Gravitas and leadership

As expected, President Noynoy’s speech in the Apec conference drew both praise and criticism. Those who praised him said it was good that he took on what he calls Philippine allies for their advisories against going to the Philippines. Filipino leaders in general are more timid so it was a departure from the usual.

Those who criticized him said his attacks were made in the wrong forum. He could have talked to the leaders of the countries and told them the advisories were not being helpful. So Pinoy (Filipino) as my Facebook friends would say. Did he think that those who are in charge of the security of their citizens in other countries could be talked into not giving advisories because we are their “friends”? That might be possible in the Philippines where a little pakiusap is enough.

I once talked to a Korean ambassador when the embassy issued an advisory to their citizens after trouble erupted in Mindanao. That’s funny, I said the more you issue advisories the more Koreans come to the Philippines. He laughed and said because they do not listen to advisories. So why issue them I asked. “What if something did happen to their citizens while in Manila and they had not issued an advisory despite the intelligence received from Philippine officials themselves? An advisory is an official cover against something that might happen and not against the country. It is one of the duties of being a diplomat,” the ambassador replied.

Still, some credit must be given to President Noynoy for his brave heart, but the memory of the hostage crisis is too fresh. Critics tell me that we can debate the issue but the bottom line is a lack of trust. Among critics, the pervasive view is that it may be a legitimate concern when the person delivering it lacks gravitas, that seriousness that comes from natural leaders. 

*      *      *

For the rest of us who feel bad that our leader lacks gravitas, we should trace the steps that led us to this unhappy situation.

I would commend reading an essay published last April 26, 2003 in the original Get Real Philippines website (www.getrealphilippines.com). Filipinos were not always like this. Indeed our political forebears were illustrious men with vision and gravitas.

“On the outset, changing a society of 80 million largely impoverished, under-educated, and ignorant souls seems like a staggering if not impossible task. But history has proven that impoverished and illiterate societies can indeed develop into prosperous, vibrant, and sensible ones,” writes the author.

He says the proof is in what he called the “children of European civilization” like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.

“All of them have not more than 200-400 year-old modern histories, and all of them were, up until the late 19th Century impoverished and illiterate societies. Their humble beginnings do not reflect the runaway successes that they are today. While, with the exception of the United States, these countries may not be the financially wealthiest, they are all tops in terms of human development (<http://getrealphilippines.com/legacy/agr-disagr/8-5-hdi.html>).”

The key, he adds, lies in a society’s Elite. The elite must be enlightened because it is they “who disproportionately control a society’s economic wealth, political power, and philosophical influence.” A nation’s development course into the right groove would do well to focus on changing the mindsets of these elite people.

“The word mindset is key. Many have dismissed Get Real! as a repository of ideas accessible only to the “wired” Elite, which, in the case of the total number of Filipino souls, is infinitesimal. It is a radical challenge to the existing paradigm that social change is best sown at the grassroots.”

The author, Orion Perez Dumdum, who is a constitutional reform warrior enumerates eight points to bolster his argument:

“1. There are no and there never will be perfectly egalitarian societies. All societies will always have Élites.

“Elites”, in this case does not necessarily refer only to the well-heeled, well-dressed, and perfumed socio-economic Élites. It refers also to the intellectual Élites or “intelligentsia”, political Élites, and other groups of people who wield some form of power or influence among other people. They can be student leaders, labor leaders, barangay captains, parish priests, etc. They may not always be “rich” or materially well-off, but because other people look up to them, they are, by default, Élites.

2. Élites will always be the source of widespread change in society, good or bad.

The masses instinctively take their cues from the Élite or members of the Élite. In fact, historically, the leaders of mass movements have often been members of the Élite themselves.

3. A significant majority of the Élites of a given society must be enlightened and capable of critical reasoning for that Élite to espouse effective leadership.

4. Bigger potential dangers are likely to arise from the pseudo-enlightened or “half-enlightened” Élites.

5. Human history is full of case studies of Élite leadership in social change.

6. Whereas it is next to impossible, given the enormity of the task, to effectively enlighten the masses, it should at least be possible to Enlighten the Élites.

7. The Enlightenment of the Élites must be thorough and not half-baked.

8. Entry to the Élite must not be closed to aspirants.”

And finally, he says “Upward mobility and accepting qualified entrants into the Élite is of utmost importance. In many developed societies, many members of the “Élite” did not necessarily descend from members of a hereditary Élite. Many had humble parental origins. The key, in improving society, is in allowing the Élite group to expand and continually grow.

The development of society, particularly the history of the First World, is founded on allowing the Élite group to grow and expand by creating opportunities for members of the masses to improve themselves and become new members of the Élite. The expansion and creation of a strong and large middle class is precisely what this is all about. Without this, the ideals of true representative Democracy will never come into fruition in the Philippines.”

But read the essay because I did not include enlightening explanations for each point.

The two topics may seem unrelated but if we had a system that allowed the enlightenment of elites, we might have done better not just in Apec but for our country.