Saturday, 24 December 2016

"Still Feudal if not Despotic"

"Still Feudal if not Despotic"

(Ramblings of a country whose public service as mere personal beneficence
and how the corrupt and of the tyrant treats it that way)

Despite its assertions and appeals to its subjects, of its "democratic space" with all its "liberal privileges" offered by its laws, the present semifeudal-semicolonial system blatantly and realistically believes in nothing except in keeping its interests.

 It allows anything to be questioned, but, since it emphasises its own interests than those of the common good, it rather censors if not negates those that questions that speaks about the system's value of its own existence.

And for those who asserted people's will be prevailed, such inconvenient realities found in that order "assuming to be 'forward-going'" would make one to conclude that "there is nothing illicit to replace an unjust order by another", or as what Quezon said: "however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.”

Sounds contrary to a person of privileged status to talk about the right to dismantle a bad order in favour of a new one, especially on behalf of the laboring poor. Maybe because Quezon tends to imitate populists like Peron, Cardenas, or Vargas; but, the idea of social justice in a still semifeudal-semicolonial system is nothing but an aesthetic regardless of what the late president did like any other benefactor. After all, his statement above recognises the people's right to overturn tyranny no matter how frustratingly benevolent in pursuit of keeping its own interest.

Besides that, "of what is democracy if it is not for the poor?" Sorry to use Marcos but seeing that the system believes in nothing except its own interests yet parroting those of the common people be like mocking them. Unjust laws, corrupt personages, what kind of democracy under a dilapidated social order looks like? How desperate it is as it tries to create a democratic atmosphere yet in fact represses the commoner be it its unjust laws or corrupt personages failing to ensure everyone's well-being or abusing its power. Worse, putting their own names in every project made, in pursuit of trying to make one's self synonymous to development regardless of its tyranny or corruptedness.

However, a few may be serious though in pursuit of uplifting them such as pressuring the government for serious welfare programs and its bigger budget allocated, and with these concerned perhaps they are hoping that these actions deemed "reforming" on behalf of the government should be a serious, moral task of the state and not of mere personal patronage as commonly described by many.

Of state "duties" treated as a personal "beneficences"
(Or how a corrupted order treats social services "that way"
yet fails to uplift)

For coming from an observer's view, it seemed true enough that the present populistic setting the Filipinos enjoyed is a hodge podge of frustrated "progressivism" by the elite and its age-old political patronage via its "state-supported beneficence". 
Also in speaking of that word "patronage", people would look at the elected person for its "contribution" than those who paid their obligation behind those so-called public works be it healthcare to those of roads. They see forms of social welfare as same as any form of personal beneficence coming from an elected individual assuming to be as benevolent as the others than a state responsibility on behalf of the taxpayer.

Worse, despite all the beneficences (including those called "reforms", it failed to bridge the gap between the rich and of the poor, what more of showing rather the system's state of repression in the name of interest.

Be it corruption, unfair labour practise, decades-old landlordism, and submissive to mutinational and transnational interests, these truths remain embedded in the minds of struggling many regardless of what the system tries to insist its "justness" to its subjects, the way they that goddamned order insists developmental aggression as necessary no matter it hurts the poor and the marginalised sectors of the society.

And also to think that with those forms of "beneficences", most of which are obviously meant to keep people "in order" if not "to make them simply contented" than to create a form of social justice are rather "crumbs" if not "leftovers" that's unjustly given to those whose demand is the slice if not the whole cake or the bakery itself!

Reform or Retention?

Anyway, admittingly speaking, this writeup may likely to describe it as "stuck up in a past" in ridiculing state policies than praising it altogether, but that unjust past is rather continuing all contrary to an atmosphere wherein reforms and restructuring been enacted "in the name of democracy", and with those truths stated above, neither from elected individuals like Duterte or from Robredo can turn a third world country upside down "for real change" as they admitted that they swore to protect the order besides representing it as such while at the same time trying to appease the people with promises and piecemeal "actions".

And as stated earlier, these "beneficences" be it in a form of reforms or welfare programs are rather meant to keep people "in order" instead of making a community, particularly the poor, be given a true form of justice. Besides that, the system behind those "wondrous" acts are just compelled to do so, whilst trying to dilute its message and negate its character behind its action. The concerned even those working within the state is trying with its best to make every commitment to the people as "serious" and "more than just a beneficence" but of a policy as mandated by law.

Be it affordable education, healthcare, housing, agrarian reform, and others meant to ensure people's well-being, it shows the justness of the state on behalf of its people to undertake it and has to be treated not as a mere personal beneficences as shown by politicians treating it as "holy water to wash their soiled hands". 

And in fact with that kind of manner rather exposes them further their corruptedness if not being desperate to keep themselves in their strongholds. Sorry to say so, for the corrupt or despotic who frustratingly assuming to be as benevolent as the others showed how desperate the rotten order so badly especially in regards to "seeking votes" during elections. And how the system "turned" a state responsibility of ensuring ones well being into a feudal patronage emphasising on mere personal beneficence as all but preserving an order that has nothing to do with empowering the people but instead preserving a "legacy driven by greed and unjust-driven interest."

And these poor are still struggling around, marching and shouting social justice not bullets and coffins. Or perhaps since Quezon afforded to say that whoever makes a government mismanaged and has to be changed, what more that the less fortunate is clearly willing to say enough of that goddamn order and must seize political power in order to place the national economy as well as society on its intended path to development.