Flying High

The first part of the study consists of an extensive introduction to and discussion of the ‘proceduralist’ paradigm through which Habermas proposes to uphold the normative demands of democracy. The second part analyzes certain provisions of the present Philippine constitution with the aim of evaluating actual political practice against the normative model, while immediately recognizing that the majority of citizens in any modern democracy are actually excluded from the area of law-making, which makes for citizens’ alienation from their political representatives.

Even so, Habermas’s theoretical context can provide a basis to critique and remedy shortcomings and recognize the potential that must be maximized within Philippine society so that it may flourish as a truly democratic country. In order to achieve this ambition, the study focuses on the interrelationship between law and democracy, since the two require each other to buttress their claim to legitimacy. The rule of law is legitimate when it is anchored in a radical democracy, while democracy is legitimate when the autonomy of the citizenry is secured through the medium of law.

This ambition has been given shape in the book’s fourth section, ‘Bridging the divide between rhetoric and practice’, that summarizes the hoped-for practicalities of the Constitution of 1987 as (a) enforcing the rule of law sans exceptions; (b) the system of initiative and referendum; (c) the party-list system; (d) civil society and non-government organizations; and (e) local government autonomy and decentralization.

With the above as its program and ambition, there is no cause for wonder that the reader will soon find himself marooned on an island of dissertational grandiloquence, while craving for a hold in the real world. The author, too, is aware of losing sight of actual social constraints and practice, and so added an after-thought, ‘Building a culture for a democratic way of life’.

Coming down to terra firma?
The author begins the short section with immediately taking refuge behind “the interplay between culture and democracy is not really within the purview of this book”, which may be the excuse for rather loose reasoning. However this may be, he begins with introducing the debate that, on the one hand, argues that democracy does not sit well with Asian conceptions of hierarchy and moral inequality, whereas, on the other, democratic regimes are desired by ‘the people’. To score this latter point, we are fed the familiar myth of ‘people power’ at EDSA in February 1986 – the uprising began in the army upon which Marcos built – followed by similar examples from Thailand (1992) and China (1989) that all “indicate that the most essential values of democracy form part of people’s deepest aspirations”. Well, I would buy this for the Boston Tea Party, but not for the storming of the Bastille and umpteen further uprisings that erupted because people were fed-up with the way they were lorded over. These were protests, not programs, and were certainly not reflective of democratic ideals.

The author seems to agree when he steps back to “the cultivation of a democratic way of life that encourages and sustains meaningful citizen participation”. Having a fine constitution and a people-friendly legal framework are not enough; these must be complemented by a political culture transformed “from that of the populist, personalistic, and individualistic into that of citizens who are equally conscious of the collective or social interest”. Upon mentioning the popular values that stand in the way of the ideal, such as mentioned in the meanwhile thirty-year-old Moral Recovery Program, we are treated to the Program’s recommendation of qualities that should be built in order to achieve moral recovery, such as patriotism and national pride, a sense of the common good, a sense of integrity and accountability, the values of discipline and hard work, and of self-reflection and analysis.

According to our PhD-candidate, social reconstruction can be accomplished in view of the fact that the Philippines was one of the first to challenge the colonial master, then attempted to establish a republican democratic order (sic), and that Philippine society has been immersed in the democratization process for well over a hundred years now (sic). With so much unworldliness, we are back to the thin air of a dissertation exercise of a prof telling a student, etc., because in testing ideals against practice – consult www.getrealphilippines.com! – we’ll find that political culture has not changed, and that it will remain so as long as the ways of family life and socialization result in the low individuation of the individual personality and limits the mental horizon to those who are personally known, while shying away from scaling the heights to see the splendor of a democratic horizon.

Hora est!