The golden rule

Throughout both ancient and modern history, the aphorism that exhorts all human beings how to behave properly with and among other people has been often cited by parents, elder, teachers, and those who are considered gatekeepers of a culture’s traditions. This exhortation on proper social behavior has been passed through so many generations as “the golden rule.” All of us remember how we are to “treat others in the same way we expect them to treat us.” In school, one poster says this: “Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.”

The golden rule in social behavior reminds us of a social belief that whatever we do will always go back to us in a manner that may be similar to how other people behave in our presence. Many older folk consider this as one’s “gaba” (Cebuano Visayan) which translates roughly to the Buddhist or Hindu belief in “karma”—that an action or deed always triggers certain consequences. If one does something good for others or for society, such action will have positive or rewarding consequences in the near or distant future. But if one does something socially unacceptable or even causes harm to others, he or she is bound to receive “bad karma,” or gaba, like being afflicted with a deadly disease or being unlucky in his or her business transactions.

But such social beliefs are challenged when we witness present socioeconomic and political realities in the country, and even in other parts of the world.

The exhortation to behave properly so we are perceived by others to be an upright or law-abiding citizen seems to have been replaced by the desire to get ahead in life, whatever it takes. That desire is usually measured in terms of acquiring wealth and power, and of ensuring that such precious elements needed to “get ahead in life” will be sustained in one’s lifetime, and in the lifetimes of his or her descendants.

Such a worldview is evident among our top political families, whose patriarchs and matriarchs have ensured that they will lay down the path of their longevity in both local and national politics. While we are not a monarchy like the United Kingdom, we have created a system that has allowed “succession” privileges for the offspring of our national, regional, and local political leaders, like these are positions based on hereditary succession. The Philippine political infrastructure has engendered this system of allowing political dynasties to hold sway in both local and national elections, and it is so entrenched in the system—it has become like the sticky phlegm of a pneumonia patient that is quite difficult to extirpate.

The currency of socioeconomic and political behavior of our leaders and those who are entrusted with the mandate of managing government institutions is no longer the ideal of treating others well so that they will reciprocate such actions to their colleagues or friends. Instead, it is showing off to the whole world they have access to enormous wealth and power. The more wealth they flaunt, the more people they influence since they use these items of great material wealth to create a throng of sycophants who cling to them like leeches.

Sycophantic relationships are made possible by political lords and warlords because they have billions of pesos in their numerous bank accounts including material wealth like top-of-the-line facilities, vehicles, and vacation places that show everyone their opulent lifestyles. Such items of material wealth are enough to dazzle those who have only seen deprivation in their impoverished lives. And these can blind the poor sycophants into the illusion of being as rich as their masters.

Gold—like monetary gold—is the currency of these relationships. The gold that these political lords have made them powerful enough to become the rulers of society, dictating what they believe is right—giving rise to a new version of the golden rule: They who have the gold rule. The rule of law is no longer the essence of a society ruled by those who have the gold. Instead, we are subjects to the rule or law of the rulers who are the franchise holders of power.

We see this rule being upheld by those who are given money by huge syndicates of illegal gambling, Philippine offshore gaming operators, and human trafficking who have the money to make police officers and other security agents blind, mute, and deaf. We see these in how keepers of the law justify why some people—with incontrovertible evidence of their guilt—continue to remain free, all because of the phrase “due process.” There is due process for those who can stack up paper bills on the eyes and mouths of the keepers of the law. But the poor do not get the same due process privilege—they don’t even have the gold to keep themselves alive.

—————–

Comments to [email protected]