Alternative leadership

Open societies provide their people a wider range of options than societies that are oligarchic or authoritarian. Whether one speaks of what nourishes the body, the mind or the spirit, open societies enable their people to realistically contemplate a full banquet of offerings. There is in such societies a wider variety of diet, a fuller serving of the intellectually challenging and the artistically exciting. Science as well as art do not have to be shadowy enterprises and a multiplicity of godhoods is readily available for the most incorrigible of iconoclasts.

Open societies do not thrive on simplistic either-ors, on forced choices that reflect a poverty of reason as well as human compassion. Neither politics nor religion is cast in exclusionist forms reminiscent of the Dark Ages and dark eminences. Rather, the force of freedom prevails and the citizenry gets to be treated to truly alternative political leaderships and are shown numerous paths to their nation’s salvation.

Unnecessary and indiscriminate demonization is characteristic of the lazy and the immature. Or of those who are simply malicious and serve a bitter cup – hemlock-laced – to the inexperienced and trusting among this country’s citizenry. Often the latter suffer disillusionment with those it had unwittingly helped install in power. Philippine history is replete with betrayals, mostly by leaders who had seduced their people with rhetorics of new societies and new beginnings. Once in command, they quickly revealed themselves to be the trapos they had always been and the citizenry suffers the cost of being gullible and overly trusting.

There are signs that perhaps Filipinos are finally learning their badly needed lessons in political governance. Despite numerous attempts by some quarters to malign emerging candidates for an alternative leadership, Filipinos appear increasingly reluctant to ostracize these personalities. Political demolition jobs by powers that be are ceasing to be as effective as they were in the past. Consequently, much insecurity and outright paranoia bedevil many of the current power holders in Philippine society.

In April 2002, numerous Filipinos refuse to have their choice of prospective leaders limited to those who already currently comprise the national administration. While they will not turn their backs yet to the most influential among the Arroyo administration and its allies – beyond the President herself, people do have a high regard for Senate President Drilon, Education Secretary Roco and Supreme Court Chief Justice Davide – people now are already considering leaders of the opposition like Senators Lacson and Angara, both increasingly approved of and trusted by the public despite their association with former president Estrada. (Currently, Lacson’s rehabilitation has succeeded to the point where only the relatively small better-off class ABC reflects net distrust for him, i.e. there continues to be more among this group who distrust rather than trust him. In the last quarter, even this net distrust for Lacson by class ABC has already been cut down by half.) Beyond this current mix of administration and opposition officials, other political figures may yet emerge as the nation pitifully staggers or confidently marches to 2004. No one in this country can stay this development, neither those who are superbly bright nor those who are utterly charming.

Open societies are not awarded on a silver platter by oligarchic authorities to their people. They are wrenched from the powers that be by citizenries that through patient and strategic organizational work build up their political capabilities and – giving an ironic twist to Rouseau’s unforgettably dramatic phrase – compel benighted tyrants themselves to be free.

Philippine society is definitely opening up. No other choice exists.