The Other Side Of The Coin

The Filipino people have already learned their lesson. When it comes to Philippine politics, its not anymore about the 3+1 Gs: gold nor goons nor guns not even glamor. The Filipino people have turned to be matured citizens of their country – this is what the world realized after their 2007 national and local elections.

In the said national event, people no longer were deceived with their candidates' 3+1 Gs. Rather, they are more vigilant in choosing who they will vote to sit in the government. The administration's line up was composed of famous celebrities in the fields of media, show business, and sports while on the opposition side they had a line up who were bartering “genuine service” in lieu with the people's votes. Whatever genuine service means to the Filipino people, it only showed one thing – that most probably the service offered by the opposition is the ultimate kind that the Filipino needed as shown in the results of the election. It's now the opposition's turn.

Save The Pearl Of The Orient

The results of the national elections in the Philippines in 2007 showed that the Filipinos have learned from their series of elections that brought no good to their country and to its people. It can be recalled in their country's history that candidates seek position in the local or national government very easily. There had been no standard judgment that would serve as the basis for its qualification to run in any seat. Although, their Commission on Elections had presented the eligibility rules but still, it had made no effect. Basically, everyone can run even if this means defying the set rules. There's always a way because there's a will from these aspiring officials. And as I have said, this brought no good to the whole country because those who ran and made it to the government seats were no way public servants. These people were selfish people and all they have been doing to the Philippines is put the country into a very unstable economic condition.

You know what I'm saying? Read more about the Philippines' economic status.

Nice Try Pacman!

It can be remembered that the world-famous, boxing hero, Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao “gave in” to the desire of those people who requested him to run for a post in the Philippine elections, second monday of May 2007. There were two positions he was choosing: the mayoralty and the congressional posts. Yet before the deadline of the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy, the “Pambansang Kamao” (National Fist) had decided to vie for a seat in the Philippine Congress.

There had been hundreds, if not thousands, of news and blogs by Filipino people expressing their sentiments to Manny. All of these boiled down to one message: “Please don't run.” Despite the negative feedback of the people, he insisted to run and and compete against the incumbent congressman in their district. As expected he lost; and take note, vote discrepancy was very significant. It was like Manny only got 10 per cent of the total voting population and the rest went to this opponent.

Nice try Manny! Maybe you're only for boxing!

The Iron Fist Of Machiavelli

I should say that Machiavelli is a genius. Machiavelli said that it is better for the prince to be feared by his people than to be loved, pointing out that man is selfish and deceitful and would only be loyal to his master because he doesn't want to be harmed or punished. Why does he think so negatively with man's nature? Furthermore, if we live in fear with our master, aren't we susceptible into hating him and acting against him?

The idea, "he'd rather be feared than loved", is a good one I think because if the ruler is feared in that way, it is unlikely for his people to disobey the laws. Furthermore, a ruler who is loved by the people must be tolerant of law breakers. What i'm tryin to ponder on right now is: are humans really selfish by nature? When are they selfish and when are they not?

The Saints Plus Machiavelli

Unlike Socrates, Plato, Aquinas and St. Augustine, Machiavelli seems to be playing the bad cop here. Machiavelli's book “The Prince” is a good read because it lets us see the idea of a 'perfect' ruler in both points of view: the good and the bad.

When you think about it, Machiavelli's ideas really do make sense, they are practical and logical, but the only thing is that it cannot be applied to every state in general and it is 'bad'. He thinks that this prince who has these qualities knows how to be not good, a good feigner and dissembler, one more likely to be feared than loved.

If everybody in a community is good, then be good, but what if you're the only one being good and you totally know that it may cost you your life, will you still live up to your kindness and be ready to die? Maybe for some, it is possible. This may be really rude to hear but people can err. So it's like a pratical way to also learn and be 'bad' if it is necessary.

I'm now wondering, if all these thinkers that I mentioned had the opportunity to be together and discuss their ideas, what should the outcome be? Most especially St Augustine and Aquinas as opposed to Machiavelli. Chaotic, isn't it?

Goodwill Over Anything Else

From The Prince and The Discourses of Machiavelli, there is a part that states that it is not necessary for a leader to let his subjects know who he really is and what his limitations are. Aren't these things supposed to be known to his constituents so they may know if they've got the right leader for a position?

Is it safe to say that a prince being deceitful to his subjects such as pretending to possess good qualities- merciful, faithful,humane, sincere, religious - even though he is not could make him a good and effective prince?

Doesn't the way of living of the citizens of a certain state reflect the success of the ruler and/or the state? If the ruler is "not good," deceives his subjects, and exploits them in order to maintain his rule over them, then how can it be successful in the sense that it can maintain the order, morality and progress of that state and society?

The Machiavellian Ways

In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli talked about the qualities mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion. But he stated that it's not necessary for a Prince to have them, to quote him, "to possess them and to always observe them is dangerous, but to appear to have them is useful". I wonder, does that make a good ruler? A ruler that deceives his subjects on qualities that he doesn't possess?

Machiavelli also concluded that a wise prince will make the citizens of his state faithful to him. He also mentioned that the prince who causes another to become powerful thereby works his own ruin. So does that mean that a leader should always keep his position as the most
powerful man in the state so for him to prevent his own ruin?

Is a Machiavellian leader correct and justified when he/she decides to industrialize his country for higher economic growth rate, that, on the other hand, would cost farmers their jobs?