Third Eye on the Third World

The Philippines is flopping around like a fish out of water, it is sailing aimlessly like a ship without a rudder. Do I make my point?

When you read the initiatives of the Arroyo administration, you are reading nothing more than a semi-sweet sounding campaign platform that has been used by every socialist/wealth redistributing politician around the world since the 19th century. The word “poverty” is mentioned over and over and the implication is that poverty is like a physical ailment that one only needs to buy the right medicines or get the right treatment and the patient becomes cured.

And of course, the drugs and the doctors are not cheap so the “not-impoverished” must pay the bill.

I would assume that President Arroyo in her own mind believes that she has created a vision, not only for her own presidency, but also for the Philippines as it inevitably marches down the time path into the future.

Unfortunately, she is wrong. That may be the fundamental problem with the Philippines as a nation. The country does not have an ideal. It has never been given a clear and long-term vision by its leaders.

Nation states are not born; they are created. The founders birthed the United States on the ideal that a government could stand through the wishes and by the powers of the people rather than through a monarchy. France’s rebirth differed slightly in that the nation formed on the premise that all classes of people, not just the nobility, should have a say in the state. Singapore, created first as a part of an independent Malaysia and then as a small city-state nation, believed that a contradictory multi-cultural nation with no territory and no resources could thrive if all shared a common discipline. Even the basis of modern China is the complex vision of Mao Tse-Tung of a unified nation without regional factionalism while still dealing with his great distrust of centralization and bureaucracy.

The Philippines was ill-fated to have an aborted first independence and then to have more or less been kicked out of the American house after the ravages of World War II with little more than the proverbial “clothes on its back”. There was no vision other than a desire to be an independent nation. Quezon’s “Rather have a Philippines run like hell by Filipinos than a Philippines run like heaven by the Americans" does not quality as a useful nation building ideal. Nevertheless, that may be all that we have ever had.

Poverty reduction is a government, perhaps even a national aspiration. That is not the founding principle of a nation or the reason for being. In other words, why is the Philippines a sovereign nation other than simply not to be part of another sovereign country? What do we stand for? At some point in our nation life, we need a leader to define this for the country. We need to clarify our identity and goals as a nation. Even out much flaunted “People Power” has become nothing more than an extra-constitutional way of removing (or trying to remove) a government rather than an ideal of participatory democracy under oppressive conditions.

I know that it may seem like an impractical point to worry about our national purpose while fighting the daily grind. However, one of the major problems facing the Philippines is permanent migration. One man I know who is my age remains the only one of his classmates still in the Philippines. Forget the excuses of martial law, bad economy, etc. Hello! Most people stay in their home nation or at least WANT to remain citizens of their own country. Sure, they may feel economic opportunities lie abroad but their heart stays at home. Often, not so the Philippines.

Look at some national mottos. United States; “In God We Trust”-not the King. Panama: “For the Benefit of the World”. “Onward Singapore”. "Only Unity Saves the Serbs". South Africa: "Diverse people unite". Soviet Union: "Workers of the world, unite!". I especially like Luxemburg: "We want to stay what we are". The Philippines: “For God, People, Nature and Nation”.

What a wonderful thought. But what does that have specifically to do with the Philippines, past, present, or future or the place of a Filipino in the nation?

It is easier for a young, idealistic nation to define and establish its identity and goals for itself and as they relate to its position on the world scene. However, even very mature nations know and re-establish their place from time to time. Look at the historic changes in Europe over the last decade.

“It is always the same: once you are liberated, you are forced to ask who you are” and "The value of identity of course is that so often with it comes purpose”.

The Philippines needs leading into the future with a clear purpose in mind. We have no national purpose other than to survive; even the cockroach lives life with that sort of purpose. The nation and the people are starving for national leaders who are competent. No leader is competent who does not know where they are leading to or for what purpose they are leading.