By Lope Coles Robredillo, SThD
WHEN
THE PHILIPPINE Ambassador to the Vatican presented her credentials to
the Pope not so long ago, the Holy Father pointed out that “the struggle
against poverty in the Philippines calls for honesty, integrity and
unwavering fidelity to the principles of justice, especially on the part
of those entrusted with positions of governance and public
administration.” Although the presidential spokesman opined that this
was addressed to those who aspire for leadership in the coming
elections, commentators took this as an indictment against the Arroyo
administration for its failure to solve poverty, owing to the dearth of
moral underpinnings in the exercise of governance. However this is
interpreted, there is no doubt that, if the Philippine society is really
to be liberated from the shackles of misery, those in position of
governance have to adhere to moral standards and principles.
For how explain our transmogrification from the most progressive
country in southeast Asia to almost the most sluggish one, our dubious
honor of being the most corrupt nation in Asia, our inability to pay the
ever burgeoning national debt of P4.221 trillion in 2008, our being the
sick man in Asia, our being a nation of maids? Of course, some observe
that the causes of our misery are greed, corruption, poverty,
profligacy, thievery, lack of job opportunities, wanton extravagance,
insensitivity to the needs of the poor, etc. Others would argue that
western imperialism, bureaucrat capitalism and semi-feudalism have
brought us to this quagmire. But all this takes the symptom for the
disease. For the root of our misery lies in a higher plane; it
consists in the dearth of ethical foundation and vision in those who
exercise governance. One cannot therefore overemphasize the need for
leaders who adhere to foundational principles that guide their policies
and actions.
Four Fundamental Principles
Which principles? For
a Christian leader, of course, the primordial principle is Jesus
himself, his life and teachings. Since, however, the world today is far
removed from the New Testament times, and the problems raised are
obviously far different from those that Jesus faced, one must make an
effort to relate the Gospel of Jesus to the problems and the situation
in our time. And the Church has done (and is doing) just that. In our
era, for instance, the Popes, in trying to apply the Gospel to the
pressing issues of the day, issued various encyclicals that analyze the
problems, determine the causes and suggest solutions. Best known of
these papal writings are Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum, Pius XI’s Quadragesimo anno, John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra and Pacem in terris, Paul VI’s Populorum progressio, and John Paul II’s Laborem exercens, Solicitudo rei socialis, and Centesimus annus.
As one runs through these documents, one notices not only that there is
a growth and development in the understanding of problems, their causes
and their solutions, but also that there is an increase in the number
of principles that have to be taken into account, reflecting, no doubt,
the ever increasing complexity of world realities. Considering that one
does not have the time to read through all of them, and the enormity of
the principles enunciated there, the question may be asked: are there
any fundamental principles from which the many other principles one
encounters in the encyclicals ramify? It may be recalled that when
Jesus was asked about the great commandment that incorporates all the
615 commandments in the law of Moses, he adverted to the injunction on
loving God and loving one’s neighbor. The same may be observed in the
case of principles on societal realities. Though various have been the
attempts to spell out the fundamental moral principles in social
doctrine, the newly published Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church lists only four: (1) primacy and dignity of the human person; (2) common good; (3) solidarity, and (4) subsidiarity.
In what follows, I would like to relate these principles to the
Philippine society in order to help the Christian leader engaged in the
present issues toward its transformation. This is not, of course, to
say that these are valid only for Christian leaders. Quite the
contrary, they are not only permanent and universal; they are also
primary and fundamental parameters of reference to interpret and
evaluate social realities. Even unbelievers can apply them, because
they speak to all people and to all nations. And their implications, it
will be noted, are far-reaching. What is important is that, one really
seeks the truth about man and society, and it will be seen that the
four are interconnected and complement each other. He cannot use any of
them disjoined to the rest, unless he, to be sure, does it with a bad
conscience.
The Primacy and Dignity of the Human Person
If the Philippine society is really to be orderly and humanely
developed, it must be founded on a correct understanding of the human
being. According to the Compendium, “the human person must always
be understood in his unrepeatable and inviolable uniqueness” (131). A
center of consciousness and freedom, he is open to the infinite and to
other created beings. Unique though he is, with a dignity higher than
any other creature, the human being is not sufficient unto himself. He
not only needs God on whom his life depends; he also needs others in
order to realize himself. As Vatican II, Gaudium et spes,
stresses, “the beginning, the subject and the goal of all social
institutions is and must be the human person, which for its part and by
its very nature stands completely in need of social life” (25).
There are several points to be noted. First off, because of his
transcendental dignity, the human person cannot be subordinated to
wealth, progress, means of production, institutions, and minerals. He
cannot be used to advance any of these. Quite the contrary, all of them
are ordained to his perfection. Hence, it is morally objectionable,
for example, to encourage prostitutes to promote tourism, to suppress
the right of workers for business to earn more, to allow people to work
in subhuman conditions in mining to increase profits. Since they exist
in order for the human person to realize himself, rights and duties
directly and simultaneously flow from his very nature, rights which are
universal, inviolable and inalienable. The logic is simple. If man is
destined to perfection, he should have all the rights that are necessary
to achieve that perfection. This is the reason for being of the
Declaration of the Rights of Man of the United Nations and the list of
human rights in John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris.
Against this background, it would be hard, therefore, to imagine a
Philippine leader training his sight on development, but at the same
time trampling on the rights of his constituents, or depriving them of
their rights. How can one claim strong leadership without addressing
the people’s right to life, bodily integrity and the means necessary and
suitable for the proper development of life? Just look at the quality
of the ordinary people’s access to food, shelter, medical care, social
services, security in sickness and old age, care for the handicapped and
mentally ill and unemployment! Can it really be called human?
Extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, disappearance cannot be
justified in the name of state security. The use of vote-buying, dagdag-bawas, fraud and violence is flagrant denial of the people’s free will in electoral process.
In addition, since each man has a human dignity, which should be
respected, all persons are fundamentally equal before God and before
humanity, irrespective of their race and color, nationality, economic
status, sexual orientation, or achievement in life. The President of
the Philippines does not have more human dignity that the pedicab driver
in Isla Puting Bato. Human dignity does not reside in the
economic power, political position, gender, social status of the
individual. No one is superior to his fellow men. That dignity lies in
his being an image of God, in his being a child of God, and in his
eternal destiny. What people acquire, amass or achieve in life has
nothing to do with it. True development cannot therefore allow a
compartmentalized form of justice—one for the rich and the powerful and
another for the poor.
However, it should be emphasized that the primacy of the human
person must not be seen as a promotion of individualism, for inherent in
the concept of the human person is the notion of social relationship.
Man is a social being, who “recognizes the necessity of integrating
himself in cooperation with his fellow human beings, and who is capable
of communion with them on the level of knowledge and love” (Compendium, 149). Lest this be interpreted as an affirmation of collectivism, the Compendium
equally emphasizes that the human person cannot “be thought of as a
mere cell of an organism that is inclined at most to grant it
recognition in its functional role within the overall system” (125).
“By the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny,”
individuals are united into an “organic, harmonious mutual relationship”
(125).
This relational dimension of the human person, however, has to be
understood as a corrective to the overemphasis on the primacy of the
individual. The realization of man’s human dignity is always in the
context of the community. “Together with equality in the recognition of
the dignity of each person and of every people there must also be an
awareness that it will be possible to safeguard and promote human
dignity only if this is done as a community, by the whole humanity”
(145). One cannot therefore merely regard the human person as an
independent being, separate from others. Consequently, if a leader
wishes to promote human dignity among Filipinos, it cannot therefore be
just the work of a few; it would take the collective effort of both rich
and poor, a work that would entail the elimination of the gross
disparity and inequality between them.
The Common Good
Which brings us to the second principle—the common good. For, if
individual human persons have to group themselves, its reason for being
is the achievement of their collective welfare. As individuals, they
lack what is necessary for the enjoyment of social life; common good is
needed to advance their human dignity. Gaudium et spes defines
it as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social
groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access
to their own fulfillment” (n 26). Those conditions ran the gamut from
goods and services to values that are actualized in the members of the
community, enabling them to perfect their lives. Thus, in placing
itself at the service of each human person, society has no other purpose
than the common good.
The achievement of the common good is not only the work of the
individual members. Since it is the reason for its existence, the state
has the responsibility of attaining it; it must make available to
persons the material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods in order for
them to live a truly human life. Because each one has a right to enjoy
the conditions of social life brought about by the quest for the common
good, the challenge for a Filipino leader who seeks to transform
Philippine society is gargantuan. A formidable obstacle to the
attainment of the common good is the huge disparity between the
oligarchs who are few and the proletariat members who belong to the
great majority. Naturally, the rich control the state apparatus, the
economy, the mass media and the exercise of politics. In such a
society, it is difficult to speak of common good, for there is no
equality, and the comfortable social conditions in which the rich
live are not shared by the many that are deprived of the basic
necessities. One may not be mistaken to say that the privileged do not
care for the common good—except the good that coincides with theirs;
for the most part, all they are interested in are power and the
privileges that go with it, even if these hurt the poor.
It is also in the light of the common good that leaders must re-examine
our international debt. As John Paul points out in his Centesimus annus,
“the principle that debts must be paid is certainly just. However, it
is not right to demand or expect payment when the effect would be the
imposition of political choices leading to hunger and despair for entire
peoples. It cannot be expected that the debts which have been
contracted should be paid at the price of unbearable sacrifices. In
such cases, it is necessary to find—as in fact is partly happening—ways
to lighten, defer or even cancel the debt, compatible with the
fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress” (39). In the
Philippines , for instance, not enough money is poured to health,
education, and other basic necessities because what is intended for them
are coughed up for debt repayment. Indeed, the nature of this debt is
such that the borrower becomes all the poorer rather than richer, linked
as it is with oppressive conditions, not to mention the fact that a
portion of it gets to the pockets of the elite. One might as well ask
Monsod if Shylock should get his pound of flesh!
Universal Destination of Goods
This makes a mockery of the principle that naturally flows from the principle of common good—the universal destination of goods.
According to this principle, “God intended the earth and all that it
contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men
follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for
them on a reasonable basis” (GS 69). What we see in the
Philippines is a pathetic distribution of goods. Some provinces, for
instance, have the best infrastructures, but others, especially those
removed from the political center, wallow in the primitive. Mining has
not enriched the Samar provinces and the poor; the profits went
elsewhere. Globalization is embraced by those who control the economy,
but has not improved the lives of the dispossessed. Laws on land reform
are enacted, but they are not really catered to the benefit of tenants
and farmers.
Indeed, despite all the press releases and fanfare attendant upon
poverty alleviation program, the properties of the propertied remain
intact. That nothing is new under the sun as regards efforts to close
the gap between the rich and poor finds its telling evidence in the slum
problems in Metro Manila and other cities. One can always ask what is
being done by our leaders to correct the lopsided relationship in an
economic structure that more often than not favors the moneyed. This has
to be asked because “the universal destination of goods entails
obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners.
Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the
effects that this use will have; rather they must act in a way that
benefits not only themselves and their families, but also the common
good” (Compendium, 178).
Clearly, then, the right to private property is not absolute. Indeed, Christian tradition has never recognized that right as untouchable. According to John Paul II, in Laborem excercens,
this tradition has “always understood the right within the broader
context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole
creation; the right to private property is subordinated to the right to
common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone” (84). But
will the rich part with their riches? One might be asking for the
moon. But it is well to remind them of the words of St Ambrose in De Nabuthe that Paul VI quotes in Populorum progressio:
“You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You
are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common
for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given
to all, and not only to the rich.”
In view of this, one wonders whether those in governance would be
willing to extirpate greed and sever themselves from their wealth,
instead of trying to accumulate more of it. Truth is, even public
office is treated as private property—politicians perpetuate themselves
in office through dynasty, as if they had the exclusive claim to it.
Today, it is often told that the country needs leaders who can be
trusted. Of course, that is correct. Filipinos hardly need a leader
who is a liar, profligate, wanton, greedy, violator of human rights,
self-serving, ambitious, tyrannical, and overweening. The nation looks
for a leader who could talk about “an economic vision inspired by moral
values that permit people not to lose sight of the origin or purpose of
goods so as to bring about a world of fairness and solidarity (Compendium,
174).” And of course he can walk the talk. Since he himself is part
of the oligarchy, he should be able to make his own life a showcase of
how a politician can contribute to the common good. He can do this not
by siding with the landed gentry and the aristocracy, but by opting for
the poor and the oppressed
Preferential Option for the Poor
The reason for this is that the principle of preferential option for the poor logically flows from the principle of the universal destination of goods. In the words of the Compendium,
“The principle of the universal distribution of goods requires that the
poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions
interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular
concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be
reaffirmed in all its force (192).” For John Paul II, in his Sollicitudo rei socialis,
this option is a “special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian
charity… It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she
seek to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social
responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical
decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods” (42).
In this country where the majority wallow in misery and only a few
enjoy so much wealth, common sense dictates that in the distribution of
goods, the needy, the hungry, the homeless, those without medical care,
the aged, the neglected and the hopeless should have preference, if all
are created equal. Yet, is there any aspiring national leader whose
platform will make this principle real in everyday life? Someone, of
course, ran on the program for the mahirap, but when he abruptly
ended his term, the poor were more numerous than ever. The promise that
relatives and friends would have no place in his dispensation was just
that—a promise, for his bank accounts never showed that the hopeless
were his beneficiaries.
Truth is, the principle of the universal destination of common good and
that of the preferential option for the poor can be translated into
realities only if they are matched by a recognition of the participation
of all at the level of political decision. As things stand, it remains
a figment of the imagination, for who makes political decisions? The
challenge of future leaders could be daunting. Is there any
presidentiable who is capable of betraying the interest of his social
class? The executive and legislative branches of the government are
occupied largely by the rich and by those who in politics became rich,
and one wonders whether they are prepared to give up their privileges.
If the history of land reform law has anything to tell us, it is that
the privileged class is not yet ready to give up its advantages to
really lift the poor from wretchedness. Indeed, there is no evidence
that the lot of the poor has improved since the birth of the Philippine
republic. Since those elected eventually become part of the privileged
class, one hardly expects that what will be distributed to the poor
really go beyond noodles, can goods, rice and PhilHealth cards.
Stewardship
Yet, come to think of it—if the common good has a universal destiny,
it is because no man can ever claim to own anything as his own; humans
are only stewards of creation. The principle of stewardship
derives from the understanding that God is the source of all creation,
and whatever man has is simply God’s gift not for himself but for the
benefit of all. In his World Day of Peace Message in 1990, John
Paul II asserts that “the earth is ultimately a common heritage, the
fruit of which are for the benefit of all. In the words of the Second
Vatican Council, ’God destined the earth and all it contains for the use
of every individual and all peoples’ (GS 69). This has direct
consequences for the problem at hand. It is manifestly unjust that a
privileged few should continue to accumulate excess goods, squandering
available resources, while masses of people are living in conditions of
misery at the very lowest level of subsistence. Today, the dramatic
threat of ecological breakdown is teaching us the extent to which greed
and selfishness—both individual and collective—are contrary to the order
of creation, an order which is characterized by mutual
interdependence.”
Can a political leader curb the greed and selfishness of the privileged
class? Greed and craving for huge profit left in their wake the
destruction of natural resources—forest denudation, floods, destruction
of crops and aquatic animals, plunder of mines and death of rivers,
obliteration of corals and mangroves, to mention a few of their evil
effects. Today, people are reaping the whirlwind, but although the
problem has affected almost every one, especially now that climate has
changed a lot, the victims remain those who are in the underside of
history. But one cannot take up the cause of the poor without
antagonizing those who make fantastic profits in the destruction of
environment. One wonders whether a leader could still pursue a program
of total development, given the oppositions he has to hurdle.
Solidarity
There is no formula for a political will that does not antagonize the
beneficiaries of a lopsided system of distribution of goods, but any
attempt would have to presuppose a change of vision of humanity. Such a
vision would certain include the principle of solidarity, because this
stands in opposition to all that greed and selfishness imply. If social
evil arises because a good number are lusting for power and greedy for
wealth, and love to work only for their selfish ends, solidarity
signifies the contrary—the offering of one’s self for the common good.
Solidarity, in the words of John Paul II in Sollicitudo rei socialis,
is “not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the
misfortune of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is
a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common
good, that is to say, to the good of all and each individual, because we
are all really responsible for all” (38).
The principle of solidarity highlights interdependence as intrinsic to
the social nature of man. “It is above all a question of interdependence
sensed as a system determining relationships in the contemporary world,
in its economic, cultural, political and religious elements, and
accepted as a moral category. When interdependence becomes recognized
in this way, the correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as
a virtue, is solidarity” (SRS 38). Solidarity then obliges
those who are well-off to share their goods and services with the
unfortunate. At the same time, it urges them to correct injustices done
to the poor, especially those that arise from the consuming desire for
profit and thirst for power, like extending one’s tenure of office by
advocating charter change. It this way, they are able to lose part of
their possessions and become committed to the common good.
But the poor cannot just wait for the rich to be committed to their
obligation under the principle of interdependence; it is important that
the victims of history express their solidarity with one another, if
society is to be transformed. As John Paul II asserts in Laborens exercens,
“in order to achieve social justice…, there is a need for ever new
movements of solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This
solidarity must be present whenever it is called by the social
degradation of the subject of work, by exploitation of workers, and by
the growing areas of poverty and hunger. The Church is firmly committed
to the cause, for she considers it her mission, her service, a proof of
her fidelity to Christ so that she can truly be the Church of the poor”
(37).
To
uplift the poor from misery, a Filipino leader cannot just therefore
express interdependence through distribution of rice and noodles in
times of calamities. More has to be done, including setting up
draconian measures to correct the continuing degradation of the poor.
Far from depending merely on the oligarchy to dispense crumbs, he must
encourage small communities, organizations, employees and workers to
unite themselves. Considering the opposition that this step might
create, since he would be making enemies of those well-placed in
position of power and privilege, he would need the help of other
institutions, like the Church. If the Church in the Philippines is
really a church of the poor, it would have to opt in favor of workers,
peasants, fisher folk and the marginalized, in their effort to liberate
themselves from injustices.
Subsidiarity
That
small groups should make initiatives that could help them achieve their
own perfection brings us to the last fundamental principle of Catholic
Social Doctrine—subsidiarity. This principle stipulates that the
society, the government, and other bigger institutions, rather than take
advantage of, or oppress the smaller ones, should be helpful to them,
especially the ultimate members: the individual. Far from
absorbing them or colonizing them, they should enhance their proper
activity. Pius XI, in his Quadragesimo anno, expresses the
principle as follows: “Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the
individual and commit to the community at large what private initiative
and endeavor can accomplish, so it is likewise an injustice, a serious
harm, and a disturbance of proper order to turn over to a greater
society, of higher rank, functions and services which can be performed
by smaller communities on a lower plane” (79). If the principle of
solidarity is opposed to all forms of political or social individualism,
that of subsidiarity stands in opposition against all forms of
collectivism.
Like
the previous principles, this one is based on the dignity of the
individual. All forms of society, whether big or small, are meant to
help him. And because man is a social being, smaller societies, like
the family, local association, small groups and the like, are the locus
in which the individual human person exercises that social dimension of
his existence and relate him to the bigger society. This bigger society
has the obligation to create conditions in which the individual can
grow and develop his potentials, and reach perfection. Consequently,
what can be done at the level of the small group should remain there,
and not absorbed or taken over by the larger one. Its competence is to
be respected.
The
larger community can take over its role only if it cannot be realized
at the local level; but if it can be done, the State, for instance,
cannot substitute itself in its stead in terms of responsibility and
initiative. In other words, the performance of an action is best done
at the lowest possible level. The same may be said of its responses to
local problems. Problems in smaller groups are to be met at that level,
and the government can intervene only when the solutions are beyond the
capacity of that level. There is, thus, no justification for the
government to dictate families as to how many children they should have;
that is the sphere of husband and wife. Nor can it prescribe what
forms of contraception couples should accept, for that is the competence
of married people who decide in the light of their religious belief.
The
implication here is that individuals and smaller communities are
empowered to get involved in the realization of their life and mission.
They take the reign of their own history. According to the Compendium,
participation is expressed in activities through which the citizen
contributes to the cultural, social, economic and political life of the
community to which he belongs; it is a duty to be fulfilled by all, with
responsibility and with a view to the common good (189). By
participating, the individual becomes active in ordering his life, and
is also able to help other individuals in the community, especially
those in dire need. The obligation to be at the service of others is
concretized by this principle.
In
terms of governance, the principle of subsidiary obviously implies
political reforms whereby the influence of the national government is
reduced in order to promote local autonomy. The Constitution of 1987
has already provided some form of autonomy to the Muslims and to the
indigenous peoples. In 1991, the local government code enacted reforms
for greater accountability and transparency. But one wonders whether
these are enough. On the other hand, how would the people be protected
from local governance where people are colonized by their own local
officials? The individuals at the local level still do not participate,
and because those in governance somehow substituted only the role of
those at the national level, social conditions are never created in
which individuals grow and realize their potential.
But
an even greater challenge is to transform the political system into
such that the local government becomes self-sufficient and not merely
depends on the internal revenue allotment for its survival. But this
problem is rooted in the feudal system that characterizes the
relationship between the national and the local levels. Under this
system, the master-servant relationship where loyalty, subservience and
dependency appear as virtues, is itself paralleled in the local level,
in terms of the relationship between local politicians and clients,
exacerbating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the
pauperization of the disenfranchised. Of no less importance, a
structural reform has to be instituted in such a way that the poor can
have a share in the powers of the government, if their participation in
governance is not to remain in theory; that way, they can participate,
for instance, in the decisions on the allocation of funds. With their
participation, they can see to it that money really goes to where it is
needed, not ending up in the pockets of the elite that now control the
set-up.
Final Word
TAKING
ALL THESE principles into account, one gets the impression that the
nation has still a long way to go, if it is really to achieve integral
liberation and development. Those entrusted with governance have to
understand that these principles are sine qua non for real development, and they have to be taken as principles for reflection, criteria for judgment and directives for action,
if they are really intent on uplifting the majority of the people from
misery. But then, it would take much sacrifice for them and for those
holding power and enjoying privilege. Political will would not be
enough; leaders would have to be willing and ready to lose power and
privilege for the sake of the many in the process of transforming the
Philippine society. Still, the question remains: will they be ready to
lose them? If our history of politics has anything to tell us, it is
that politicians scarcely care for any of these principles, for their
objective is not much more than the capture of power and the enjoyment
of its privileges, no matter if these harm the deprived. The challenge
for leaders today and tomorrow is to break with that history.*
No comments:
Post a Comment