james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 20 May 2009 Issue (Page F-4)

---

I stumbled upon the words “synthetic democracy” last weekend, while running through my daily digest of news websites and articles. It was in an article entitled “Puno: Oligarchs still rule,” which dealt mainly with some remarks the Chief Justice made during the launch of the Moral Force Movement last Friday night.

I decided to google it. The article aside, I found two other directly related links. The first was a political psychology paper whose abstract was enough to make my brain bleed. The second was an amusing video skit satirizing democracy, though the point is radically different from what Puno was trying to stress. It doesn’t seem to be a defined term in any field of study, but the way he said it, it may well have been a real one.

He used the words “synthetic democracy” to point out what could happen if we didn’t elect the right leaders. I think it could be used to describe the unique problem our country faces.

According to Merriam-Webster, ’synthetic’ is used to describe something that involves the nature of synthesis, or the process of combining separate elements to form a coherent whole, as in chemistry or philosophy. It can also used to describe something artificial or counterfeit, from and can be used to form negative connotations. In both senses, the term ’synthetic democracy’ is perfectly accurate.

Our democracy is founded on the principles of fairness and equality. It is thus designed to maximize the participation of its members, all of whom having different, even conflicting interests. In other words, our political system is designed to be the sum of its parts, where all people’s interests are protected, reconciled, or heard out, at the very least. By its very nature, our democracy is synthetic, striving to combine several distinct groups and interests to form a civilized, ordered society that functions for the good of its members.

But when we look at which parts are integrated, and to what extent, our system exposes itself for what it really is—a machine that has been re-engineered to serve the interests of those who have the resources and know-how to operate it.

It starts with the people who are allowed to participate in the political game. The government is the territory of the trapos, who see their positions not as an instrument of public will, but as a business or career venture to further cement their own wealth and status. The field is dominated by those who have entrenched themselves so deeply in the system that they have become powerful enough to control its’ workings. These people, of course, have no interest in changing this state of affairs, for they would have something to lose.

These distorted values, in turn, have created the culture in which our system operates. Politicians are encouraged to enact policies or lobby for interests which ensure that they also benefit. Deals and alliances are only made on the expectation that the spoils will be shared. Newcomers who enter the system are either indoctrinated or forced to depart.

Conversely, there is no incentive to act differently. Constituents are almost always relatively powerless against their representatives, who can use a variety of different means to silence their critics. And if they resort to the law, it is always easy to manipulate the law. Or to “remind” those who control it that they benefit by protecting you.

When it comes to the public, the same mindset operates. Policies and regulations favor the highest bidders. This is evident when we take a look at the interests that our governments protect, prioritize, and pander to: the land-owners, the foreign multinational companies, those who own the commanding heights of the economy. As for those who are not blessed with either name, riches, or connections, their interests are often deemed secondary, especially when up against interests more powerful than theirs. There is no incentive to help the lower classes because the lower classes can’t contribute to the politician’s pocket.

Unfortunately, many of us belong in that segment.

Our country is governed by a synthetic democracy. The system is designed to maximize the benefits of the privileged members, who have different, even conflicting, interests from the many who are not. It is the sum of its parts, with some parts being larger than the others. It combines several distinct groups and interests to form a society that functions for the good of the few.

What our country has is a democracy that has been deprived of its essence. What we have been left with is a democratic system that has lost sight of its goals and principles, an animated body that has been deprived of its soul—a zombie of democracy.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 15 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

The state of literal and moral corruption in Philippine politics has worsened so much that it has become necessary for civil society to point out the obvious.

It is a lot like having a friend who has the habit of picking his nose in public: while both of you (supposedly) understand that it’s unpleasant, you would never tell him that he is wrong to his face, but at some point it will gross you out enough to make you snap and point out that it is unsightly.

Thus, in the spirit of pointing out bad habits, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has assembled various credible members of different social sectors to form a Moral Force Movement—a League of Extraordinarily Upright Gentlemen, if you will. Their mission is to “focus on defining and electing transformational leaders in the coming 2010 elections,” and “to stop moral decadence.” And in the interests of keeping his Justice League credible and apolitical, he has told politicians to “lay off” his movement.

Sadly, I find this interesting for all the wrong reasons.

To begin with, this is not the first time we have called for a ‘moral revolution.’ In fact, they have happened before: we’ve had two People Powers, maybe three, depending on how you feel about the Erap administration. The first one was initiated primarily by the call of the Church, and the second was inspired by political gestures. The common element is that people already knew what was wrong, and were sick of it; they just needed someone to point out that the government was proverbially picking its nose.

Since then, we have put in place two female Presidents, the first of whom was an icon of virtue, but eventually lost her persuasive moral power after being involved in too much politics. She would also prove, retrospectively, that the most upright people don’t necessarily make for the best presidents. The second one is an icon of… never mind.

We have since also had a priest who ran successfully for governor—and has now declared his intentions to run for the presidency. Recently, we have had numerous bishops and civil society groups call for moral change, the latest manifestation of which is the literal Justice League led by the Chief Justice. Some movements succeed, and some don’t.

Another thing that rubs me is this whole notion of defining ‘transformational leaders.’ On the more obvious level, I believe it is unrealistic, since good leaders are more effectively identified than they are defined. Any list of important ideal characteristics inevitably fall short when measuring true-to-life leaders. Besides, it is largely a matter of image.

Which leads me to the less obvious point: definitions can be politicized. Considering how predatory our media and political culture can get, associations to particular public figures will inevitably appear. When this happens, it will either be that this movement loses its credibility, or that we elect the candidates who emerge victorious in the ensuing publicity contest.

This is why it was important for Chief Justice Puno to swear off his ambitions for the presidency in 2010. If he didn’t, I would have been suspicious of this movement. And even then, our current President has taught us that you can never trust someone who declares that he or she is not running in an election.

Finally, I question: assuming that people jump on the bandwagon, how much of an impact can it make on our choices in the next election? I am inclined to believe that genuine changes will be superficial. Change will happen in the way candidates market themselves: they will try to show that they live up to the standards. But this is what candidates do in each election, so it is only the variables of their campaign strategy that will be different.

Even that is an optimistic projection: guns and money talk louder than a list of standards do.

In light of these doubts, I find their choice of name ironic. The term ‘moral force’ has always been used to describe an efficient incentive, or a positive motivational influence. But the biggest moral force in our country has been calling for moral revolutions for as long as I can remember, and they seem to have lost enough touch for a new movement to step in. And even then, I’m not sure that the movement is an efficient incentive or a positive influence. At worst, I can see them being efficient incentives for negative influences.

Belief in superheroes is absurd because superheroes don’t exist. But I guess someone has to play the superhero, if no one else will.