How do we make choices?
by: Fr. Ranhilio Aquino
Because I am not convinced that the Commission on Elections has been in earnest about addressing the many issues related to the use of the precinct count optical scan machines and has instead expended resources on such ill-advised, ill-fated moves like the “bank ban” of which the Supreme Court would not hear anything, I am boycotting the elections. I protest the obduracy of Sixto Brillantes; I protest the insensitivity of Comelec to the plethora of objections to the PCOS machines; I protest its cavalier dismissal of all proposals at “hybridizing” the election process as unworthy of its consideration.
But how, in fact, do we make our choices? Unsuitable candidates have won public office on the basis of sympathy, or because of the Pinoy’s propensity to side with the underdog — or with one who pictures himself to be the hapless victim of every conceivable wrong. Candidates for the House of Representatives promise tangible projects, and they are aped by candidates for the local “sanggunians”. But a congressman is supposed to participate in the process of writing law. Yet we hardly ever ask about a candidate’s capacity to conceive of alternatives to the existing social order, to embody these concepts in draft legislation, to debate and to doggedly pursue his vision to legislative fruition. Similarly, we expect the members of our local sanggunians to keep the peace, pave our streets, light our dark alleyways and apprehend criminals — matters better left to the Punong Barangay or the barangay tanod and to the city engineer. Seldom, if ever, do we ask whether they can propose ordinances and support them with sound argument. So it is that we elect clowns and choose smiling candidates only newly emerged from illiteracy!
by: Fr. Ranhilio Aquino
Because I am not convinced that the Commission on Elections has been in earnest about addressing the many issues related to the use of the precinct count optical scan machines and has instead expended resources on such ill-advised, ill-fated moves like the “bank ban” of which the Supreme Court would not hear anything, I am boycotting the elections. I protest the obduracy of Sixto Brillantes; I protest the insensitivity of Comelec to the plethora of objections to the PCOS machines; I protest its cavalier dismissal of all proposals at “hybridizing” the election process as unworthy of its consideration.
But how, in fact, do we make our choices? Unsuitable candidates have won public office on the basis of sympathy, or because of the Pinoy’s propensity to side with the underdog — or with one who pictures himself to be the hapless victim of every conceivable wrong. Candidates for the House of Representatives promise tangible projects, and they are aped by candidates for the local “sanggunians”. But a congressman is supposed to participate in the process of writing law. Yet we hardly ever ask about a candidate’s capacity to conceive of alternatives to the existing social order, to embody these concepts in draft legislation, to debate and to doggedly pursue his vision to legislative fruition. Similarly, we expect the members of our local sanggunians to keep the peace, pave our streets, light our dark alleyways and apprehend criminals — matters better left to the Punong Barangay or the barangay tanod and to the city engineer. Seldom, if ever, do we ask whether they can propose ordinances and support them with sound argument. So it is that we elect clowns and choose smiling candidates only newly emerged from illiteracy!
There is a very interesting difference in view between Habermas and Posner on the matter of law-making. Habermas thinks that popular will-formation—that discussion of issues that takes place among citizens (whether in street-corners, in barbershops or in more formal convocations) should be “verticalized” in the debates of a legitimately constituted Legislature. Law-making by the chambers of parliament or of Congress will then be permeated by what Habermas argues to be the juris-generative communicative action of all who will be affected by the laws. Debate is to be fostered, never stiffled, and the basic human right is the right to participate in that discourse by which legitimate law (that is not a redundancy!) is enacted. The sole basis of legitimacy is rational consensus, and this cannot be achieved even by the adoption of the rule of the majority that, in Habermas’ thought, is, at best, a provisional method of resolving a pressing matter, subject to further debate and discourse when circumstances are more felicitous.
Posner for his part is skeptical about discourse. Debate only highlights differences, and when these are intractable, there is no hope for a resolution of issues on the basis of that elusive consensus born out of rationality. Rather, the average citizen, a self-interested individual in Posner’s estimation, trusts his legislators, themselves self-interested, to enact the laws, and trusts in the process by which laws are enacted. When they do not meet up to expectations, they are fired by the people after a fixed term, generally short. In the Philippine setting, it is no longer clear whether it is a matter of citizens trusting the system and those who run it, or simply not caring. The debates of the long-lost Athenian democracy and the long gone New England communities are no longer possible, if one relies on them for governmental action, Posner believes. Very incisively, he points out that the US Constitution does not provide for the right to vote (it does provide for elections, of course, but not the right to participate in them!). Paradoxically, Posner observes that “mistrust of democracy” is inscribed in the American constitution as reflected in the “separation of powers” provisions as well as the overlap of powers — the President as commander-in-chief versus Congress’ exclusive power to declare a state of war.
How do we make our choices in this country? There are hardly any debates. The television shows that featured senatorial candidates were largely a parody of what political debates ought to be. Many of the questions were show-biz fare, more than anything else, and we had a good dose of platitudes and motherhood statements, and those who fielded questions were often more suited for beauty pageants than for eliciting divisive answers to really tough questions. The candidates did not, it seems, have the stomach for head-on cerebral collisions and in fact preferred to appear like “amigos” while in the spotlight, only to resume slandering each other in the vilest of terms at their “mitings de avance”. I have no idea what our Congress will look like when it opens in June, but it will probably be more of what we have already had before, with more than a sprinkling of fools and nincompoops all elected to high office by the sovereign Filipino people.
I have not answered the question how we make our choices, because truly, I am confounded by what we do during elections and how we choose!
Posner for his part is skeptical about discourse. Debate only highlights differences, and when these are intractable, there is no hope for a resolution of issues on the basis of that elusive consensus born out of rationality. Rather, the average citizen, a self-interested individual in Posner’s estimation, trusts his legislators, themselves self-interested, to enact the laws, and trusts in the process by which laws are enacted. When they do not meet up to expectations, they are fired by the people after a fixed term, generally short. In the Philippine setting, it is no longer clear whether it is a matter of citizens trusting the system and those who run it, or simply not caring. The debates of the long-lost Athenian democracy and the long gone New England communities are no longer possible, if one relies on them for governmental action, Posner believes. Very incisively, he points out that the US Constitution does not provide for the right to vote (it does provide for elections, of course, but not the right to participate in them!). Paradoxically, Posner observes that “mistrust of democracy” is inscribed in the American constitution as reflected in the “separation of powers” provisions as well as the overlap of powers — the President as commander-in-chief versus Congress’ exclusive power to declare a state of war.
How do we make our choices in this country? There are hardly any debates. The television shows that featured senatorial candidates were largely a parody of what political debates ought to be. Many of the questions were show-biz fare, more than anything else, and we had a good dose of platitudes and motherhood statements, and those who fielded questions were often more suited for beauty pageants than for eliciting divisive answers to really tough questions. The candidates did not, it seems, have the stomach for head-on cerebral collisions and in fact preferred to appear like “amigos” while in the spotlight, only to resume slandering each other in the vilest of terms at their “mitings de avance”. I have no idea what our Congress will look like when it opens in June, but it will probably be more of what we have already had before, with more than a sprinkling of fools and nincompoops all elected to high office by the sovereign Filipino people.
I have not answered the question how we make our choices, because truly, I am confounded by what we do during elections and how we choose!