Why I liked the 2008 SONA
Being a student of political science does not necessarily mean advocating for activism. Activism is perhaps the most immature form of intellectual expression. Why? Because of its blind patriotic and nationalistic tendencies. It leans towards hating without consideration, which is far too childish to be even called intellectual.
This is why students of political science try, with the best of their abilities, to view issues without prejudice and bias. And this is also why I liked the 2008 SONA in general.
Before everything, let’s destroy the notion that GMA’s statistics aren’t true (at least for this SONA). I mean, putting in lies about data that will surely be checked by the opposition, by intellectual groups, and by political analysts isn’t exactly safe, is it? We all know GMA’s smarter than that. This is why I am challenging anyone who claims that GMA’s SONA is filled with lies to give hardcore proofs.
GMA’s speech was a good speech in the sense that it was a very smart move, at the very least. This is of course considering that the nation isn’t hating her so much.
The speech was more humble than the last 2007 SONA. First, unlike the last one, here she actually gave a hint that she is willing to give up power in 2010 by saying that the developments made in her term will help the next president. This shows her willingness to step down and her recognition of the fact that “a president [can't] be as powerful as she wants to be.” Also, she began her speech by recognizing poverty in the Philippines. Contrary to the popular prediction, GMA actually gave a “REAL” SONA. She also recognized her unpopularity, of which she later on reduced importance by hinting that she will not step down during her term. This, in a way, shows GMA’s politics of realism. Why, she isn’t blind to the national problems after all!
Also, providing results to her SONA promises on the SONA day itself was a very good tactic. This simply shows that her promises won’t go to waste, because they have been already fulfilled. Examples of these “promises” were the decrease of text mesage costs from one peso to fifty centavos and the conference she had the day before about ARMM. Remember, this is her last chance to make an actual SONA, since the next SONA would probably only be a “farewell” SONA and summing up of her eight-year reign. Ergo, this is going to be her last chance to “perfume” her presidency. And she did it very well with the instant results she made.
Her explanation on the VAT was also very well done. I agree with the implementation of the VAT, because, surely, without it, things would be far worse. This underpins GMA’s conservatist belief of noblesse oblige, wherein the rich is obligated to help the poor. The VAT hurts the rich more than it harms the poor, it’s just that these rich entrepreneurs are not exactly very expressive. Imagine taking 12% of your gross income! That would amount to one peso every 8.50-peso jeepney ride. Assuming jeepney drivers take 1500 pesos including their boundaries every day, which is possibly 1200, the government will then take 180 pesos out of that, leaving the driver with only 120 pesos as net income. Now, imagine owning a gas station. Let’s say you get a gross income of 100,000 a day. The government will take 12,000 pesos a day away for the poor. Do you see what I mean?
Finally, for those who claim that the State of the Nation Address is bogus for not showing the REAL State of the Nation, I despise your petty intellect! DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE AN “OH-MY-GOD-WE’RE-SO-POOR-WE’RE-HOPELESS” SPEECH FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY?! And if you got this, what would you feel then? Would you feel happy? Would you feel “oh, let’s fight poverty and save the people!”?! Do you really seriously prefer discouragement and surrender than empowerment, faith, and hope from the president? My god, come to your senses! Focusing on the good things is all a tactic of empowering the people to move on. And GMA did this very well.
Of course, as I said, this analysis is to be without bias. And so I also happen to have some questions to be raised for the president.
She mentioned 8B pesos that were spent from the VAT collection. But she also said that the people will lose 84.6B pesos should the VAT be taken away. Ergo, there is a total of 84.6B pesos taken by government from VAT. So… where has the 76.6B pesos gone to? I sincerely hope she can spend everything within two years.
Also, she recognized her unpopularity, though she promised to continue working for the country and that she wouldn’t let anyone stop her. This is an omen of totalitarian democracy. Democracy is all about popularity and should a ruler lose his popularity in a democratic system, he is no longer eligible to rule. Democracy IS a popularity contest. Even totalitarian democracy is all about popularity, suggesting that the totalitarian leader has complete ideological monopoly of the country, disguised in democracy (perhaps by processes, legitimacy, etc.).
As Manolo Quezon III said, “Of course, the president deserves a lot more gratitude than she will ever get.” (I’m not certain if these are the exact words. Haha. I’m too lazy to check on it.)
Cheers!
First, it is not that she blatantly told lies but that she was not consistent with her data. Presenting different time frames for her data misleads the listener and actually distorts the image. Also, she claims the success of programs that are not in the scope of her term, for example the Agrarian Reform which dates back to Aquino’s term. Since this will take some tedious explanation, allow me to leave this for you to dispute anyway.
What I cannot fathom is your misconception of E-VAT. I believe that it is indeed a progressive tax system (where the rich are taxed more than the poor) and it has helped the country escape a fiscal crisis upon its implementation. However, let me clarify that this is not an income tax but a consumption tax.
Perhaps you should check your textbook on politics for the different definitions of democracy. It is not all about popularity, although we subscribe to popularity as one of the definitions.
If it must be all about popularity, then didn’t she imply that she was by no means ruling a democratic nation?
Also, I wish to assert that GMA does not have ideological monopoly of this country as we recognize that majority of this nation disapproves her rule. She may have drawn legitimacy from the technicalities of our laws. However, under the spirit of the same laws, she must lose this legitimacy as a result of the crimes she has committed.
Moreover, defining, or describing rather, a democracy as something “”disguised as a democracy” is confusing, if not absurd.
I wish to assert that your analysis remains biased. First, it is clear that you view the SONA as a tool for empowerment. Also, you believe in a progressive system that will, if seen without bias, hurt the rich more than the poor.
Also, the changes that have taken effect are actually outside the scope of speech. The same is true for the appreciation of the president herself. That appreciation of the SONA is merely a subset of this bigger appreciation. Of course, these comments are valid only if you wished to remark on the SONA as a speech and not as a tool for her political agenda whatsoever.
First of all, unfortunately, I did wish to remark on the SONA as a tool for her political agenda. Which is why the ethical side of the speech didn’t really matter to me as much as the fact that it was very intelligently written and delivered. However, don’t worry, haha, that doesn’t invalidate your comment at all.
Your first point is true. I concede to that. Maybe she really didn’t lie per se but actually just led us into confusion which we then translate into something reliable. Haha.
Your second point is true as well. But my fear is that even if the VAT is removed, say, for the betterment of the consumers, the corporations still would not lower down their prices. Unless of course they are so aligned with corporate social responsibility; but that isn’t always the case, especially with these hungry oil corporations. Since the consumers are already used to prices like these, why don’t they just go on with them, with the promise of a greater income? And the government would most likely not have the power to stop them, since corporations are, in most political models, in the same stratum with the government. They have as much power to threaten the government as the power of the government to threaten them.
I checked my textbook
I understand that by “it’s not all about popularity” you mean that liberal and pluralistic ideologies along with Rousseau’s idealism on the general will should also be applied to democracy. But that’s only a subset of the forms of democracy. Democracy, in its most general sense, or, yes, in its most crude sense, is “rule of the people.” Though classical democracy started out like direct democracy, with each citizen having the chance to become a government official in ancient Athens, our modern interpretation of this is representative democracy. And in representative democracy, representation is only achieved by elections, which is, of course, as we all know, a popularity contest, at least in its most naked manifestation. This argument of course only works if you DID mean that applying normative values to democracy is as important as it being a popularity contest. Haha.
Your subsequent points on GMA implying that she isn’t leading a democratic nation along with the issues on totalitarian democracy:
First, by saying a totalitarian democracy is only “disguised as a democracy,” all I am implying is that totalitarian democracy is only a perversion of democracy. It is not at all a true form of democracy because, as we all know, democracy is the archnemesis of monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, autocracy, authoritarianism, and so on. And these “enemies” remain to be seen in totalitarian democracies.
Second, GMA obviously isn’t leading a democratic nation. This is because the people do not have the reign over the State. Had she been truly leading a democratic nation, her unpopularity would have brought her down ages ago.
Finally, I concede to GMA not having ideological monopoly over the country, but only because I didn’t expound on that. By defining totalitarian democracy, I did not mean that this is what is happening. I should have added, “Which is why GMA’s regime doesn’t even qualify for a totalitarian democracy. It’s much more perverted than that. She does not have any ideological monopoly, obviously, because the people hate her. All she is creating is a constitutionally legitimate authoritarianism.”
The point on bias is something to contemplate on, which I will conveniently leave to our readers. Haha! But just to give a context of this essay, all I meant by “not being biased” is not conforming to activism (funny, in other countries, people actually consider activism nonconformist. haha!).
Cheers, Gian! Thanks for the constructive criticism!