Is it for a "Reformist Orderism?" or a "Partyless Democracy?"

Is it for a "Reformist Orderism?" or a "Partyless Democracy?"

(notes from someone who adheres to authoritarianism
while preaching democratic processes)

At one time this person read some posts of a young commentator in a known social media site. Mostly long tracts full of appeals to "reform", he seems to be clinging to the idea that there are chances of national renewal through state institutions be it through lobbying "concerned" lawmakers to those of "critically" favouring actions done by the executive; sounds too ideal for him as he tries to be pragmatic when it comes to dealing with such affairs, using terms such as "balance between the masses and the elites", of state acting as an arbiter or a referee, if not trying to create a "catch-all policy" that could benefit everyone "for the good of the country".

However, in reading his notes, this person finds him contradicting, ranging those from "advocating a domestic-based industrialisation programme" and "instilling nationalism and protecting national patrimony" while at the same time "favours unhampered flow of foreign investment" and "the right for foreigners to take over utilities"; or "supports freedom of expression" while "calling for imprisonment for those who blaspheme", interestingly annoying.

But one post that find this person note-able is his appeal to institutionalism, if not legalism as part of democracy, and an ideal vehicle of change; he sees that social change can, or must be through legal channels and institutions be it government departments, legislators, and the courts; and most if not some of which notes are intending to "knock at the heart" of every official to make things efficient if not make amends; a "change from above" so to speak. 

One example would be how President Duterte done a presidential proclamation ordering to end contractualisation. The commenter did praise his act thinking that contractualisation is illegal and therefore it has to be resolved, if not insisted that the president hath to prod Congress to pass a law on ending contractualization that would balance the interests of employers and employees.
But whether there's a presidential proclamation ordering contractualisation to end or there should be a law done by interest-seeking legislators, did that illegal act really end or just compelled by an action outside Malacañang to make it illegal? There are actions brought about by the striking workers insisting that they should be regularised, but, did the law regularised them? Instead they end being truncheoned what more that they are maligned as subversives and therefore be punished by law! Ironically, it is under the labour code that workers hath the right to strike, so is the commenter recognise that saidth right? Or still suggesting that it has to be resolved through government authorities no mattwr how most of them are kowtowing to entrenched entities with vested interests?

From his suggestion it appears to be "Rizalian" in a way he favors the personhood of Crisostomo Ibarra, or Isagani and Señor Pasta in "Noli me Tangere" over those of Simoun and Cabesang Tales in "El Filibusterismo", insisting the idea of peaceful reform in a time people demand for action; however, the difference between what this writer sought and those from Rizal was the latter recognised the struggle by any means necessary as he himself, despite favouring reform, doesn't mean he disagreed altogether the idea of direct action as Bonifacio advocated (but instead create conditions according to some historians); while the latter commenter rather clings to the idea that there is no need for mass action, let alone the legisators or the president do their work according to their promises, or limit people's actions to those of lobbying and negotiations concluding with compromises enough to appear "win-win" for the government and its subjects.

Thus, it wouldn't be surprising from the commenter that he insists stability while accommodating some certain changes enough to please people. Otherwise, that person would have been desired a "democracy" that has to be "orderly" like what Marcos Loyalists, Duterte fanatics, and even Yellows adhere for; but following their views, that order isn't democratic at all but corporatist as it follows a traditional Family structure, wherein instead of constituents, a citizen is but a subject to a higher being similar to a father to his children, and while granted the privilege (rather than right) to vote and enjoy some semblance of expressions, he/she has little participation in decision-making. Or as the elders would say "do not interfere in one's discussion"*

And knowing that these "commons" such as that commenter adheres to order and stability, and at the same time cited the examples of 1896 for an example how a country attains its freedom, a concerned would've rather think if not ask "why not be like the women of Malolos who petitioned the Governor General? Least it was peaceful unlike those of the unruly ones in Balintawak?" Or the pre-EDSA scenarios wherein would cite positive the example of the late Salvador Laurel taking part in the Batasan election as opposed to those of Lorenzo Tanada and Jose Diokno; the latter be deemed as "chaotic" of course, if not useless for it does not achieve anything good for the opposition then.

***

Anyway, for knowing that if people idealise "democracy" as an example of a government suitable for the Philippines, and at the same time adheres, if not clings to an order whose leaders equate their words to laws, perhaps some of these Filipinos would have still cling to that damn word "democracy", but instead of idealising liberal or libertarian democracy with all the elections and brouhaha, they would have settled in just plain, authoritarian, or "organic" kind of "democracy" whose political goal of ultimate order and ultimate harmony brings ultimate freedom- and all that is required of the citizen is to carry out his role that includes obeisance to law and adherence to order and subjected to discipline; as opposed to the other, which posits freedom as something that can and should be achieved by the individual in the short term, even at the expense of things such as material well-being, and sees as an element of this freedom a "freedom from government" wherein the individual is able to exercise "freedom" in his own terms to the extent that they do not contravene the law.

The latter may sound chaotic, especially in a time people end getting angry at stagnant wages and growing inequality have rebelled against established governments and turned to political extremes- that made this person, in assessing that commenter stating, rejects revolution, let alone order and "reform" in that organic democracy.

And speaking of that "organic democracy" men like Manuel Luis Quezon tend to look at it as suitable in Filipino setting- at one time he even described it as a "partyless" variant for he dismisses all parties, regardless of ideology or "principles", due to disgraced leaders if not they “end up invoking the police power against the people….” he even argued that political parties did create partisanship which is incompatible with good government.

From his personal experience, Quezon, who himself a member of the Nacionalista Party, observed that even self-professed patriots were sometimes swayed by party passions, and thus jeopardized public interests for party considerations; he also described that political parties are selfish in character as it seek their own good even at the expense of national interests; and party politics, party opposition, or even party spirit rather cause inefficiency in running state affairs as it delays in the execution of much needed reforms, as well as ineptitude in facing difficult situations.

Otherwise, he idealised the early years of the American occupation, or even during the first republic, wherein:

1.) The governor elected in every province was generally the best man (for during the 1906 elections  political parties had just been newly established and partisan spirit was virtually nonexistent); 

2.) The ones elected to the Assembly were generally the best irrespective of party affiliations (or during the elections of the first Philippine Assembly where most of the people were for immediate independence and, consequently, most of the candidates belonged to the party of the people); and,

3.) “people were elected because of their personal worth and known patriotism and ability, and not because of their loyalty to any party.” (as the initial years of the existence of the U.S. government political parties were not yet organized, if not suppressed as most expressed separatist beliefs.)

Sounds ideal, especially that the late commonwealth president wished "unity" as a nation, if not getting influenced by the leaders from both east and west, trying to syncretise along with Filipino sensibilities (which actually a fusion of east and west too!). He sees himself as a developmentalist cacique, yes, a cacique who tries to update the old order by adopting then-modern views, including those of providing improvement (or bluntly speaking, comfort) to the people in order to lessen if not cut possible dissent.

In fairness, Quezon said:

"If we do away with partisan spirit; if cooperation rather than opposition is made the basis upon which the Government of the Philippines is to cooperate; if liberty is properly understood and practised; and if the aim of government is the well-being of the people as a whole and not of a privileged class, even if it be a property-owning class, then democracy in the Philippines will endure and we shall be able to demonstrate that the natural and the best government of man is the democratic government."

From this perhaps the commenter whom this person got stumbled on his posts would have agreed to this kind of "cooperating" gesture despite appearing to be "opposing" thinking that kind of democracy as "controlled" and be similar to those of Pinochet; if not that trying to insist that the democracy the Philippines has as "better" so long as there are capable administrators than ineffective politicians (when in fact it's vice versa), if not making reforms be aligned with the laws even the laws rather benefited rather those from the few.

***

In reading both the commenter's lobbyist-like statements (which are mostly full of optimism towards the regime) and Quezon's desire for a partyless kind of democracy (which is actually an organic and directed kind of), it seems that yours truly would say that there are people who wanted to see a country whose government has to be purely administrative, orderly, and just enough to represent the people. 

However, it may end impossible in the eyes of many, especially in an order where repression and unjust prevails, or thinking that not all patriots who administer are really patriotic so long as the issue is about the economy (and therefore why not let foreigners having right to exploit "least they benefit us"), or even getting confused after seeing statements such as recognising freedom of religion and expression while insisting that blasphemy has to be illegal and be punished with three years imprisonment under the civil code- what's next? After reading the preamble which says "almighty god" and after listening to the president swearing the words "so help me god" will the Philippines put crucifixes or "the ten commandments" in the courts and in the government offices?

Anwyay, the commenter would hath still trying to deny its own self as an orderist as he tries to profess himself as "for democracy and the rule of law" the way he tries to defend liberalism as "a political philosophy that espouses individual freedoms" and "one of the tenets of democracy in the entire world, not only here in the Philippines." But his so-called "critical collaboration" with a regime known for its adherence to orderism if not his almost admiration for military regimes diminishes his defence for that "liberalism", no matter how he looks at it as necessary to maintain stability.

Or is he prefering an almost-nightwatchman state which the role of the state as to make ensure that the market continues its job on the view that "freedoms" are to be upheld? Apologies for the commenter knowing that his views be worth opposing to those who express the need for a radical change which the present order prefers not to push through despite popular clamour. But reality hath still made people to realise that change is by all means necessary. Lobbying and negotiations can be good means to assert change, so are protest marches, but will people enjoy a watered down version of something that has to resolved? For this no wonder why protests happen, if not being subversive is also being patriotic.

Sources:

1940a. The essence of democracy. 16 July. In Partyless democracy. By Ricardo R.Pascual. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1952).
1940b. A partyless in governmentin a democracy. 7 August.In Partyless democracy. By Ricardo R. Pascual. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1952).
1940c. The elimination of partisanship in a democracy, 17 August. In Partyless democracy. By Ricardo R. Pascual. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1952).

*based from the Tagalog saying: "wag kang mangealam sa usapan ng mga matatanda"