After writing for 17 years and politically concerned for 35 years, I have experienced a reality that we hear about but often quickly forget – that public opinion is fickle. It does not cease to amaze me just how fickle, especially when the issues involved are clear examples of the battle between good and evil, or right and wrong. When the wind blows another way, what had been largely denounced as wrong or evil, whether it be the plunder of national resources or causing the murder and torture of many, seem to be easily forgotten, forgiven, or both.
Reflecting on this phenomenon, I can only reach the conclusion that, indeed, there is a blur in our judgment of what is right or wrong; worse, there seems to be a shallow conviction that we are truly for what is right and against what is wrong. That is why the rule of law is, at best, shaky and temporary. What is more enduring are the familial and social relationships we have, especially those we greatly value. Between right and wrong can come that factor of personal relationships that can dramatically color our views and our choices. And even when we are able to transcend the value of relationships for the principles of law or ethics, delays in the justice system can influence or change our minds.
The rule of law, then, can seem like a theory more than a practice. What makes matters worse is that our jails and prisons are overflowing, a fact that points to some success in the justice system and the rule of law. The perception, though, is that high-profile cases and personalities can drag on indefinitely, that the wheels of justice can be greased to speed up or slow down, and that there is a dual system in place – one for the rich and powerful, the other for the rest of the population. The latter appears to work better while the former is erratic and undependable. Unfortunately, one high profile case that does not exemplify speedy and fair justice is more influential in forming our judgment of the justice system versus thousands of cases we never get to know about.
What did we expect anyway? History is quite unkind to the rule of law and replete with the reality of entitlement that has always defined the ruling family or class, the 1% or less of the world. Human communities and societies were born and bred under the format where the strongest rule, not the law. In fact, the laws have always been created by the strongest and skewed to help the rulers govern more effectively.
Revolutions changed the landscape of history, of course, only revolutions. But behavioral patterns are the slowest to change, and the genetic history of mankind had been too long used to the strongest ruling everyone else. Democracy as envisioned and experimented in modern history remains a great struggle. At every serious threat, the instinct is to return to conservatism, fascism and bigotry. Democracy thrives when the atmosphere is progressive and creative but shrinks when fear overtakes society. When enough fear grips us, we look for protectors, for warriors. We do not insist on our rights, we insist on the greater power of our protectors over the threats we face.
It is a difficult time for democracy today. Its champions from the West are all facing uncertainty and becoming defensive more than visionary. Developing countries that were once so eager to try democracy instead of dictatorship and autocracy are now ambivalent, as evidenced by their insistence on the harsher implementation of old, conservative laws. The America that once stood against monarchies in favor of ordinary citizens having the opportunity to build their dreams now speaks of building a wall – against a people from whom they took huge portions of ancestral domains. Several Western Europe countries are challenged by waves of refugees from countries with serious contrasts in culture, and they, too, are thinking of keeping more people from coming in.
In ASEAN, programmed moves for integration are underway. This is a welcome though opposite direction from the containment attitude that very developed countries are starting to have. There are not many flash points among ASEAN member states except terrorism from radical elements and China’s claims of islands already considered by select ASEAN countries as their own. From that macro perspective where ASEAN states are trying to become closer to one another, we are doing much better as a region. That is also why China’s grabbing of contested territory and adverse claims on other islands that we also claim as ours are sharp and big bones in our throat.
I am elated by the good economic showing that the Philippines continues to achieve. That is proof of resiliency. After all, President Duterte and his style of leadership is a major disruption. His war on drugs is ultra-controversial but tolerated by most and even approved by many who have long and silently agonized with fear at the danger that illegal drugs bring to families and communities. A renewed offensive against the drug trade will show whether the PNP can control its ranks, or even cleanse itself of rogue policemen. The performance of the PNP is an important barometer of the overarching promise of Duterte to go all out against corruption. If the PNP can be corrupted by the drug trade, so will other agencies and institutions.
More challenges and opportunities are with us today. The move to amend the Constitution or frame a new one, the proposed shift to federalism whose final form remains unknown to most, the pending BBL, the aborted peace talks with the Left, the China and America dynamics in the South China Sea and the Philippines, radicalism and terrorism, all these cry for resolution. But I believe that the most important is the historical curse of poverty because this one cancer afflicts tens of millions. We fear drastic change, but the poor deeply wish for it. Whom will destiny favor?