. Marx does not regard the proletariat as beggars awaiting the charity of their masters. In the final analysis, he rejects the call for higher wages since according to him, they remain a slave’s wages nonetheless. Remember that for Marx the objective is to free the worker’s labor from capital so that he can work in a condition of freedom. And it takes a revolution to achieve this. This is the heart that informs the intellectual passion and political commitment of those who continue to dream of a better world.

Marxism is not just an allegiance to a rational and believable system of ideas but more so, it is also a hopeful stance despite the odds – a movement of the head and heart. It is not just about philosophical certainties but it also about a persistent hope that there is something better than this. There should be something more than (as quoted from the Indigo Girls) “cold beer and remote control.”

Which brings me to a moment of clarity. I have been numbed by serious multitasking for the past weeks - doing academic work, downloading, eating, drinking and beating deadlines (while always putting off writing this essay) all done within the confines of a room with Kanye West blaring in the background. I remember Marx’s famous quote while writing this and understand the conflicted nature of my existence. To paraphrase Marx, ideas “which reason has riveted to our conscience”, are like chains that we cannot free ourselves from without breaking our hearts. I should be going out (to the streets! to the mountains!) more often.

Self Liberation as Social Liberation - Jan. 6, 2007

Self Liberation as Social Liberation
6 January 2006

At this point, you may have already realized that studying the Self is a complicated matter. This is so because we are studying it as a socio-historical concept and we are not directly referring to you and the intricacies of your being. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the obvious implications of our topics to the manner we imagine ourselves. For example, many of you may agree with the dystopic vision of Hobbes, resolving your learned catholic guilt by declaring that everyone is selfish anyway. Others may see themselves, following Locke, as stewards of their God-given talents. Some may take the cynical route against modern civilization and wish they were natives instead like Rousseau. These are all philosophical approaches that we either wittingly or unwittingly subscribe to. By locating the origins of these philosophies in the liberation of free labor at the onset of capitalism, we now achieve an understanding why such stances remain influential given the present social order and why we believe in some of them. However, what is problematic with all these variations of modern individualism as indicated in the previous post is the taken for granted separateness of individuals from society.

Marx's critical perspective takes on a different approach to the problem of Selfhood in the age of capitalism. First, he puts forward dialectics as a basic philosophical tenet which effectively resolves the dilemma posed above. Seen through dialectical lenses individuals and societies are involved in a dynamic and inextricable relationship. Their fates are intertwined. Second, he believes in man's infinite perfectibility - not as an essential belief that is true and unchanging throughout time but by what is made possible by the existing social order. The issue is not whether man is intrinsically good or evil but what are the material conditions which make man good or evil. Thus, the modern capitalist individual may indeed exist and Marx may very well consider him/her a fine improvement from the backward peasant. In fact, it is precisely because of man's condition in capitalism which enables us to imagine the ways to perfect him and his social milieu.

Among many other things, this is where Marx separates himself from other social philosophers because he imagines the inseparability of man from society, man’s perfectibility and man’s ultimate liberation as integral to social liberation.

Self as Necessary Fiction - Jan. 4, 2006

Self as Necessary Fiction
January 4, 2006

In our previous meetings, we have taken great pains to establish the socio-historical moments that placed Selfhood at the center of modern western social philosophy. Primary of these moments is the shift from an agricultural mode of production to capitalist which liberated identities from their feudal collective molds. Modern identities now assume the characteristic of free labor - individual and anarchic on account of the changes in society's economic life. Such tendencies are reflected in the modern philosophies of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. These human nature theorists put forward their own definitions of what is human reflecting the zeitgeist of their times. Hobbes and Rousseau embodied the social dystopia of early capitalist societies while Locke embraced the possibility of a liberal democratic future. They all presented various approaches to modern individualism in a period of capitalist growth and consolidation. What is common in all three is at the center of their social philosophy is an unfledging allegiance to the autonomous individual. In a philosophical sleight of hand which mimics the changes taking place in the social sphere, the individual is assumed to be separated and autonomous from collective life. Societyand the Self are regarded as separate entities. At times, even at odds with each other. This philosophical turn is not entirely surprising given the emergent logic of the economic sphere. The primary economic agent of the new social order is the autonomous individual who is able to exercise the ultimate freedoms - to labor and consume. In this sense, the self is a necessary modern fiction. However, there is an alternative perspective borne of the same tumultous period - a perspective that instead of separating the individual from society appreciates the complex dynamic between the two.

On Personal Narrative - Dec. 7, 2005

On Personal Narratives
Dec. 7, 2005

I wish all of you would have the privilege of going over your your classmates’ short autobiographies. The couple of hours I spent reading them gave me more enjoyment than the whole recent JB-Say twist that bothered our collective Filipino weekend. Your stories had more drama (pathos even), romance, comedy, erotica than the whole PBB season combined and some even had a smattering of left and right-wing philosophical musings. In other words, it was like a good Woody Allen movie or the Gilmore Girls or an early E-heads album. Obscure pop culture references aside, let me just relay, after having read all your self-presentations, that you are one interesting bunch of young people seemingly at the threshold of something big (could it be adulthood, yuppiehood, revolutionary praxis, victory, failure?). Your shared life-location or age-demographic may explain the equal parts dread and optimism that I sense in many of your writings. This heady mix swings you from being manically optimistic (“I am a Messiah! I will save many people!”  You know who you are! ) to being paranoid and schizophrenic (How about writing a one-page **** you letter to oneself? I think this was the best!).

Seriously, the exercise was meant as a symbolic beginning of sorts. Since the avowed goal of this class was to involve our Filipino “selves” in sociological discourse, let us talk about the many means by which you wove your personal narratives about who you are.

For understandable reasons, most of your narratives begin with a declaration of what your names are. Indeed, the most common method of beginning a biographical narrative is by employing the socially-sanctioned markers that are conveniently given each of us during birth. As a matter of rule, we assume an arbitrary name that will remain with us unfortunately for the rest of our lives. Then your narratives disclose other information that map your location in the social world. Your biological gender, physical features and social class are delicately revealed through stories about your crushes, likes and dislikes, hobbies, and the music you listen to among other things.

Some of you embrace these facts about who you are as definitive markers of your being especially so when one’s social circumstance shelter you from many of the social contradictions that afflict our society. Interestingly, however, some of you express an estrangement with these arbitrary markers of your identity - a valid insight given that you might prefer classier monikers as compared to the combined names of dead relatives some of you assume. Furthermore, after undertaking an inventory of one’s being, others find it difficult to ascertain which aspects of their personalities are actually exempted from the seemingly totalitarian power of the social. After all, your crushes, for the most part, are determined by a set of socially-approved characteristics. Your likes and dislikes more or less follow a socially-influenced format. Your taste is music is probably dictated by the payola schemes of corporate music giants. The God you believe in is probably a product of cultural inertia than meaningful faith. Heck, even the money that you wantonly spend is not yours but filched from your parents who, in one way or another, sell their soul (and other people’s) just to keep you and their bourgeois sensibilities satisfied.

While others depict their lives to be happy and full, I am sure they also share to a certain the degree the intimate and deep sense of unease that some of your classmates feel towards themselves and their surroundings. There is much to be unsettled about when we think about who we “really” are. However, there is even greater cause for anxiety once we expand our vistas beyond the myopic confines of our personal lives and begin to confront the sad collective life we lead as a nation. But we will get to that topic pretty soon.

As you look around the faces of your classmates, you may all seem similar in your general disposition as regular UP students. But behind and beyond this shared identity, are your personal stories of pain and victory, your medals and scars despite your youth. Going to UP for some is a natural and expected culmination of almost 15 years of middle-class private/catholic school education. Others, however, are the few who managed to escape their little barrio and now have the chance of never coming back. For some the future calls them as heirs to the toil of their middle-class suburban parents while others face tomorrow carrying on their shoulders the heavy burden of fulfilling their lower middle-class parent’s failed dreams. Which side are you on? (sigh)

For now, let us take stock of the value of this exercise for our class. 1) If anything, this activity has proven that the Self is an equally interesting and dreadful topic. No matter how low or high your self-esteem may be, thinking about one’s self still elicits a passionate response for most of you. Self-reflection is also an awkward and dreadful prospect in the way that it exposes us to the inadequacies of our being. 2) It is clear as well as that subsumed in your personal narratives is the inescapable confrontation with the Social. It may not have been mentioned directly but your narratives inadvertently map your particular location in our given Third World social order. In the next few meetings, we would continue to probe this dynamic confrontation of the Self and Society.

Game pa ba kayo?

teacher's blog moved here

Well, since my blog has been quiet lately, indulge me as I migrate here the teacher's blog I have written for a class I handled the previous semester. Comments are, of course, welcome. Enjoy.

to the hopeless middle class

NOTE: this is a response to an email that found its way to my hs egroup. I am responding to it and hope to hear your thoughts. please comment.

Yes, this is compelling Bogart. But it is compelling
to me for a different reason altogether.

This email has been going around in different egroups
and it has inflamed passions from both sides of the
divide. I heard that it is even printed as a paid ad
in the Inquirer today March 19 and it is sure to be
the talk of the town in the days to come. Wittingly
or unwittingly, it has dictated the terms through
which the current political crisis is being debated
especially among the wired middle class. And judging
from the reactions it has elicited, it mirrors the
great divisions that the current political crisis has
wrought among citizens of our country.

For our friends who are abroad and for those who are
just plain busy with their lives allow me to provide
you with a background of our country's troubles the
past few months. Of course our problems as a nation
date back to the times of kopong-kopong and it would
be belaboring to launch into a discussion of how
colonialism and elite rule have damaged our social
institutions breeding such ills as graft and
corruption, a 30 year civil war in the countryside,
and abject povery for most of our countrymen.
However, Arroyo's administration represents the most
terrible symptom of all these ills. Her family
through the FG Mike Arroyo run government like a
private enterprise. Have your heard about the Diosdado
Macapagal Highway and how it was many times
over-priced? The DA fertilizer fund scandal (nothing
x-rated here just plain corruption) wherein millions
were given to congressmen who were known supporters of
the administration even if they did not have farmers
for constituents? And of course, the mother of all
Arroyo's scandals, the Garci controversy. I used to
be proud to identify myself as a Kagay-anon. Heck,
when the CDO scandals came out I was even proud of it
(the best amateur porn of all time). It just saddened
me that Garci, Arroyo's electoral operator, learned to
do his dirty tricks first in our beloved city and
nearby regions. He was so good at rigging elections
that Arroyo just a few months before elections,
appointed him as a commissioner despite negative
public opinion.

One can dismiss all these accusations as politicking
but when Arroyo's response to all attempts to discuss
these issues in the proper democratic venues is to
employ the tactics of repression and political
patronage, then matters become obvious. Especially
when her allies in congress squashed the impeachment
complaint and did not even allow the Garci controvery
to be discussed. She prevents all attempts by the
public in knowing the truth. Remember when Marine
officials came out to say that the elections in
Mindanao were rigged? How did Arroyo respond? She
imposed Executive Order 464 which bars government
officials from testifying in Congress without her
prior approval. And finally, Arroyo brought down, last
February 24, Proclamation 1017 which to many people
was a declaration of de facto Martial Rule.
Congressmen who were elected by a national vote of 2.4
million (a larger constituency compared to many
congressmen) are now detained indefinitely under
trumped-up charges of rebellion. Many pundits and
they have been proven right by recent events observe
that 1017 was brought down to quell all legitimate
opposition. The killings of activists goes on unabated
(in the hundreds since the start of GMAs term) and the
media is being watched. For those of us who have long
been concerned and vigilant over the fate of our
nation, these are scary times.

This is where I am coming from when I respond to the
blog by Mr. Bong Austero a copy of which found its way
into our egroup. He seems passionate with his ideas
by claiming to be a spokesperson for the silent
majority who has finally had enough with those who are
out to oust Arroyo. And I would like to match his
passion with mine.

In my observation, Austero is attempting to register
his involvement in the current state of affairs which
is a healthy indication of his citizenship. Let us
give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not a
paid hack who has direct interests with the present
administration. It seems to me that he is the type
who once in a while watches the news, shakes his head
and say "Bulok talaga ang Pilipinas" and continues to
work out his options of migrating to C.anada or
somewhere else. What is interesting for me is that
all of a sudden, he wants to get involved. This
involvement came in the form of a blog. Bakit kaya?
(Ngano kaha?) Allow me to imagine. One day, while
holding a cup of starbucks cappucino on his hand, he
finds himself in his car stuck in Makati traffic
because of the regular mobilizations against the
present administration. He is furious over this
incident because he missed his favorite reality tv
show (Joe Schmo) on cable. To vent his frustration, he
trudges off to his mac and types away in anger. He
makes a case against the motley of opposition
politicians who are strange bedfellows and appeals for
an end to all this disruptions to his normal life. He
imagines many others who missed their favorite shows
because of the traffic and now regards himself as
their spokesperson. He is now the defender of the
voiceless, an activist for democracy against the
communists and the others who will "burn this nation
to the ground". Of course, I am conscious that I am
making a caricature out of him and I maybe alienating
the many others among you my friends who think like
him. My apologoies but you see, to my mind, Mr.
Austero is a johnny-come-lately wanting to secure
controversy and relevance for himself in these
difficult times.

When they squashed the impeachment complain in
Congress, he probably just snickered and shook his
head. And when young kids knock on his car to sell
sampaguita, I hope he is not just plain annoyed and
instead take the occasion to contemplate on where this
nation is going under the leadership of a corrupt and
illegitimate president. Mr. Austero is a fence-sitter
who finally casted his lot for GMA. He dismisses the
growing ranks of disgusted citizens as pawns of
opportunistic politicians from the right and the left.
What is amazing about his logic is that he is cynical
about the motives of citizens who subject themselves
to truncheons and water cannons, even arrest, while
believing the unbelievable propaganda of the State.
Just as GMA is the greatest danger to democracy, it is
precisely guys like Austero who emboldens this
illegitimatete President. It just disheartens me to
find out that some like Mr. Austero has lost all hope
for this country and are able to express their
pessimism with so much passion. It is this attitude
of cynicism that only the detached and comfortable
could suddenly muster that allows Arroyo to proclaim
herself as the best person to lead the country. It
has even gone into GMAs head that she is God's
ordained leader (god-forbid!).

Like him, I am wary of the politicians who represent
the same ills that Arroyo manifests. But this does
not paralyze me to the point of inaction. Because as
a citizen, what GMA is doing violates me. A president
who cheated her way into elections and now so brazenly
employ the violence of the state to squash legitimate
dissent is unforgivable and unacceptable. We have
sunk so low as a people if we are willing to endure
this kind of President. And if we cannot trust our
fellow citizens as they subject themselves to beatings
from the police and possible arrest, then perhaps
there is reason to be hopeless.

But because of these people who rise above their
differences to express their disgust over the present
state of affairs and have formed groups to resist, I
am believing in hope. It is not as if these
cause-oriented groups which I count myself a member of
where formed overnight. Many of them were formed in
the wake of the Garci controversy. Their resolved has
been strengthened even more as new scandals are
discovered and the true nature of this administration
is exposed.

In the meantime, all of us should get involve in
determining our alternatives. There are many
solutions that are being discussed and over the
months, a consensus has been forming that presents a
transition council as an alternative in preparation
for an election. It would be naive to think that as
single individuals you can register opinions on these
matters. Thus, it is important to get organized.
Form groups or join existing communities on the
internet, in schools, in parishes. Many are being
formed as we speak. Our participation in these
important processes would ensure their success. But
it would mean rising above our cynicism to achieve
this.

Our path to a modern and viable democracy is laden
with so many obstacles and there seems to be no quick
and easy solutions. But that is how it is in a young
fledging democracy like ours. When we participated in
the movement to oust Erap, we were aware that GMA was
not the solution to the country's problem. This is
the same attitude that I hold at present. In the end,
change will come if we are able to engender a vigilant
citizenry who are not paralyzed by pessimism. These
citizens will watch over their leaders and make sure
they do not do the failures of those who came before
them. What we are doing in the movement to oust
gloria is a step in that direction. If there is a
lesson that we need to learn in the past Edsa events,
it is that true democracy is kept alive by a vigilant
citizenry involved in the affairs of the state. We
should not trust the politicians and the military to
do the work for us. We ourselves as citizens are the
best guarantors of democracy.

Thus, I present hope as a counter-point to Austero's
pessimism. And I challenge those of us who share the
same hope for this country to prove to Mr. Austero
that we are not as cynical as he is. Our hope will
mean marching into the streets, face possible arrest,
allow ourselves to be beaten by truncheons and water
cannons because we have hope for this country. This
hope means we will not accept cheats and tyrants to
run this nation and we will continue to look for
alternatives. Not as fence-sitters but as involved
citizens who are hopeful about the future of this
country.

And as a parting shot, I challenge all of you who like
Mr. Austero remain cynical and pessimistic to get
organized as well. If indeed you guys are as sure
about your convictions, and if indeed you are silent
majority and not the hopeless few, then show us your
numbers.

arnold a.