I recall doing a paper for my Political Science class in college, about which institutional reforms would you propose to correct or improve any aspect of Philippine governance. I just thought about posting a portion of it, in light of a conversation I had with my officemates on the way home last night. I believe this was written in the context of the ZTE Scandal. This is something I have always stood by -- authoritarian rule.
*****
Probably the most drastic change that I would like to pursue is a shift to an authoritarian-democratic hybrid model. Discipline is the one thing most lacking in today’s Filipinos. We constantly blame our government officials but we do not fully realize that change must begin with ourselves. A moral revolution must take place not only in the political arena but also in the whole of society as well. It is time to have constant and uncompromising regard not only for what is legal but for what is right. Also, I think that now is the time to look at the larger picture and not only see through the very narrow perspective of the self. I believe in Ferdinand Marcos’ tagline back in the ‘70s: “Bayan muna bago ang sarili”. I personally admire what he advocated for and what he did for our country in the early years of his presidency and in the early years of martial rule. Indeed, I have faith in the miracle of an iron fist; therefore I firmly believe that some rights and activities of the citizens should be suppressed, if that is what it takes to bring about change in the country. Freedom must be constrained to some extent in the present in order to promote authentic freedom in the future. Discipline must be enforced rigorously, laws must be imposed strictly, punishment must be imposed severely – there must be no room for leniency or else people will continue to slack off and will continue to think that they can get away with wrongdoing. Given as well the situation of prevalent corruption in the administration, authoritarian rule would be good for our country as long as the right leader is put in place.
Of course, there is great danger in a purely authoritarian regime given that it may be characterized by the absence of a limited mandate, and Filipinos are probably the best witnesses to the fact that absolute power can be obsessive and addicting. Ferdinand Marcos was a very brilliant leader, and our country was already on the road to progress, but bigger problems came about when he eventually refused to step down from the presidency. In order to remedy this, I propose that the electoral process must still be maintained. This must also be accompanied by the two-party system that I proposed earlier. The case of Singapore among others proves that there can be authoritarian regime with relatively non-dictatorial leadership; and now we can only look in awe at the amazing developments that took place there under then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Hence in the hybrid model I propose, people can still elect their leaders and the leaders will only serve for a given number of years in office. This still preserves some elements of democratic rule and still provides venue for people participation – but the political system must limit their political, and maybe even a few aspects of their social, freedoms.
This is something that I have always believed in – I recall doing a research paper on the benefits and successes of Marcos’ authoritarian rule back in my first year of college. The only very crucial question is who, at this point in time, will be in the best position to rule the country under such an institutional arrangement.
