AS Holy Week was celebrated with less than a month before the May national and local elections, we may have pondered deeper into the fervent divisions and conflict of human thoughts and ideas that are the foundation of society and our identities. Who are we? Who do we identify with? What do we want to be? What primary rights and freedoms do we hold dear to our hearts and wish to fully recognize with the rest of the population and the world? What kind of a world do we want our children and the next generations to live in?
There are contending approaches to answer these questions. One stream is to reflect on our history and past mistakes, admit to our weaknesses and human limitations, and collectively build on positive and universal values (responsible exercise of freedom, human rights, elimination of all forms of discrimination, promotion of equality and equal opportunities) that are believed to transcend and apply to every global citizen. This requires constant study and historical reflection, building a consensus on the lessons learned, and constructing common identities to be proud of, but also admitting shameful and dark events that invoke painful memories to those who were affected. This is a very difficult process. From an individual’s view, this is a discernment process of deep reflection of knowing the self, admitting sins and human weaknesses that may have hurt others, then building on positive human values of compassion, understanding, and the will to live happily despite life’s imperfections. A popular adage as a summary is to continuously find the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
The second approach is critical of this contemplative process of building consensus and universal human values. The criticism is anchored against building an introspective conscience that makes one feel guilty and lacking. The argument is that this guilt processing unreasonably burdens the person and communities of a bygone past, and, in effect, restricts their freedom to define who they are. The other critical point is that universally accepted human values that are not locally rooted undermine the pride and identities of the local population. Thus, populism’s approach is to cultivate popular beliefs, practices, and thought processes of the population on value formation. Conservatives often also invoke usual practices and tradition and are not open to critical theories citing the dangers of shaking the usual foundations of faith and beliefs.
These different ways of answering the questions above animate today’s debate, divisions, and social conflicts. The political right groups and parties in Europe and the US struggle to do away with conscience and denial of past responsibilities such as the Holocaust, slavery, racism, and plunder and conquests of colonies. The denial extends to climate change, science of human evolution, Covid-19, and vaccines. Conservative nationalists also implore patriotic sentiments against the denigration of what was supposed to be a glorious imperial past that subjugated and killed thousands.
Is the Philippines undergoing such a schism of ideas and thought processes? I think so, in some degree. The post-Edsa political movement’s narrative can generally be summarized into two: one that continually believes and nurtures the liberal democratic ideals and values promoted during the anti-Marcos dictatorship struggle that culminated in the Edsa revolution; and two, the opposite values and ideals of what is known locally as “Singapore envy” depicting a desire for a strong disciplinarian and
authoritarian leadership for the country and the economy to develop.
The first stream is reflective of our recent history. The second is hijacked and manipulated by populist and authoritarian politicians. History is being revised to suit the political ambitions of an elite few by turning what was mostly apolitical and uncritical majority of the population into believers of false information and twisted narratives. With only modest economic growth and development achieved in the last 30 years post-Edsa, every frustration felt by struggling sectors of the population was an opportunity to debunk what was achieved in the anti-Marcos dictatorship struggle in the past.
There is a cultural divide of these two streams. The liberal stream believes in critical study and reflection finding objectivity, recognizing, and limiting personal bias in the thought process to arrive at a conclusion. On the other hand, the second stream is being manipulated by nurturing their very biases as foundational towards arriving at a conclusion. The first is prone to a long and difficult process of discernment and is rewarded by their firm belief and conviction at the end. The second is prone to confirmation bias and emotionally driven sentiments and choices. The first can drive a revolution while the second can win elections being the base of a populist and authoritarian leadership to thrive.
Mr. Joselito T. Sescon is Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics of Ateneo de Manila University.