This is an article not to serve the peacemakers, or the warmongers. At the core of this, is an article that sets to explain why both of them are wrong...

It’s been a long while.

This makes for one bold understatement, but for a lack of words, they qualify. It has been months since the last article, and one proposing for a comprehensive reform program. It was ambitious, it seemed appealing, and it was radical at best—mostly, it was appealing because it was radical. Blogging began as an outlet where I could express fitfully and completely ideas, ideologies, and idealisms. Many revolutions, understandably, stem from unexpressed energy, and it appeals most to youth because their energies and potentialities have as yet been tapped. They are also drawn to crusades, and the need to set things to what they seem right.

Two things happened, that set off the long interregnum: one, I got a job which served as a new and more productive outlet for creative expression. I pour heart and soul to any endeavor, and in this literary task I poured heart and soul. Understandably, I lost energy and time for blogging. At the same time, I came face to face with an ideological crisis, which contributed to a deepened writer’s block. It was only recently that I came to realize, and pinpoint why.

First of all, I did not listen to my own advice. Jun Lozada, during the then-impressive Interfaith Rally in Makati, asked the following of the demonstrators: “Please do not let be compelled to resist by anger. After the emotion dies down, the cause dies down”. Momentum, and inertia, is best served through solid foundations. This is the lesson of both EDSA 2 (the February Rebellion) and EDSA 3 (the Mayday Rebellion). Under the rhetoric of “accountability” and “healing”, the protesters wanted revenge. Joseph Estrada, and Ramos in his bid to extend his term, seemed to represent an unrequited national and collective need for vengeance for the excesses of Marcos. Souls, and spirits were crushed in those nightmarish twenty years… no matter what it was for (whether to resist the tide of Communism, restoring peace and order, etc.). History books and heroes carried an EDSA that was about setting things right in the Philippines, and maybe some of them had the right idea, but mostly, the context of that demonstration was misunderstood.

Misunderstood, as we see in EDSA 2. If the demonstrations, the days-long encampment in EDSA shrine, was merely to have justice be delivered (i.e., let law and order take its natural course), then Erap’s concession to have the second envelope opened would be enough. If the protests, the massive defections, and the hue and cry of “People Power”, was to bring about a “peaceful transition”, then the drama would have ended in Estrada’s cession of his power. Instead, it continued on in his arrest, his indictment before the Sandiganbayan, carrying on to the Presidency of Gloria Arroyo, and even in the rebellions (civil and military) and calls for ouster against Arroyo. EDSA 2 was borne out of the anger first felt in the EDSA Revolution. The social-political reform envisioned by EDSA is continually being undone by the “spirit of anger” in that same EDSA.

We wanted to hurt Marcos, the Marcos institution, and the Marcos spirit. We were frustrated by his asylum in Hawaii, the acts of defense of Imelda Marcos, and what we felt as the Marcos degeneracy that continued to propagate in EDSA-generation Philippines. It was not because law and order had not been attained, but because we never felt the “peace of vindication”. We were never able to properly “avenge” the stigma of Martial Law. And we saw that in Estrada and even more chronically, in Gloria Arroyo. We do not want for law to take hold, but for the “wicked to be punished” and for “accountability—where leaders suffer for their excesses”, as well as “the collapse of a corrupt, and decadent system of government”. In short, we wanted vengeance.

This is an article not to serve the peacemakers, or the warmongers. At the core of this, is an article that sets to explain why both of them are wrong. Both began as crusaders, generally drawn from the ranks of the youth, farmers whose lives are threatened, members of the laity and clergy whose flock relies on them for guidance, and maybe some laborers who would petition for a better life. At the wings of these are the militant Left, who are driven by an ideology of anger which they feel feeds into the listless mass, and maybe members of the Army, who have been trained for “controlled violence”, anyway. These crusaders fought in EDSA, and probably took to the ranks in EDSA 2, and maybe even cheered the violence of EDSA 3. When their ideas were crushed, when they could not bring in the change and the “setting right of things”, they lost heart and spirit.

This is why many will argue that “many EDSAs have done nothing to change the country”. This is not only a mark of resignation, but of bitterness. At the same time, many would advocate for “revolution, rebellion, and maybe some civil war”. The passive and open anger. Both of them stem from anger, and the frustration of not having to vent their anger.

I will not go on to defend those who would rather let “law take its natural course”. I remember a post which reacted that to take constitutional and extra-constitutional means to “work in the bank and rob it at the same time”. The context is wrong. As Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience once said: “If something is taken from another, he will not content himself with airing his grievance. He will do what is necessary to get it back”. That is the natural course. In the Bible, a negligent judge was nagged into letting justice take place. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. explained that injustice will never willfully and voluntarily cede its power—sometimes civil action, and the extra-constitutional means, is the only way to force negotiation. Time is never on the side of the protester or the crusader. The very nature of a crusade is that everything is against it. The strength of a cause does not lie on how strong it is in the outset—not in the numbers of demonstrators, or the support of the military, or the blessing of bishops—but on its moral foundation: by how objectively right it is.

The peacemakers mistake two systems to be one: the one system admittedly has flaws, but on the whole works. We only seek to “debug the programming”, or to “smooth out the wrinkles”, so to speak. The other system is one that is so totally defective as not to work without harming someone. For example, a productive shoe factory based on child labor is a system that is so defective as to need to be overthrown. A restaurant with bad service is a system that needs mere correcting, that is, to train the waiters to be more courteous, efficient, etc.

The “Cha-Cha advocates”, the Federalists, and the growing, silent revolutionaries and rebels all feed on the unexpressed anger of the EDSA generation, the Sixties of the Philippines. The proposal to overhaul COMELEC, embodied in a collective anger against “Garci” and then “Abalos”, has been driven to such extremes as to propose to do away with the Constitutional Commission itself. The COMELEC has “failed” as an institution, it has “hurt” the People, and has “wearied the patience” of the Nation. These are all expressions of anger. So is the clamor for Gloria’s ouster, together with the phrases “Sobra Na, Tama Na”—the same words expressed first in the Marcos era. This is an anger espoused by the warmongers, who want nothing but to express this long-repressed anger. The Government admittedly has committed many sins: jobs and people have been trammeled on by their “power plays”, and more and more those who serve in its roster feel that the people have more utang na loob for them being in position than the other way around. This is not to mention the many journalists, activists, and priests who have disappeared along the way.

But the most important lesson that the Government seems not to be doing anything to alleviate is to sate the “EDSA anger”. President Arroyo’s “I’m sorry” initially defused the growing anger, and the tactic to draw attention away from their “misdemeanors” distracted and redirected public outrage for the time being. The Government seems content that the “national anger” has simmered to inaction, when it is nothing more than an “embittered resignation”, the feeling of despair. This country needs healing more than it needs a “comprehensive program to reform the corrupt and decadent system that has betrayed the EDSA ideals”. It has to let law take its course, in the form of Senate investigation, and the legion of government agencies specifically tasked for that job, and not to influence it.

At the same time, we must admit the fact that injustice will not correct injustice. The protesters are right in their protest, but not in the cause which they truly espouse and clothe in another form. Injustice will not punish injustice—it is not in its nature. As Martin Luther King pointed out, one has to stand out and resist the injustice in whatever way it can. Not for the fruits of getting justice, but because it is the right thing to do. Christ saw the injustice of the people and did not merely preach peace and love—he upturned the markets in the Temple, condemned the hypocrisy of the priests and lawyers (“do as they say, not as they do”), and defied the system to force the latter to crucify Him. The peacemakers will not agree with him (“Do you think I came here to bring peace to the world?... I will set mother against daughter, father against son…”), and most certainly the warmongers will be frustrated with Him for falling short of rebellion (most certainly Judas was one of these hotheads), and in the end when He was crucified the only persons left with Him were the Apostle John, and his mother.

The example of Christ and King is not to go angrily uprooting every institution that fails, but to “righteously protest” the practices that hurt the people. It is not the very system of tax collection, but the tendency to tax exorbitantly for the collectors (or for whose hands the revenue passes to). More importantly, and this is what makes protest almost impossible (ideally, and in practice), the protester must be willing to resist the injustice and at the same time suffer for their resistance. Christ did not protest His arrest, abuse and execution; King advocated that those who marched in protest must be willing to face arrest, in order to bring to light the defects of the system. Again, in the context of the Bible, when Pilate saw that the People wanted blood, (probably out of that anger) he asked Christ (who he probably believed to be innocent), “Aren’t you going to say anything? I can have you killed. I have power of life and death over you.”

Christ’s answer? “You do not have power over me that was not given to you”. In short, Christ was reforming the institution within and without. The system, for all its defects, was ordained and given power by the People it abuses, and by that right they do have legitimacy. But at the same time, the system needs to be reformed from without, as made example of by Christ, which the Romano-Judaean system railroaded (accidentally and incidentally). By the same example, EDSA needs to reform within (through the legislature, the courts, the police, etc.), and without (through the assemblies, the calls for reform, etc.); it also has to go back to the roots of its purpose: not to settle long-standing accounts, but to make a better order, in order for it not to happen again. The only question is: is the system now one that works, and needs only correction (which nevertheless warrants the defiance of a King) or one that needs a comprehensive “overthrow and replace”?

The biggest mistake is to believe that people cannot be saved. Certainly, it is possible that Gloria will not change, or will never change. Nevertheless, we must call for her to do the right thing. Howl her in the streets, howl her with every year until her last year in office, to do the right thing. They can be saved, and whether or not they will ask to be saved we must strive to save them nevertheless.

The wages of sin are not paid for in sin, but in Love. This may seem a tiring thought, as it is very hard to love your enemies, and it is mostly thankless. As I posted before, this act of Love will never redound and be felt by the lover, if he is seeking for the fruits of its sacrifice. The reward of loving is in the act of loving. Christ gave that answer: He did not lead a mass of rebels and overthrow the “tyranny” of the Sanhedrin, or the “imperialist dictatorship” of Rome. Neither did He just shrug and preach peace. He resisted what He knew was wrong, and died. Painfully.

He felt that despair, too, a despair that brings even the staunchest idealists, and Mother Teresa, to the “dark night of the soul”. The God that brought the rain and the sun remains silent in the wake of the genocide of the millions of Jews under the Holocaust, or the third of Cambodia’s population under the Khmer Rouge. He seems to say “suffer to prove your Love”. That’s one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is: He gave the greatest gifts of life, free will, and love, and gave us so many natural things that we accept fully. So why can't we accept the tragedies? It feels like a tall order, and it is a tall order. Because human nature is averse to great pain, and should be so.

We fight against injustice, and we fight against the tragedies. When Job reprimanded God for letting him suffer so much ignominy when he had been nothing but faithful to Him, and his friends tried to convince him otherwise, God explained the reason to Job and scolded his friends for their errors. It is natural to be angry, just not in the sense that will consume you.

It is so easy to be consumed by anger. Knowing something is defective and out of fear of where it will lead to people you love, you try to set things right in your own way. When that doesn’t work, and can’t work, and in the face of knowing you will fail, that the crusade you know is right will fail, you become angry. At yourself, for failing. At God, for making you so helpless as to fail. At the world, for not understanding.

Stop. Just stop. Anger, and the hatred it builds up, really consumes a person. You are outraged that the person who hurt you seems to live better than you while you claw the ground everyday to vent an insult committed against you, and are miserable for it. Naturally: he’s not consumed by anger, you are. You are angry that for all your efforts, you just can’t seem to change the world, let alone save the people you love. And you cannot trust God for letting things “run its course” because you let it happen before, and you failed and suffered anyway. Do what you can, and if you can do no more, then stop. Crusades don’t win continents in a day; they last for many lifetimes.

The “corrupted” system will not be overhauled in “one giant EDSA”, but in the patient, tiring, almost thankless efforts of its EDSA children. It will not change in one year, or the next year, and it will probably not change for a century. Rome persecuted Christ for more than two centuries, then it was won eventually. We will probably not see reforms come to fruition in our lifetime; cosmic movements are not limited to lifetimes.

Forgiveness and healing, the oft-overlooked and oft-ridiculed Christian virtues, are actually key here. The Interfaith Rally, before it was turned into a “roiling mass of collective anger, then hatred, was meant as an assembly of healing. Prayers for healing. Healing, of course, is not toil to be accomplished in one, two, or even ten years. It’s a lifetime of work, and itself a labor of love. We resist the system!—but not to overthrow—we resist the system to save the people caught within its snares. It’s going to be painful, but we have to accept that we cannot always save or help the people we love, alone, or in some way we know of. Let the world run its course, offer a prayer to God, and live on—not to let go, but to live on.

by Malcolm Martin

http://www.opednews.com

The children are taught that the United States of America is a democracy. As the tale is told, at the founding of the nation, a government “of, by, and for the people” was established. [...]

Then there is consolidation by vertical integration and its heavyweight champion is Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation. Wal-Mart has made a partner of the Chinese government. Working together, the partners have turned China into a vast subsistence-wage labor camp. [...]

f you watch FOX, the reality is filtered through Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp, NBC is General Electric news, CNN is Time/Warner news, ABC brings you into Disney’s world, and Viacom regularly checks the iconic CBS news department to make sure Edward R. Murrow is still dead and buried under a mountain of infotainment. That is when Viacom is not preparing America’s youth for slavery and death through MTV and B.E.T. [...]

The corporations have begun forming their own Praetorian Guard. The massacre of Iraqi civilians and the patrolling of the hurricane ravaged streets of New Orleans have made Blackwater Worldwide, formerly Blackwater USA, the most famous of the rising corporate armies. [...] Read More ...

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Related Links:

• Wal-Mart, the Panther Chameleon and Josef Fritzl
• Pinheads in the House
• “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved . . .”
• In China, stories of children sold for slavery
• Isn’t the “Green Jobs for America” Campaign Fatally Flawed?

RTSF

Look at the tobacco control group, the war on obesity group, the global warming group, MADD, DARE, and a bazillion other so-called "doing good" organizations. They are no longer fighting to protect anyone, they are waging a war to force everyone else to comply with THEIR beliefs.

Then we have the Department of Homeland Security MANDATING National ID Cards - sorry that is exactly what REAL ID is - and embedding them with RFID chips, same with our passports.

Here's the words that keep coming to my mind. You might to want to refresh your vocabulary. We are on the road to one of them. Our Constitutional Republic won't be much longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a concept used in political science that describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Compare with autocracy (rule by one person) and democracy (rule by the majority). Oligarchy is somewhat similar to aristocracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single self-appointed ruler. The term autocrat is derived from the Greek word autocratic (lit. "self-ruler", or to: "rule by one's self"). Compare with oligarchydemocracy (rule by the majority). (literally means rule by the few) and

Today it is usually seen as synonymous with despot, tyrantdictator, though each of these terms originally had a separate and distinct meaning (see their respective articles). and/or

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.^[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism describes a form of social controlobedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measure. Authoritarian regimes are generally considered to be highly hierarchical.

In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom.^{[citation needed]} There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.^{[citation needed]} Usually, an authoritarian government is undemocratic and has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.^{[citation needed]}

EDSA will no longer be about alternative personalities, or parties. It will no longer be about dependence on the individual. It will be something better, more comprehensive. Now you will have something to fight for.

In the Beginning was the Barangay. Named after the ships (balangay) that carried Malayan migrants to Philippine shores and thence among Aeta tribes, the barangay was the microcosm of Malayo-Philippine social structure. Gradually, the communities began to ally themselves with other communities, forming cities. These cities, in turn, either aligned with other cities to make regional kingdoms (as in Mindanao’s sultanates) or remained as city-states with satellites or allies among them. This was the system that existed at the time of Magellan’s arrival. He actually was involved in an regional war between Humabon and Lapu-Lapu.

The barangay, the microcosm of this Malayan structure, has become the core point of the electoral-political reform proposed by the blogger Another Hundred Years Hence (from now on, referred to as AHYH). Using basic Economics and Information Systems as a basis, he began to evolve a revolutionary type of political structure, synthesizing elements of the Federal, decentralized government, centered on the power of the cities, and the Parliamentary system, where the President merely exercises Prime Ministerial power. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Before tackling his points, he first discusses the present problems of the present democratic system.

Part 1: Strangers for Leaders

AHYH pinpointed the center of this problem in what I would term as the “stranger phenomenon.” In the ancient days of Greece, where the city-states ruled, democracy was small-scale and therefore controllable (though Athens itself was a monarchy, and the major philosophers deplored democracy as anarchistic and favored aristocratic rule). Candidates for the Senate came from districts beside each other, and enough people knew of their candidates to have a sizable majority to vote in the election. However, this system didn’t take into account basic social truths: eventually, the population will grow, cities would align themselves to one cause, forming large regions. So, the candidates for public office were now faced with a large electorate mass of thousands, and even millions. A citizen hundreds of miles away could have the power to vote for a candidate—and not know who the candidate is. Even more to the point, the candidates might not even come from their region or city, but principally from the center of power, or the capital (this may be why the democratic system of Rome collapsed the minute citizenship was extended beyond the city, or as the city ballooned in numbers).

“…modern popular elections have 50M voters selecting leaders they will probably never meet in person so the game belongs to the marketers and image keepers…”

These “marketers and image keepers” are actually the mass media, the spin-doctors, and campaign machineries. Naturally, the candidate will try to sell himself off to his electorate, and try to channel his message through this large distance. Obviously, he will use this group of “information channels” which I will now call the “media oligopolies” (though the blogger preferred the term oligopsony).

The immediate effect of this, explained in technical terms, is,

“The information asymmetry in the system is basically a signal vs. noise problem. The large electorate prevents direct one-to-one communication (symmetrical) between candidate and voter. To reach as large an audience as possible (to sway as many voters), the candidate’s message must be amplified through various channels. Inherent in any amplification is distortion, noise and filtering. The fidelity of the signal is further compromised by the adversarial nature of elections. Attack ads, dis- and mis- information campaigns increase the noise in the system apart from the cacophony of multiple messages from multiple sources. Again, both the candidate and the voter (moreso the voter) cede power and control of the communication (and subsequent transaction) to the media channels.”

First, the “media channels” take control. Mass media, as we know it, is a powerful, “persuading” tool. We readily believe what the newspapers, or news programs tell us to believe. Those of us who are skeptical of this journalism will find it hard to discern, and almost immediately doubt our own convictions. Media moguls, and their bureaucracies would color a candidate negatively or positively based on their own interests. The candidates would seek to curry favor with this oligopoly, maybe through bribes, influence or connections. They would field their own “media oligopolies”: the spin-doctors would be the one to try to manipulate these oligopolies through facts and twisted truths, and the campaign machineries would try to market their candidates in a positive light. With the voters having no direct access to the candidates themselves, they will be reduced to depending on these “media oligopolies”. As a result, the roles are reversed: the candidates are now the buyer of the votes, and the voter the seller of them:

“The campaigns basically say “ sell your widget to me, I will give you the best value for your widget.” From the voter’s perspective (the widget maker) the promised payment is better government (or actual financial payoff ) if he sells to the right bulk buyer Because the market is so large, there is a need for middlemen whose job is to aggregate the produce —to assemble the needed volumes of widgets for the buyers who will only buy in bulk. Hence the power of the media, and the campaign professionals and the message shapers and the spinmeisters. They, in essence, aggregate the singular widgets into a majority (or plurality) vote. The vast majority of the widget makers will never meet the bulk buyer in person (they may see them in real life at a large rally) but their selection will be based on the pitch given by the various layers of aggregators (the middle men).”

This, in fact, is the crisis being faced today in the United States: rivaling media networks, local and national newspaper companies, and other forms of media have used their power and influence to tilt the balance of power among candidates. That is why, truthfully, Barack Obama is smelling like a rose while Hillary Clinton has been constantly come under criticism and denunciation (though in Obama’s defense, Clinton fielded her own “market offensives”).

The Philippines has added another option for the candidates: they can try to control the election machinery itself. In fear of another “Marcos” control of barangay-centered plebiscites, the 1987 Constitution tried to reform/overhal the electoral institution that is the Commission on Elections. Added as watchdogs to the COMELEC (as soon as the first instances of fraud started appearing), the Church spearheaded the NAMFREL, using elements of her clergy: nuns, laymen, possibly priests. The candidates, themselves, fielded their own groups to monitor the counting, opportunities to control the counting, and the rivals’ bid to control it themselves. Realizing its preeminent role as “kingmakers” (though supposedly, they were just the conduits for information) the COMELEC styled itself as a “political entity”:

“The role of the aggregator can take the relatively “benign” form of the spinmeisters and message shapers or the media. It can also take the more malignant incarnation of the dagdag-bawas comelec mafias.”

What we have then, is a truly “information oligopoly”: the “media channels”, whether it’s under the control of independent “moguls” or directed by the candidates themselves, and the “election barons” of the COMELEC, tasked with relaying information about the votes. There is a very real danger of an “Information Cartel”, whereas an individual would control the vast media channels and the electoral commission, such that victory is assured of a candidate whatever happens.

Added to the burden of the voter (to the advantage of the “election barons”), is the number of choices he is immediately made to choose: even if it was not an election year for President and Vice President, he still has to choose between Senator, Congressman, Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, Vice Mayor and the members of the different councils:

“The one act given to the widget maker –making a choice between buyers –is further clouded by our synchronized electoral system that makes them choose in a single go: a president; a veep; twelve senators; a congressman; a provincial governor; several councillors; a mayor; several city or town councillors; and, etc.”

AHYH, however, forgot about another sore point: not only are the candidates few, they are almost generally concentrated in the capital. The Roman Senate was populated by inhabitants from the city itself, or among Rome’s Founding Families. Anyone that either came from the ranks or from the provinces was deemed a “New Man”, and as such upstarts. Caesar traced his ancestry to the ancient Julian line; Pompey’s was from the provinces. Therefore, gravitas went to Caesar.

In the Philippines, the largely apathetic provincials in the latest “expose” against Czarina Arroyo and the support of the local governors and rulers of the same owes itself to a basic truth: there is a Manila imperialism. It’s true. The center of Comelec is based here; so are the major media networks. Even the military and police is centered on Manila. This is rooted in Spanish times: their troops, Spanish I mean, numbered only a few hundreds, maybe a thousand. There was still constant war in the provinces (in the North against the Ifugaos and others, and the Moros in the South). The Governor-General centered all military power in Manila (at the time, it was a coastal fortress), levying local conscripts to put down rebellions, while maintaining a state of martial law (which was never lifted).

When the Revolution broke out in 1896, the Visayas remained largely neutral; Mindanao was in a state of war, anyway. Only the provinces gravitating around the Manila region itself (symbolized by the rays in the sun in our present flag) could wage a real, competent war. The illustrados almost all came from these provinces, and studied in Manila: Rizal came from Laguna, and wrote in Tagalog. The leaders of the Revolution were from Bulacan, Cavite, Nueva Ecija, etc. These were all Tagalogs. More than anything then, the Revolution, and the subsequent government that followed in Malolos, was a largely Tagalog one. This is actually similar to the Javan imperialism present in Indonesia today, caused by the Dutch using Javans as troops or local government officers.

Indeed, a Tagalog-Manila imperialism actually exists in the Philippines (perpetuated by our use of Tagalog as the staple “Filipino dialect”, though, as one blogger commented before, Visayans comprise the “silent majority” in the country). This is why, the provincials will jump on any opportunity to catch a break when and where they can. (The Manileños, and even some Tagalogs, believe that the Visayans will accept Czarina Arroyo with open arms if ever she was expelled. The latter will probably do, just so in defiance of the Manila cabal.) And the Congressmen and local governors kowtow to Manila, and will field people there, to ensure their own position in their provinces (some of them even come from Manila).

Part 2: The Blueprint for Power

Media personalities do not have the problem of “stranger phenomenon”. They are immediately recognizable, whether as stars in action flicks (like Joseph Estrada, Fernando Poe Jr., Bong Revilla, and others) or dramas (Vilma Santos, Aiko Melendez, and others). Voters could also be swayed by the power that the candidate’s position entails: Bro. Eddie Villanueva was assured of the million votes of his religious group, and Fr. Ed Panlilio (though God bless him, was a good man) pulled the votes away from his “jueteng-stained” rival. Celebrities have familiarity inherent in them, and they are champions simply because they are known. Their only drawback is if the electorate begins to distinguish between popularity and actual administrative competence.

As for the latter, this is where the incumbent official steps in. The road to his office is long and hard. He needs to have some control of the “information oligopoly”--this would entail resources. He could choose to directly pay for votes, through bribes of individuals or individuals who could influence peers and other groups. Promises will be made to special interest groups; all of this require resources.

Once in office, however, he acquires a virtual cornucopia of resources: wealth of the taxpayers, influence in his position, power if in his executive capacity he can control the military or the local police. Suddenly, paying off the “information oligopolies” becomes easier. By subtle maneuverings, he can secure for himself the control of his very own “information cartel.” Even if he exerts little effort, he can vouch for his “knowability” among his electorate: unsure of the other candidates’ characters, the voters will gravitate to the incumbent, the candidate they know, and who has had experience in power. The electoral imbalance is suddenly made obvious. AHYH pores several sections and paragraphs particularly to this problem, which he calls the “positive feedback loop”:

“The feedback is “positive” in that accumulating more resources gives the politician an even stronger comparative advantage. It is also a “loop” because, successive terms also amplify both the resources and the comparative advantage of the politician.”

“It is almost impossible to draw the line between the exercise of legitimate political power and the destructive leveraging of influence. Being in office alone gives the incumbent an advantage over any pretenders as the office gives the incumbent more visibility. (More visibility =higher name recall.) Being elected gives you an advantage because it raises your public profile and makes you more familiar to the voters.”

“We have tried to regulate away the positive feedback gain and have failed simply because it is impossible to decouple elected office from the accumulation of power. If the accumulation of power cannot be decoupled from elective office, then this accumulated power becomes a high barrier to entry for would be challengers. Our democratic ideals say our candidates should be competing for votes based on the ideas they propose (their electoral platform) and their leadership track record (or the level of trust the public places on them). The reality though is that today’s media soaked culture rewards high media exposure with high name recall -giving the advantage to candidates who get in the news often (be it political or entertainment news).”

Part 3: A Formula for Change

We come now to the plan to recreate the electoral-political system to a structure I shall now call “Micro-ocracy”, using the principle of “Microeconomics”, by atomizing power. First, he restressed the fundamental problems of the present political-electoral system: to optimize the number of choices (and categories) a voter is given, to reduce the distance between the electorate and the candidate (consequently cutting the middle-man), and ensuring the integrity of the vote.

Next, he laid out the basic formula for the present democratic structure: since the greatest danger of the ideals comes from the power of the incumbent, and his advantage against his opponents, he made this the foundation of the algorithm, symbolized in c. Since the advantage comes from his ability to utilize the resources of his office or of his own to influence the electorate, he put the two in ratio: the total electorate, represented as v, and the resources, represented as r. Thus: v/r = c. Electoral power is measured by how much resources can be distributed to influence the electorate. He critiqued that the present reforms tried to correct it by imposing limits on the variable r, or how much resources is used.

“We have tried to decouple the positive feedback gain from the power of an elected official mostly by regulation or legislation. We have tried:

* Imposing term limits -because we understand that the longer a politician stays in power, the more resources he accumulates.

* Monitoring their wealth by requiring the yearly submission of Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SALs) -because it allows us to guard against the suspicious rapid accumulation of wealth. We regard wealth as a placeholder for an elected official’s accumulated power.

* Outlawing nepotism -to prevent incumbents from strengthening their hold on power via close-in connections in key positions. This is our way of trying to severe the inter-generational “loop” portion of the feedback gain. So, too, our next approach which is:

* Proposing an anti-dynasty bill -to prevent incumbents from extending their hold on power by using their scions as their patsies and by leveraging their existing power to get their patsies elected.”

He, however, took a different tack. Why not change the variable v, the volume of the electorate? That way, according to his calculations, the c advantage would be reduced to mere decimal figures. Why not split the electorate into several multi-electorates, to the smallest unit, the barangay?

This then, was his proposal:

“Citizens in all barangays will select their nine (9) barangay councilors. The candidate who garners the most votes becomes the chairperson of the barangay. This superlocal elections affords direct contact and direct information to the voters about the candidates. From there, the selection of the upper levels of government proceeds by 4 levels:

1. Each barangay sends its chairperson as their representative to a district council (which can be based on the existing congressional districts or adjusted to better distribute the population).

2. Each district council (composed of all the chairpersons from all the barangays in the district) elects from among their ranks: a) the congressional representative, and b) six (6) other representatives to represent the district in the city/town council. (The district council also serves as the consultative administrative body for that geographic area.)

3. Each city or town council elects, from among their ranks, the Mayor and the Vice Mayor. They also select six more individuals to represent the town or city in the provincial council. If the district (level 2) is not in a town or city, their six reps move up directly to the provincial council. Meanwhile, your congress representative joins the House of Representatives, and the House, selects from among its ranks 26 individuals who will serve as either senators or the president and vice president.

4. The provincial council will select from its ranks the Governor and Vice Governor of the province. There are two ways to approach the Level 4 at the national stage:

a) the top vote getters in the 26 elected from the house automatically become President and Vice President of the country; or,

b) the 26 meet and select the prexy and the veep from among themselves.”

Here's a visual illustration:

voter=>barangay council=>district council=>1. Congress 2. Town Council=>1. Mayor 2. Vice Mayor 3. Provincial Council=>1. Governor 2. Vice Governor

where Congress=>Senate;President;Vice President

In this sense, he believed that there would be little jockeying, as the neighborhoods themselves would be the judge of their own candidates. The battle would not be, therefore, on who has the money, but who has the better platforms, or administrative experience.

Part 4: The Critique

Reading it, analyzing it, I thought, wow. His system might just work. I once thought that the key to reform lay in overhauling, and putting good men in Congress. I was stalled with the thought of the party monopoly of Lakas-NUCD, and the local dynasties that try to secure both Congressional and local office seats. There had to be a way to break these boyars. Only then, can we have a real, working Parliament, and a real government. And, AHYH’s proposal, seemed perfect. It fit. Economically, it worked. It would break our American-adopted capitalistic democracy and serve as an alternative to the socialism of Marx (at a time I was studying another viable alternative).

Something, however, felt wrong. I looked again.

voter=>barangay council=>district council=>1. Congress 2. Town Council=>1. Mayor 2. Vice Mayor 3. Provincial Council=>1. Governor 2. Vice Governor

where Congress=>Senate; Vice President; President

The figure seemed familiar. Then I remembered:

peasant=>serf=>lord=>king.

AHYH had identified the roots of American capitalistic-democracy, through the use of Economics and Information Systems study. However, he forgot the fundamental element in all of politics: the social element. He mentioned that the Greek democracies were successful they were city-states; but they were also successful because they remained city-states, and never aligned themselves permanently to form a regional kingdom. When they did, city-states overtook other city-states, and there emerged rivaling empires: Athens and Sparta, Sparta and Thebes, Thebes and Macedon.

The barangays, led by their respective datus, had to eventually form into larger communities, and thus city-states. Such were the kingdoms of Maynilad, Sugbu, Mactan, etc. Wars would also lead to the establishments of empires, as in the Sulu Sultanate in the south. Just because at the time the Spanish came the major powers in Luzon and Visayas were still city-states, didn’t mean they were going to remain that way. The migration was a few hundred years old, new in terms of periods.

We integrated the Spanish patron-client system with our own datu system. Cronyism may have become notorious and prevalent with the Americans, who lacked the discipline of traditions, but it started under the Spanish rule. It was popularized in the talangka concept: a successful man will be approached by friends and relatives, who would be seeking balato, or a share of the profits. To refuse them, would be to insult them—wala siyang pakikisama. They were his friends, and he abandoned them by his selfishness.

The client then, elects the patron so that he, in turn, would grant favors to the client. This existed in Roman Republican times, as well as in Italy and Sicily, where it was later imported by the immigrants to America, where they became the “organized crime syndicate” (actually a state within a state--they mediated based on their own rules). This would become more acute in barangay-ranged elections, where neighborhoods would seek to place their “strong man” to council (they would sometimes be idealists, but most of the time simply influential people and “their man”).

This then, would be my interpretation of the new system:

Strong men could be champions of labor, or some other worthy cause; most of the time, they would be the wealthy aristocrats, the landlords, or the crime bosses turned legitimate, who hold the power, and thus the local police/military/paramilitary. To AHYH’s question of whether the neighborhood will vote for the celebrity, in the midst of lawyers, doctors, or any other professional, I would say that the vote will gravitate to the rich man. He has fewer electorate problems; there is a smaller number to intimidate—even more effectively, as in the small unit of the barangay, there is a possibility of knowing key names, and connections.

So you have the serfs. These strong men, who will dominate the barangay council, will start to align themselves with their fellow councils. Without a strong political force backing anyone, the councils will negotiate, finding common cause, isolating the council members opposed to them, then when alliances are made, elect their leaders to the districts. These are the semi-lords. Power will ultimately gravitate to the cities, where the mayor will style himself as a baron. Imagine the capitalist-democratic system, except in smaller magnitude. Read articles about the electoral violence city-wise: in Abra, where mayoral and congressional candidates vie for power, and violent assassinations occur; in Mindanao, where the assassinations are met with assassinations; in parts of central and southern Luzon, and the regions of Visayas. The mayor will naturally come from one of these strong-men: partly through scheming, partly through intimidation, he will force his way into office.

The parties will no longer be national-oriented. Having been assured of power in the local level, these city-states (as they have become) will now serve as kingmakers; the mayors will influence the election, district-wise, of his party-mates to Congress, who will then vote, in their numbers, the new Prime Minister (the Vice and President really don’t fit in the picture), and members of the Senate—then again, why not do away with the Senate entirely? Finally, these city-states will vie for control of the Provincial Council: alliances will be made, usually the stronger city in terms of size, wealth, force, etc. This powerful city (or groups of cities) will elect their governor. The governor will try to control the city-states, but then again, he owes his power to the coalition of the “city-kings”.

What about the barangays of the middle class and the poors? Because there are many of them, eventually the wealthy and the elite will not have a chance to control the elections. Au contraire.

The middle class can resist the influence of the “power brokers”, but can be intimidated through force, paramilitary presence, or even the use of local police or military. The poorer barangays will likely gravitate to the idealist, the champion of their class—or to the wealth of the individual from the other barangay, who is supporting the candidacy of his selected man in the barangay. They could resist… and suffer harassment, death threats, or their candidate simply assassinated.

A city, or a group of cities, having controlled their respective provinces (instead of the other way around), they would ally themselves to try to field “their man” in the office of the Prime Minister—or, if the Senate remains (what would be the Senate’s role, anyway?), their number in the Senate. Even with all of this, it would still remain a Tagalog-Manila empire. It’s simple mathematics, really: the combined number of Manila and Luzon districts outnumbers the Visayan or Mindanaoan districts. Even if reduced to Central Luzon, as the Southern Luzon districts might offer to align themselves with the Visayans, it would still remain a Tagalog-Manila empire, by a small margin. The key here is the major organizations, the “information oligopoly”, and the nationally loyal army. The Comelec might even begin to grow itself as a sort of “empire within an empire”, and its position as Chairman would give it “kingmaker” status, as opposed to what it is now. Lakas-NUCD may gain a “federal” color; it has the political machinery. Their focus would be more distributive, among the cities. It would be the mayors, and not the Congressmen, who would be party-leaders.

So what happens when the Tagalog-Manila empire is re-established, alienating the Visayans and the Mindanaoans? This is the final, fatal flaw in the design: the structure of government has fractured so extensively, that having gained power in the provinces, these coalition of cities will choose to break away from the Manila-based empire. Few people know this, but at the time when Aguinaldo unfurled the flag of the Republic of the Philippines in Malolos, further south, there were other declared independent states: Western Visayas, for example. And, having failed to make a dent into the new government, the Bangsa Moro movement will truly force an independent country, probably trying to take with it the rest of Mindanao, Muslim or no.

Provincial-wise, city-states trying to put “their man” on the governorship will clash with other cities. City armies will be fielded, and local wars waged. The city-barons will have had ample experience, in their strong-arming of the barangays. Civil war among entire regions, civil war among cities. The Philippines will indeed enter into a “Dark Age”. Who will benefit? The neighbors, of course. America will favor the Tagalog-Manila empire, though they will compete with China. The latter will seek an alliance with the other breakaway states, probably the generally-already Communist North (There is still a Communist insurgency, and most likely they would have penetrated a large number of barangays) or parts of the Communist South. So now it’s also a war of ideology.

Part 5: Proposed Changes

My vision of its implementation may seem to come out of a political thriller, but it’s very possible. If you give power to the barangays, in the hierarchy of powers, it would be the cities that reap the final profit. The American capitalist-democracy has been somewhat diminished, but the patronage mentality borne from Malayan and Spanish roots would become more acute.

However, that is not to say that the whole proposal is radical, impractical and insane. In fact, AHYH is in the right direction. Decentrallize the power; pull it away from Manila, and the Tagalog region. That way, the Mindanaoans who have been urging for some real form of autonomy, would not be so alienated, as they would have a chance to shape the nation. Eliminate the middlemen, the “information oligopoly”. That way, the incumbents would not be able to use them to insure victory. Shorten the degrees of contact between the voters and the candidates. That way, the voters would know that when they voted, they did not throw their vote away.

AHYH’s design is incomplete. He talked about a proto-type; in practice it would still be a nightmare, reminiscent of China’s “dark age” right after the fall of the Manchus. Economics is more than just the market--the people itself. It’s also about social forces. How numbers in the rural areas would mass to the cities, in search of some better future. These same numbers would be pulled away to Manila, where the dollars and the power went. The labor and the farmers would be swayed by whoever would promise to give them a better plight. The elite will try, as they did in the drafting of the Malolos Constitution, to concentrate power on their own.

Here then, are my proposed revisions to AHYH’s blueprint:

1. Abolish Comelec. This would seem outrageous, as Comelec is a Constitutionally-created Commission to monitor and prevent Marcos-type strong-arming through the barangays. Let me tell you this: if Comelec had existed during Marcos’ time, he would have had an easier time declaring Martial Law, and get his plebiscites passed again and again and again and again… The Church based NAMFREL, as well as other election watch organizations, will comprise the main organs of the new, local-based, election councils. Maybe. Localize the election councils—either give them back to the barangays, or give them to a council representing the various important sectors: the Church, the youth, labor, etc. Whatever you do, cut the tie of the Executive to the election organization.

2. Provide more electoral power to the rural areas, equal to that of their urban counterparts. In this breath, I propose this: create an agrarian political division equal to the power of the city district. That way, the cities will not have an advantage of the rural areas, or at least only marginally. They will also encourage the farmers to collectivize, make their own alliances, and actually be encouraged to press for greater land reform.

3. Do not atomize the election all the way down to barangay level—make it district level. And give the power of Congressional representation to the provinces. Yes, the numbers increase ten-fold, but if the advantage of incumbents, according to barangay calculations, are mere decimals, and even by the hundredths or thousandths, then the district level would only rise to one or two digits, correct? That way, the cities will not get control of the provinces… it would be the district council who will elect the mayor, the vice-mayor, and then delegates to the provincial council. Power would thus gravitate to the provinces, the regions. This way, the governors would be able to have a greater “bird’s eye view” of the general problems in his region, and not be pressed by special interest groups in the cities.

The revised model would be like thus:

voter=>district council=>town council=>1. Mayor 2. Vice Mayor 3. Provincial Council=>1. Governor 2. Vice Governor 3. Parliament

4. Get rid of the Senate. The new Parliament will be controlled by the governors, who will probably be jockeying for their respective candidates in the provincial council. The Federal system really would usher in a Parliamentary system—they go hand in hand. The main point is, we get to diminish oligarchic power from the Parliament, and at its worst, we would give power to… the aristocracy, and the local level, at that!

5. Divide the provinces in Mindanao such that those affiliated with Bangsa Moro would be strictly equal to that of those that are not. This way, the Muslims will not be alienated by a “Christian domination”, and neither will the Christian faction be threatened by a “Muslim encirclement.”

6. With the COMELEC gone, lift the electoral ban on ideological and religious movements. There is a practical reason for this. AHYH said that the problem with Philippine politics today, is that the candidates are not chosen for their platforms or ideas, but on their popularity, and money. This is because, lacking in real ideological division, voters will gravitate on who has the money. Lift the ban, and in this way, the secessionist Communists will have a say, the Catholics and environmentalists will have a say, the many Christian denominations, and the Muslims will have a say.

7. Please come up with a good, agrarian and social reform. The main problem is not only structure-wise; it is the distribution of wealth, and the generally large income disparity between the rich and poor. Why not impose taxes directed at the excessively wealthy, the A to A+ classes, to regulate their generation of wealth, while acting under police power? Then, use the accumulated wealth generated from this taxation to give direct social welfare, pension to the poor, funding for the farmers, and labor support fund. It is also the power of the elite in land; the farmers can’t utilize the land because they don’t have the money to maintain the instruments, and the knowledge on what to do with it. The agrarian welfare fund would be siphoned from the taxes directed at the A to A+ classes, so they would have the money to maintain the instruments. Then, a larger program will be made to instruct farmer on how to develop their lands into marketable production centers. This way, the “agrarian district” referred to in #2 would indeed be a power broker, and the Philippines would somehow encourage a producer-class equal to that of the consumer class.

And there you have it. What AHYH lacked in, I filled in as much as I could. Of course, there is still much to tweak (at what level will the Supreme Court Justices be selected? Or will the be purely by IBP appointment?), and with #6 the outcome would be unpredictable—for example, the Communists would, in their control of North and Southern Luzon, have a majority. Then again, you could put there a possible Parliament dismissal and new elections: 4/9 of members of the vote of Parliament is needed to abolish the existing one and reelect a new one (and since the election of Parliament members is provincial wise, then the people won’t be bothered). You could also put in added pressure to the Parliament, by placing a sort of “People’s initiative” by percentage of district, which, when a certain percentage of all districts are reached (still needs tweaking) then the Parliament would be abolished and new reelection happens.

This revision of the Micro-ocracy proposal (which I shall now call the Micro-Federal Democratic System), seeks to alleviate the following problems: eliminate the Manila monopoly, as since the Congressional vote is province-wise, and the Manila area is one province, it is only the national government capital, but not the economic and social one; avoid a “Serbian mistake”, by making sure that no one region or ethnic group has the majority in provincial council vote. Incidentally, AHYH made sure that the “one-man autocracies” would diminish, as the one-man offices are taken from Councils: district, provincial, and then Congressional. Most importantly, no one faction has power. Not the media oligopolies, or the election barons. The elite would be regionally limited. And because, hopefully, secessionist and ideological rebellions would finally be discouraged by giving them a piece of government, military spending would decrease, and the budget would focus on better things, like education, and alternative fuel research, and medicine.

Again, this is just another proposal, coming from one proposal. I am encouraging criticism from various sectors, and their own offers of revisions. In this way, through constructive argument, and the sharing of opinions, we would finally be able to get to a working manual, something that we can thrust on the oligarchs and their elected monarchy and say—this is what it’s all about. Not personalities, and not parties. A real, substantial, structural reform, different from the American, different from the Marxist. One that is a balance of the two. And, hopefully, one that works.

This is a rough draft, one that will go through revision after revision, depending on the ideas of reformers around the Blogosphere. Bring the proposal out, offer this as a new system with militant groups, reform groups, and other sectors. As many people must know.

Everywhere in the world, the “American model” of democracy has failed, is failing, or has been recovered and is preparing, yet again, to fail. There’s nothing wrong with the ideals, really. The United States--that upstart colony-group turned nation--was itself full of dreams and ideals, and dreamers and idealists. They thought to themselves that wow, they had a working model of democracy. They thought that they really were a nation of the world.

In Washington, however, and the major cities of the North, they knew better. Big party bosses controlled the Capitol and the White House. The vote was not universal. A large majority of the members of Congress were part of the old or new landed aristocracy. Even after generations of political and social reform, the vote for President is still not by direct popular representation. It is the delegates within states who vote for the new leader, though it is the people who vote which delegates get to vote. And, as is the issue now in the Democratic primaries, there is still the “superdelegate privilege” given to a select few who are not bound by the popular vote to cast their choice.

So, like a joke told and retold, embellished and ad-libbed, the Latin Americans, the Southeast Asians, and the Africans all jumped on the “American democracy bandwagon”. They tweaked the model, improvising it to fit their cultures, temperaments and experience. They made laws and constitutions according to what they “remembered” of the American model, not realizing that the American model itself, in practice, was actually an elected monarchy. They all tripped into the “monarchic” line: the Latin Americans fell to caudillos, the Southeast Asians to the barons and “sultans”, and the Africans to their genocidal military despots.

The Communists claimed they had the better answer: from Russia, to China to Cuba, they claimed that they were the real democracies. To this day, North Korea proudly bore the title of a democratic republic, as did Congo, and North Vietnam (in its time), as well as a slew of other semi-socialist or socialist states. The Chinese Communists even called China a “People’s Republic.” The Communists championed the cause of liberty and equality. Their fighters were acclaimed as “freedom’s heroes.” Fidel Castro, the quintessential “Communist of the Third World” was cheered by the crowd in Havana, and then applauded by the international community. Everywhere, the Communists swayed the youth, the laborers, and even farmers. Within decades, even the “Western democracies”, though professing to abhor the Marxist doctrine, tried to initiate their own “social engineering.”

And it all collapsed. One way or another, Communism became synonymous with state terrorism, totalitarianism, and brainwashing. Trying to style world utopias, they gripped the imagination of writers and scholars and inspired a telling about the modern dystopias --devoid of individual reasoning, freedom, and humanity. From the Soviet Union, to China, to Cuba it was the same: whole industries abandoned, wholesale starvation, and anarchy. The people that the Communists championed themselves took to protest: in Tiananmen Square, in Eastern Europe. Even the Soviet Union, the Communists’ “genesis project” for the world, shook off the commissars and embraced Western capitalism again.

What went wrong? They knew the West was wrong, wasn’t it? The West promoted inequality, and consequently the rule of the rich. The West promoted the oligopoly of the oil, of the market, and of morals. It sponsored imperialism, and encouraged dictatorships. The Communists were none of these. The capitalist America focused on the few; they took on the whole. How could they have failed? Were they the ones wrong? For, there can’t be to wrongs, can there?

America and her adherents used Communist collapse to prove that they, and not the latter, had the right idea. The Communists, smarting from their defeats, point to treachery within the ranks: Stalin corrupted the Socialist cause, Deng Xiaoping simply gave in to the American “love of money”, and Gorbachev practically gave the West the key to Russia. They weren’t loyal enough to the Communist cause. They didn’t adhere to the correct formula. They were weak. Anything but wrong.

It would come as a surprise that Communism has medieval roots. Scholars and Church doctors were animated by a thought based on equality, the disappearance of castes or classes, the end to discrimination, and the common work for the common good. As late as the 16^th century, the Jesuits had established such a Communistic society in Paraguay; the Reducciones. Saint Thomas More then did not inspire the socialist ideals with the work Utopia, but was inspired himself by a philosophy as old as Ancient Greece itself. Yet, we can’t piece together the mistakes of modern Communism by tracing its ancient, even Christian, origins. We would merely underline the causes; but not the flaws of the structure itself.

Karl Marx read little about the Middle Ages, or the writings of the Church scholars. He was more animated with the French Revolution, and its violent character. I doubt he knew the debates among Greek scholars of Man’s natural state. He probably knew of the works of the German “Statist” philosophers, and the Enlightenment thinkers of France. Marx did not make a manual to build, but to destroy. Communism was actually, his “anti-thesis” to what was happening in his time. Therefore, the best path to knowing what Communism is is to discover what it isn’t.

In the beginning was the Aristocracy. Marx had nothing but contempt for the upper class, which he wanted exterminated. A persistent grievance among the liberal reformers--as far back as ancient times--the nobility within a nation often monopolized power, influence and wealth. In the times of the Roman Republic, the aristocratic-dominated Senate blocked the bills sponsored by the plebeian tribunes, if it diminished their power. Peasants, laborers and farmers in the Middle Ages were subject to high taxation to fund for their lords’ wars abroad, and for their king. The aristocracy’s power lay first, in blood, in land, and in wealth, though the latter alone did not affirm one’s status. Those who had only that were looked down on, and seen as merely an upstart--nouveau riche.

While drafting the modern Communist manual, however, Marx was keenly aware of a new class of people that had come and won the power that was once held alone by this aristocracy. They earned the large amount of his hatred. The bourgeois were, in fact, the nouveau riche that the aristocracy belittled. Working their way from poverty, and accumulating power and wealth through mercantile trade or the pursuit of professions--a dedicated skill or service--they soon began to challenge the power of the nobles (ironically, some of the most virulent bourgeois writers had nobles as patrons). The Jacobin and Girondist lawyers led the French Revolution. Robespierre, the monster of the Reign of Terror, was a lawyer. The students and the intellectuals who led the explosive revolutions of 1830 and 1848 belonged to the bourgeois. Little by little, as land was confiscated and redistributed, and aristocrats were handed to the mercy of the guillotine, and as institutions began to promote people by their merits rather than blood ties, the old gentry, or aristocracy began to die. The nobility remained proud of their traditions, but most became impoverished themselves. Some who did not joined the new “elite” of the bourgeois--who filled the power vacuum.

Under them, a new economic system flourished. Capitalism. It affirmed the status of the higher middle class (now upper class) in society. The new system encouraged the rise through the ranks via accumulation of wealth. Had the world’s people then been in equal ground of each other, it would have then represented equal opportunity. But in a system of inequality, the plight of the oppressed became more acute. The capitalists invented new instruments for industry: mass production, communication and transportation. To the haves, this meant an improved quality of living. To the have-nots, the laborers, this meant inhumane conditions in the factories, and the mines. They were no better than the farmer, who was in constant fear of his land being confiscated by the State in favor of the rich, or to build roads and industry. This was a new “at the expense of” system. It was, to many who were impoverished, just another form of slave labor.

And even as the Christian Church and other groups began to clamor and win social reform, particularly in labor conditions, Capitalism began to take on an imperialistic color. Commerce for new products thrived in Europe--but the resources were found from semi-feudal systems set up by the colonizers in Asia and Africa. Their repressive, often barbaric, industries were so efficient, that when they left, the natives adopted the same system to their people.

However, it was the United States, far from Marx’s sight, who championed the cause of capitalist imperialism. They adopted the European use of African slave laborers, and then later used migrant Chinese and Japanese as well. In pursuit of the “American dream”, their numbers moved westward, eventually waging wars and confiscating the ancestral lands of the natives, the latter being “humanely herded” to smaller, humiliating reservations as “apt compensation.” They styled themselves Americans, and their farmers and plantation owners exploded to the world, engineering the overthrow of natives in Hawaii and the revolt in Texas, monopolizing local industries and businesses in newly “liberated” Spanish colonies, particularly Cuba and the Philippines (the latter was even colonized), and joining the Europeans in carving up a dying Manchu China.

In pursuit of this same “American dream”, the Americans continued to maintain a sort of political-economic imperialism all over the world. In the decades after the Second World War, the CIA conducted missions to overthrow leaders that planned to expel American investors, or nationalize their industries. American leaders made virtual client states, courting rebels and dictators who promised to serve American interests, even at the expense of local ones. Globalization was championed by the United States, though almost all the Third World countries opposed it. How could these nations compete against the world’s top producer and consumer?

The mistake, then, of calling the Communist bluff, is to think that the American alternative is any better. Only Americans benefit from the American system.

Marx merely drafted the modern Communist manual, with the thought of snuffing out the bourgeois, the aristocracy, and capitalism. It was Lenin who perfected this democratic model, directing his energies at abolishing all forms of inequality, particularly those of America. Modern Communism was a reaction to the flawed systems of that time. And its opposition to them defined it. That was its tragic flaw. When a movement, or a force defines itself in opposition to another, there is little space left for independent identity. When the object of hatred disappears, this same force begins to float unsteadily, maybe even fracture. This is what happened to Sun Yat-Sen’s revolution, whose primary aim was to oust the Manchus. When the latter was expelled, the country splintered into different warring factions.

The tragedy began to unfold: Lenin began to apply the Marxist model in Russia. He gave it some “personal touches”, but stayed true to the doctrines. The new Soviet state seized private property; it banned Western music, books and thought; it banned independent thought. He utilized the secret police, the Cheka, to spy on dissident activities, or even the slightest protest against the government. They nationalized the industries, and expelled the foreigners. The State regulated everything, from distribution of food, to all forms of culture, always exhorting the glory of the Party. Lenin left the control of the Party to the intelligentsia—they will not be members by popular representation, but for collective welfare. Putting it more aptly, he said, “if you give power to the people, what are they going to do with it?"

The West erroneously infers that because power was centered on the State, generally, it was just another oligarchy, with the Party leaders enriching themselves from the wealth of the people. However, this was not the case, especially during idealistic times (particularly in Cuba). The people, as a whole worked to produce for the nation as a whole, and their products are surrendered to the State, which, acting in turn, would “compensate them” through equal distribution of welfare, education, and most importantly, food. The State, ideally, served as a conduit for the people.

The Communists accomplished what they set out to do: eliminate all forms of inequality, and transform the nation to a community working to serve its collective needs. Marx’s blueprint didn’t go beyond that. By that time, the Communist system would have worked, and the world would be won over at the sight of such success. It didn’t work. Production had lessened. Now what? Lenin and then Stalin tried to concentrate the individual farms into larger communes, making them virtual agrarian factories. The harsh realities of economics, however, began to bear down on them. Not every land was a fertile field of crop, and not every time was harvest time. Distribution had become a logistical nightmare. And, faced with the same scarce portions provided by the State, for food and basic necessities, farmers began to desert, or work less. Less food was produced. People began to starve.

They also scared away the world’s admiration through their repression of independent, Western thought. It seemed as if the State was regulating free will, and rendering it inexistent. Everything had been torn down, accused of being a “bourgeois concept”. They were running the nation as if it was a giant factory, with its workers acting as if automatons. Communism had begun to become akin with slave-labor despotism, except fed with ideological propaganda. Human dignity had become a “bourgeois concept”.

The West focused on Marx’s denunciation of enrichment. And yes, there is nothing wrong with private enrichment. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, exhorted the workers, and explained that the accumulation of private property was as natural to Man as an animal’s search for a habitat. It is integral to his nature, and a natural product of his interaction with his community. However, there are limits to how much one is to seek for enrichment. Wealth must not be the end, but only the means to a better quality of life. Christian teachings warn of the sin of Greed, the excessive desire to acquire material pleasures.

The most enduring, and celebrated Communism is the one in Cuba. Fidel Castro did not lead his people to Stalinist purges, or Maoist Cultural Nightmares, though, like all Communist states (and even their counterparts in Americanist democracies) he killed hundreds of dissidents and imprisoned political enemies, earning the condemnation of Amnesty International. The Cubans participated in “liberation wars” in Africa, and Latin America. Castro earned a seat in the Non-Aligned Movement, and the respect of major Third World countries. He made good with his promise, and gave the Cubans health care and free education. But economically, Cuba was in shambles. For all his efforts, and for all his monitoring, the production of crops, from sugar to coffee, was down. It was so bad, that the Soviet Union himself warned to no longer dabble in his “agrarian experiments” to get the production high. More people rebelled, and more people were killed. They needed to import food, but in exchange for what? They had no money. They could barely feed the people.

Communism, the Marxian Democracy, failed. The Soviet Union collapsed, and with it, its Eastern satellites. Cuba, China and other Communist states were forced to open their doors to American capitalism, in the form of tourism, foreign markets, etc. Castro, however, is right that the American dream is one where the corporations control his country. He, and the other Communists, would rather suffer starvation than enslavement.

There is the final tragedy: there are two wrongs. The American monarchist-capitalist democracy