Ilusyon

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[9] On how radicalization fuels terrorism

In pursuit of a true caliphate, the Islamic State (IS) has launched itself into a war against the people of Iraq and Syria. A Sunni Jihadist group born out of the Syrian civil war, the Islamic State firmly believes that it is “god’s will” that the Sharia Law be enforced with violence. More than this, their actions in the past years or so have been validated by various concepts which includes game theory and radicalization.

Thomas Schelling’s Concept of the Game Theory proved useful in understanding the massive force of the IS. The IS’ foundations on non-violent messaging is indeed supplemented by its own narrative – a new set of educational materials for future jihadists. This has indeed attracted individuals to the IS’ cause and has even “empowered” young children to join.

Radicalization in the IS occurs at a very young age for children as young as 9 years old have been “willing to join and fight infidels and apostates”. Such adoption of radical views at an early age is a testament to how the IS shifted the worldview of the oppressed. For them, the only means of achieving the fruition of the Sharia Law is by enforcing war and terrorism to those who do not belong. For them, bloodshed and chaos is necessary in establishing a caliphate. However, such radicalization is an outright violation of human rights, especially to children. Today, I am saddened to learn on how the children of the Islamic State, as seen in the various documentaries, have been forced to believe that this is the only way for them to achieve their ideal state. I detest the fact that these children believe that they must enter Sharia Camps and later on, the IS’ military facilities. This widescale radicalization of Islam’s beliefs has indeed shifted the world’s understanding of democracy and has fueled war and terrorism. 

While it is our duty to ensure that our Muslim brothers and sisters attain their ideal life as prescribed in their laws, we must also actively campaign against the violence that have been championed by radicalized groups. Today, we must strive for a society that is rid of violence and violent radicalization.

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[8] On justifying armed struggle

Armed struggle remains a contested concept, especially in the conduct of democracy and direct citizen participation. For decades, the Philippine opposition has been struggling to reach amends on the contentious discussion and has since then established a divided “left” of which includes the reaffirmists of communist ideologies and the rejectionists or those who adhere to less radical beliefs. The current ideological divide has inevitably affected democratic conduct in the Philippines and ultimately, the practice of dissent. More so, it has consistently challenged society’s perception on the use of violence especially on the concept of armed resistance and struggle.

While it falls under the umbrella of political violence, the essence of armed struggle lies in its genuine political motivations and its thirst to achieve immediate social change. Armed struggle remains contested for the very reason that it opposes democratic or institutional methods. However, it can be argued that armed struggle, in itself, is a product of systemic oppression and  is therefore a means for the oppressed to achieve political goals and demands. Thus, when further contextualized, farmers from poor regions who are consistently plundered by local warlords and elites, often resort to violent means to resist illegal elite encroachment. More often than not, such cases have already exhausted all democratic means and are left with no choice but to subscribe to political violence.

Although this may be the situational context, it is understandable as to why the current popular sentiment involves the opposition of all forms of violence in resisting the state’s illegal encroachment. However, my personal politics and overall democratic perspective allows me to explore and inquire into the merits and justifications that come with the conduct of armed struggle. While I do have my reservations on far left ideologies, I do recognize the necessity of armed struggle, or commonly referred to as rebolusyon ng masa, in addressing the plight of marginalized groups who have been deprived of their democratic and human rights. We must then acknowledge that the most oppressed sectors of the society have been deprived of access to resources that can enable them to adhere to non-violent democratic participation (e.g. education, urban resources). Hence, in the study of democracy and political violence, it is important for us to truly inquire into the phenomena and make sense of the justifications behind the struggle.

Photo Source: https://www.redspark.nu/en/peoples-war/with-ceasefire-over-cpp-led-npa-resumes-offensive-posture/

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[7] Wars can’t be justified. Period.

A social phenomenon masked as “foreign policy”, war, as defined by Clausewitz in the general sense, is an act or threat of violence intended to compel opposing forces to fulfill one’s will. In recent decades, the global community has strengthened its promise to end the use of force through the United Nations’ peacekeeping efforts. Despite this, instances of political violence outside the parameters of war have been instigated, especially by nuclear superpowers who have pledged their full cooperation in fostering global peace and security. While contemporary theories of war have been more concerned on its psychological, biological, and institutional attributes, today we will highlight a more nuanced approach. Specifically, on how the major wars of the past have left poor nations in a state of recovery.

The concept of “developing nations”, more than its general definition, simply suggest that they are poor countries working towards their goal of attaining economic and social progress. But in reality, developing countries have been the victims of war, and are merely recovering from the havoc brought by imperialist superpowers. As such, wars have never been beneficial to any, even after the conception of the just war theory. War remains the worst option simply because it forces nations and its citizens into a state of disarray – all because of conflicting interests that could be settled amicably. While it is easier said than done, wars must never have a place in contemporary policy making for we must actively learn from the mistakes of the wars waged in the past and the human rights crises that ensued. To truly achieve genuine democracy, we must get rid of the idea that war is a legitimate and justifiable avenue to pursue peace and stability. For a society born in bloodshed shall never embody the tenets of democracy.

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[6] On #HijaAko and modern-day social movements

The conduct of social movements drastically changed upon the emergence of the internet and social media. Elevating political contestations into a new platform, social movements today have indeed taken a different form to carry out, resist, or undo a social change. Although the health crisis prevented mass gatherings, this did not stop individuals and groups to conduct large-scale movements that required utmost coordination and organization. For in today’s digital age, social movements, beyond its theoretical qualifications, only requires one thing – a narrative.

Over the course of the Philippines’ enhanced community quarantine (ECQ), stories of sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and predatory behavior took the social media by storm after victims of such oppressive behavior banded together in hopes of achieving justice that is long overdue. Strengthened by a collective voice, the #HijaAko Movement sparked outrage from Twitter’s echo chamber and reopened the discussion on why women remain vulnerable to the predatory behavior of men – especially during their formative years in highschool. Undoubtedly, it has empowered women all over the country, and quite possibly even the world, to call out harassers and shed light on ill behavior perpetrated by the society and its flawed institutions. To be quite frank, it was only during this time that I realized I was also a victim to a close friend’s incessant sexual requests. As such, the validation that came with the phenomenon was arguably legitimate to an extent and has indeed empowered victims to come forward and deal with their traumatic experiences on their own terms.

The #HijaAko Movement is, no doubt, a great example of how 21st century social movements transcended the digital space in the hopes of breaking systemic barriers. However, to ensure justice for victims, it is important that we ask at what cost do we hold these perpetrators accountable. To do such by means of calling out or cancelling individuals remains a contested conduct of democracy to this day. Most scholars would define the call out culture as publicly shaming individuals and/or groups for their oppressive behavior. And most of the time, it is directed towards perpetrators of violence against women and children. Although it has helped victims find their voice, it also poses a threat to the very pillars of democracy – legitimate justice and accountability.

As such, the use of the call out culture as the main vehicle in holding individuals accountable not only threatens the central tenets of democracy and social movements, but also poses a concern on how humanity has shifted its attention from the true enemies – the systemic flaws that continue to allow such oppressive behavior. In my opinion, it is merely a false form of justice bound within the echo chambers of social media. Hence, it is trapped within a simulation of what the movement tries to achieve.

For social movements in the digital age to truly reach its fruition, it must go beyond the barriers of social media and work its way through the oppressive conditions within society and its institutions. We begin by asking why most of the victims have come from predominantly Catholic institutions, why most of them came forward only now, why most of the harassers are close friends of theirs, and above all, why our justice system remains biased against the victims. Although such concerns are merely on the conduct and legitimacy of the movement, the #HijaAko has indeed shifted the tide and has rightfully started the conversation on why harassment and violence against women and children remains ingrained within the Philippine society to this day. The challenge now is for us to legitimize the movement by ensuring that the conduct in seeking accountability, more than just going beyond the confines of social media’s echo chambers, should also involve a complete reformation of our justice system.

Author’s Note: Please watch Sex Education, especially Season 2. 

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[5] On the implications of red-tagging on radical democracy

Social media has become a powerful tool for conversation and in recent years, has become an extension of activism. The current health crisis has further strengthened social media’s power in connecting a socially-distant society, but has also exposed the systemic flaws from within. While it has become a platform for marginalized groups to challenge the norm, it has also transformed into a tool that undermined voices, especially radical ones. In the Philippines, state and non-state actors have launched anti-communist propaganda by red-tagging activists, peasants, and national groups on social media. The significant increase of red-tagging propaganda during the quarantine poses an inquiry into the conduct of democracy in the Philippines and how it continues to endanger lives.

Radical democracy is a radical extension of the democratic principles of equality and freedom. Laclau and Mouffe’s agonist strand challenges democracy’s neo-liberal and neo-conservative tendencies. They emphasized the need to seek consensus and empower dissent against oppressive structures. Robert Unger opposes this by arguing that society does not emerge from consensus, but from the inherent struggle and political contestation within democracy. As such, radical democracy, in the context of red-tagging, has highlighted the political contestation that arises from challenging oppressive power structures in society. But instead of  safeguarding our platforms for dissent, the internet has perpetrated the abuse of minorities and forced them into a state-led oppression.

Red-tagging or the conscious act of labelling an individual or a group of people as communist sympathizers remains dangerous to this day, especially for activists. As activism and the conduct of such in the Philippines grows stronger each day, state actors have launched a crackdown on their rights and have used government resources to launch communist propaganda. Now how does this reflect on our conduct of activism?

Without a doubt, red-tagging undermines radical voices and ultimately antagonizes the concept of radical democracy. It paved the way for government agencies and police units to mobilize and launch online campaigns that targeted youth groups, community leaders, and even the indigenous peoples for their “communist or far left ideals”. To reduce progressive and radical demands as communist propaganda in nature is to say that we, as humans, do not deserve the basic rights to live.

As such, challenging oppressive power structures and forwarding radical changes within the confines of social media and the internet is the true application of the principles of radical democracy. Red-tagging shall always be a manifestation of a fascist’s desperation, especially when activism in the 21st century has reached unprecedented heights. Indeed, the health crisis has exposed how vulnerable the internet is to elite-led manipulation and how its response is centered on red-tagging innocent individuals. Despite this, the internet remains an essential tool in amplifying the needs of the marginalized, and has given better odds in achieving actual, radical change.

Photo source: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/30/19/sc-grants-rights-groups-bid-for-protection-from-red-tagging

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[4] On defining free speech

For so long, the concept of free speech has remained in a gray area of sorts – one marred by subjectivity. Individuals have defined the concept in a variety of ways – from free speech as a sign of a healthy democracy to free speech that is limitless. While it remains as an integral part in achieving democratic deliberations, free speech has taken a few too many forms – often oppressive and bigoted. And today, this is where we draw the line.

Freedom of speech is defined by Merriam Webster as the legal right to express one’s opinions freely [1]. This is further supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that ascertained everyone’s freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information [2]. While free speech seems like a limitless and boundless concept, a line must be drawn when it goes against its very essence and turns into hate speech. Most of us would argue that we are entitled to freely express our opinions – which we truly are. But in doing so, we must be mindful of our inherent prejudice and biases that may impede on the rights of others. It is indeed appalling that we have to explain such a thing in this day and age. But since we are in an era of political unrest and wavering human rights, it is best that we shed light on why free speech has become a haven of oppression.

The emergence of social media platforms has indeed shifted the political landscape and increased concerns on the conduct of free speech in virtual public spaces. United Nations Special Rapporteur David Kaye mentions that governments and platforms must assert their role in striking the balance between promoting free speech and regulating, or rather, opposing hate speech [3]. Indeed, it is an ongoing challenge to define free speech and its limitations. But today, we must define free speech as an expression of opinion devoid of prejudices. While it is difficult to separate one’s inherent biases and cultural influences, we must assert the importance of actively unlearning society’s oppressive norms and beliefs. Must we continue to perpetrate a society that is filled with hatred for each other’s differences?

The next step is to emphasize the difference of dissent and hate speech. Dissent is opposing a sentiment frequently led by a tyrannical majority. It is a mere act of challenging the oppressive views of hegemonic entities and remains as an important facet of democracy as it demands justice and accountability for grave abuses of power. As such, dissent on political issues comes with due process that features recommendations that can help achieve better conditions. On the other hand, hate speech is an expression of hatred often directed towards marginalized sectors. It is a blatant contradiction to the very essence of humanity’s right to live.

Oppressive systems shall continue to monopolize our freedom of speech as long as we let them  justify hate speech. Free speech, as a universal right, also comes with the responsibility of ensuring that it does not strip others of their rights. Racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and many others are the language of the fascists. Thus, we must continue to assert that free speech shall never be used against the people.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom%20of%20speech

[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612

[3] https://rappler.com/technology/facebook-hate-speech-social-media-human-rights-david-kaye

Photo Source: Rappler.com

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[3] On education amidst the pandemic

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has indeed exposed more flaws within the system. More and more voices have emerged and called for a better COVID-19 response, especially in the Philippines. Among the many institutions left vulnerable by the crisis, the education system has suffered more than it needed to, all because of politics coupled with incompetent government response. What was exposed was the withering foundations of educational institutions and how a system perceived to be participatory in nature has somehow turned against the democratic principles it was built on.  Indeed, democracy in education has been a facade of sorts – masking centuries worth of systemic oppression.  

The Philippine education system  has been modelled in such a way that it somehow reflects, to an extent, the basic structures of a state. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and Department of Education (DepEd), acting as the chief executive within their respective jurisdictions, have employed a top-down approach in addressing the conduct of education amidst the pandemic. Such bureaucratic approach has resulted in a remote learning setup that has failed to address the needs of students, teachers, and academic institutions and empower the most vulnerable sectors to take part in policy formation. Today, students are left with the burden of acquiring necessary tools such as laptops, data, and enough money for school fees. Professors, on the other hand, have been struggling with balancing academic and household responsibilities, addressing technical constraints, and in creating learning packages.

To truly uphold the virtues of participatory democracy, especially within our academic institutions, we must begin by improving citizen engagement. This includes providing a legitimate channel for academic sectors to engage in a process of policy making, deliberation, and consultation. And in applying such principle, both CHED and DepEd must begin with acknowledging the hundreds of petitions filed by student councils and youth groups since March. This is then followed by capacitating students, professors, and employees by providing a legitimate avenue for their policy involvement so that they may help redress the plans for remote learning – one that is inclusive of all varying needs. While it can be argued that some kind of representation will always emerge, to which the system currently subscribes to (student council officers, faculty and employee unions, etc), we must highlight the importance of citizen involvement in upholding a bottom-top approach. This is to ensure a system that “improves the quality of citizenry” and ultimately, a positive influence on policy making.

For us to truly move forward in providing quality education, we must call for a better public health response to COVID-19 that shall champion calls for #LigtasNaBalikEskwela. Not only does it reflect the spirit of the general will, but also a manifestation of a united front.

Photo Source: https://www.scoutmag.ph/issues/online-classes-quarantine-anti-poor-ralph-20200328

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[2] On why it never ends: The never-ending elite domination

The madness needs to end. The elite-dominated Philippine democracy is to blame – and the cycle will never end unless we will it to. As each day passes, we see more and more of us languish in the hands of powerful political dynasties. It is as if everyone has accepted their fate, and has turned a blind eye to the grave abuses of power. But such desensitization must never be the norm, for it is the atrocities that will fuel our thirst for legitimate social change. 

Dynasties draw their power from the obvious fact that we let them get away with it – from that seemingly “irrelevant” decision of voting for a next-generation political dynasty to blindly conforming to today’s political climate. But hold your horses, because the blame must not be in the individuals who didn’t know any better. The madness never ends simply because the elites have been consumed with so much greed and thirst for power that their detachment to social realities enabled them to acquire more. 

Their apparent legitimacy in the political realm is a testament to how deeply ingrained they are in the pillars of Philippines democracy (if you can even call it that). Despite our failure to rectify the mistakes that enabled their hegemony, our worsening situation is now a product of patriotism that has gone wild. 

While it is important to encourage a healthy balance amidst a pluralist democracy, we do not owe the false progress we seem to have to the ruling class – for they have long exploited the people and the masses in pursuit of personal interests. As we forge through a crumbling society marred by oppression, I humbly ask that you take the time to educate yourselves by joining youth organizations, political formations, campaigns, and social initiatives. Registering to vote on 2022 does not guarantee a complete turnover of the system, but actively learning and unlearning shall help us progress into a nation that shall finally put an end to the injustices that we continuously let pass. 

Oras na para tanungin ang inyong mga sarili: Kung hindi ka pa galit, bakit? 

[ilusyongdemokrasya]

[1] Maniningil ang kasaysayan.

Maniningil ang masa. 

The Duterte administration has consistently delivered its campaign promise of war but this time, it is against our democracy, despite its superficiality. Voting 70-11 in favor of denying ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal, the House Committee on Legislative Franchises has abused its discretionary power in pursuit of political agenda. Despite evidence that proved the network’s compliance with existing laws, the House Committee’s technical working group has decided based on questionable claims and wrong notions on journalism, further citing the network’s alleged misuse of its airwaves and propaganda-like reporting. ABS-CBN’s shutdown is a blatant attack on our press freedom and is a gross attempt to further push the limits of democracy.

The 18th Congress of the Philippines has been notorious for railroading policies that seem questionable in the eyes of the constitution (i.e. Anti-Terror Act of 2020). From failing to secure mass testing capabilities to ensuring economic subsidies for workers, the Congress’ lack of a comprehensive public health approach in dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic has greatly affected the nation. For the past four months, the Philippine government has successfully railroaded policies to secure its legitimacy and power. All at the expense of  health, safety, and human rights.

Tocqueville’s concept of the tyranny of the majority perfectly explains the situation at hand. The gross mistreatment of the minority – in this case, ABS-CBN’s 11,000 workers and the thousands of other jobs affected – continues to be an act of unjustified suppression. The grave abuse of power is a result of a superficial democracy – one that is grounded in elitism and blind conformity. Despite multiple occasions of “people power”, the Philippines was never truly liberated from the cultural influences of the majority but has only evolved into a performative type of democracy. One that boasts periodic elections while suppressing political and civil liberties. 

The recent developments in the Philippines’ political sphere is essentially a manifestation of the growing tyrannical rule. Indeed, one of democracy’s greatest flaws is its framing of participatory power for it easily allows the presumed majority to usurp the bounds of the rule of law. Reigning for decades, the Philippines’ elite democracy has enabled the ruling class to control much of the government. To reverse the tide, the people must begin to fight for systemic change. But should we wait for 2022 to make these people pay? 

The answer is no. While our democracy enables us to vote people out of office, we must empower the people through collective action and education. To successfully combat the ruling majority, we must begin sowing the seeds of a true democracy. We must encourage multi-perspective activism, use of thought and critical thinking, lobbying for the democratization of our political structures, and upholding the rights and welfare of the marginalized sectors. Fighting for press freedom and civil liberties must not be limited in the electoral setting but must be demanded by taking the fight to the streets. 

Only then can we defeat the tyranny of the majority.

Photo Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-06/philippines-news-outlet-closure-abs-cbn-duterte/12218416