PARADIGM SHIFT: Rule of Men to Rule of Law

Everyone can explain the dynamics of today's politics by understanding a simple theory, the common sense of politics. However, such principle alone cannot stand permanently, it must be supplemented by another theory, institutionalization, thus majority of publishers have harmonized the conflicting works of Machiavelli, the prince and the discourse.

The end justifies the means, one of the most poetic statement upon describing politics. It illustrates how to get the power and how to maintain it, thus, it serves as a manual towards dictatorship. Its better to be hated than to be loved, if you cannot have both. An illustration that a leader must consider the emotion and sentiments of his people, it also describes two kinds of leader, the hated and the loved, in application of common sense, hatred was weighed more, hence, a loved leader won't survived after his people impart hatred to him and may result into a revolt to overthrow him, on the other side, a hated leader is more secure from the uprising of the people because he cannot be hated again, hence, hindering emotions to escalate. And for that reason, a leader must be a fox and a lion. Fox as to have an intelligent appreciation of circumstances surrounding him, to evade misfortune and traps, so as to know when to act or not. Be strong like a lion, it deems to repel enemies even by inaction, passively bringing terror to enemies, so as to his people and it is important, especially to hated leaders. No matter what the means used as long as it is beneficial to prolong a leader's hold to power, it is justified. Our history speaks of this principle and able to distinguish two types of leader. The presidency of Cory is a manifestation of a loved leader, so as her son, PNoy. They are being loved by the people until such time of distress, love begins to become hatred, hatred fueled the people to show disrespect and labeled them as worst leaders. The credence rapidly fades for the reason of conversion to hatred. On the other side, Marcos, as a hated and feared leader clearly illustrates how to held a power for more than two decades. However, as I claim, this principle alone won't stand without application of another principle.

After the public has obtained political maturity and civil virtue, the other principle suggest institutionalization. It is basically rule of law and vesting of rights to all object of the government, as Singapore did, after such dictatorship, they gradually shifted into a democracy, it is the reason why some political analyst consider their framework as semi-democratic. If Marcos was able to see this transition, our nation would be better. Some may reason that, after the dictatorship of Marcos a form of democracy existed through Cory's government. I believe it will not fall under the principle of transition as compare to Singapore, application of freedom after an authoritarian regime must be gradual, after EDSA revolt, a full-blown freedom was extended by the present charter, so it invites excitement upon exercise of such freedom and resulted into abuse.


These are great theories, understanding the concepts may open our minds towards change. However, if mishandled and misapplied, it will deliver chaos. Society, I believe, must undergo a total transformation by means of agony, for the society to realize that they are vulnerable and for that, submit their trust to the rule of law.

Philippine Politics: An Organized Corruption

          As I predicted, Pork Barrel Scam is not just a "one-man" deed, but an organized crime in which a collaborative effort between the government and the circle of elites in the country. Probably, the administration is making a move to secure their insulation upon the scam, and instruct “Pork Barrel Queen” on how she will reacts to the investigation. Our government’s credibility has ceased, will you believe the outcome of this investigation regarding the “systematic or organized corruption” in our political system? Hahahahaha, systematic nga eh! Even the investigation’s integrity will be put into query. Once you have entered in “politics” you will be part of its system, or on the other hand will be unfortunate. Imagine how the previous DILG Secretary fought the corruption, and he ended in a plane crash. The dynamics of this “organized crime” in our country had surpassed the Corleone’s way.  

As to the martyr that has been taken for granted by each of us.

Looking back in our history, one man stood-up to restore the democracy and the spirit of being a Filipino. As my mature thinking came to a conclusion regarding the contributions of this martyr to our beloved country, he is undeniably taken for granted by us.

At the point of his assassination, there are gossips whether who framed the scheme of assassination against him. Some said, it is undeniably conspired by the government and the cronies surrounding it. And an opposite view, that the assassination scheme was planned by the family of his wife. Both parties desire to get the highest office of the government. Those theories for his assassination were entertained by the public, but due to the control of mass media the first theories transcends over the other. Well, the quantum of evidences to justify both theories are insufficient for a sane and matured person to conclude. In that point, his martyrdom is the essential element to hold the highest political power in the Philippines for either the administration or to his family. So, his death is the primary factor whether who holds the presidential seat or the Philippine government.

And the rest is history.

As for our time, we have taken for granted the contributions of his martyrdom to our country, for us to relish the gift of democracy. Probably, he will be disappointed on the way we practice democracy and the way we understand freedom.

The way we use his name in every protest against the government, in determining how wicked the Marcos family, in promotion of the sanctity of his family, and most of all, to fool a Filipino for an egocentric political ambitions. We forgot, in the first place why he accepted death for us, because he believed that the Filipinos are worth dying for! SHOW YOUR WORTH!

                                                                                                                                                                -August 21, 2013

“Democracy in the Philippines: The Influential government of the local elites and continuous impingement to good governance in towns and provinces”

                The interference of local elites into performing good governance in the Philippine political system has been tolerated, and has recognition by these political animals in practicing informal political norms. The Philippines local elites are the main practitioner of political tradition and customs such as political bosses, patron-client relations, political clans, etc., so that the birth of informal institution comes. It has a huge effect on delivering good governance to the local level; formal institutions are being dominated by informal institutions. Democracy is somehow ineffective to the Philippine context, because of the traditions we cannot live without. Basically this essay focuses on the impact of giving such autonomy to the local levels, and the interference of local elite to the formal institutions by the informal institutions. The decentralization vested by the Local Government Code of 1991 has performed a big role on the evolution of governing in the local levels. The article of Abueva is a formal institution and the articles of Magno, Manasca and Sidel are the informal institutions that are more express on the local level. The elites is impingement for delivering good governance because they are the one who can only avail to participate in any elections, they are more likely a capitalist, they use the power vested on them to make more profits. The rich became richer and the poor became poorer, if you have money you can manipulate the authority, and if you are the authority you can generate money by means of goons.

                “Decentralization of government functions serves as an invitation for rampant practice of informal institution by the local elites and the acceptance of the public of it in exchange of temporary privileges”. 

                The article of Abueva is somehow an invitation of the rise of the local elites and the toleration of informal political norms. The proposal of Abueva is to decentralize the present centralize government of the Philippines (Avueva, Jose) but this proposal may invites or may allow to legalize different privileges of a political elite. The ampatuan’s of the Mindanao is the best illustration of this, they able to create a private army that will follow the command of its boss. As I see, these are happening to our present political system and we must entertain at least a remedy not a thing that will worsen out political status. The patronage politics is rampantly express on the local levels (Magno 1989), therefore it an justification that it is not efficient for the Philippine political system the decentralization of national functions down to the local level.

                Some political individuals uses their resources in able to achieve the trust of the public by rendering different good or privileges, and in exchange the public are obligated to vote for that politician. It is the concept of patron-client relation, patron serves as a provider and public serves the client and mutual relation is built among the two. This is the reality of the Philippine political system; these informalities are inevitable when there is poverty. Local levels are experiencing it in the Philippine context, the public cannot avoid it because if we avoided it because we are alarmed when someone interfere with our traditions and customs.

                The political elites are too powerful in their localities; imagine if federalization will be passed. Federalization is decentralization and giving autonomy to exercise authority with accordance with the political body of the local government. Local elites will be attracted to form an alliance for a strong political coalition, for them to be able to secure the resources of the local government in to their hands. Primarily political elite wants to gain power in order to maximize their profit and resources. A political boss will arise who can able to control the political machine in order to prolong their tenure. Vesting an absolute authority on the local level will only fortify the practice of informal institution. At some point the decentralization has a negative effect on performing public services, like for example: the abuse of authority and more prone to corruption.

                As Abueva proposed, with the form of the Philippine’s government to be federalist-parliamentary. Our present party system is multi-party, so therefore it is a chaotic process in choosing our prime-minister, and if it will be amended into two party systems, probably it will be more chaotic. In two party systems, only two super parties will be an area to pick the prime minister. The political parties are temporary vehicle for local elites to penetrate in holding a political power (Manasca& Tan 2007), so that the party loses its real advocacy. Political party is primarily built in marginalize sector, and it is also an indication of political patronage. Political parties are introduce by ex-Pres. Ferdinand Marcos to represents different ideology and group of ethnical or not peoples. It is abuse by some aspiring individuals to enter politics or to achieve their political dreams.

                Informal institution will continue to interfere with our formal institutions and as the level of the Philippine political maturity, there are no perfect solution eliminating the rise or domination of political elite in attaining political power. As the Philippine systems recognize and accept these informalities in political system, the political boss, patron-client relation and manufacturing parties to use as a temporary vehicle will be used by local elites to prolong and maintain their political power.

                In the Philippine context, the elites or the rich can only avail to participate in any local elections. When they attain power they will do everything to maintain it on their hand and the practice of informal institutions arises. These are the reasons why the local elites are the major factor to impinge the practice of good governance in the local level. Many of our marginalized towns and provinces are the targets of these political animals; man in nature is political animal (Aristotle). Instead of criticizing the interference of local elites in delivering good governance, we must focus on how we can formulate a system that will fit our traditions and customs.

                The proposal of Abueva has advantages but it cannot resolve our grievances especially the domination of local elites in the local governments. Instead of putting our country into federalism, we must know what localities can survive the shift. First convert those charter cities into federal, they can withstand the autonomy and everything follows. Those in 3^rd class municipalities can be merged with a lot develop municipality or charter city near its vicinity and those more develop localities will take charge on governing the 3^rd class municipalities. This theory will eliminates inequality in development unlike Abueva and Pimentel’s proposals. This may also disjoin the participation of local elites on the 3^rd class municipalities by the control of the more powerful force by the charter cities.

                Philippine has a lot of problem when it comes to forgery of rigid implementation of policies and laws. We are political immature, we are rather to work for ourselves that to take apart on these political matters even though we have enough rights to resist the practice of informal institutions. If we will keep this ignorance, the elites will take advantage to the extent of their satisfaction. Because of the public’s toleration of informal institutions, the cacique or elites will domain the use of authority and can manipulate us in some way. If only we can once again unite our patriotism, there are no impossible for the Philippine.

                The inter action of different classes must be existing in a democratic form of government, the freedom must be present. Election is an indicator of democracy, isn’t it? In past elections, I have witnessed on how the public accept the practice of informal institutions. A politicians propaganda, vote-buying, promises and electoral fraud, this is a manifestation that we are also a part of informal institutions. Is democracy really fitted on our traditions and customs? Or we are just a trying hard nation who thinks that democracy is for us. It is shame that my own race don’t understand the essence of democracy. At some point, democracy is the reason of worsening our political tradition. We are given a lot of freedom so that abuses occur, the capitalist abuse the rights of the consumers to gain more profits and then they will use that profit to facilitate their electoral fraud. I have observed that the election invite the toleration of giving the local elites to interfere with our formal rules and in result lack of good governance. People only aspire to have a good government that shall lead them to success, and since change is the only absolute in politics, they are taking the chance to change a form of government for a lot better life to live. Democracy may perish in the Philippine but it does not solve the problem of all, besides there is no form of government for the benefit of all because politics is basically to display power and not for the weak. There are no forms or structure of government that will satisfy the hunger of the masses.

                The practice of informal institution is truly inevitable, as long as we are lock up with our traditions and customs. The lack of rigid in implementation, it is more essential that our state is separate with the church and the church must not affect the decision making of the state. We are back to the Spaniards time that the church is too powerful in government functions. The aspiration of every citizen of our country to have a practice of good governance is being hindered by the negative culture of the Philippine politics. As long as we tolerate this acts our political system will not develop instead it will fall and the democracy we fought for and the sacrifices that our people done will be forgotten and put into trash. Our people will never learn from our history and will always take for granted all the good things that we have.

                The local elites have the charisma; they can lure anyone with their flamboyant speeches. The ruler on a certain local government can manipulate the whole population by knowledge on how to play the game of politics. Many of the Philippine’s towns and provinces are marginalized, and so the local elites use their wealth as an advantage. Primarily local people developments are base on the local elites, the land is provided by the elites and the peasants are the one who make the land fertile and profitable but the elites get the most of the profit and benefits. Because of the lacking opportunity the peasant engaged to a patron-client relation with the higher class. Greed is the major factor on the interference of the local elite in performing good governance. Local elite can antagonize policies and laws in the local levels by using their influence and wealth.

Conclusion:

                Informal institutions are rampantly express on the Philippine setting and it is unavoidable. Our traditions and customs will always interfere with our formal structures; unless scholars can develop a political structure that is fitted to the Philippine’s setting. Proposing different structure to shift our government into different form won’t make a change, like the proposal of Abueva to federalize the Philippines. It will just invite the acceptance of informal institutions, and will worsen the corruption among all localities. The Philippine must attain its maturity in politics in able to develop other internal matters, and surely it will take a lot of time attaining it.

                The interference of local elites is inevitable, as the Philippines political setting. Philippine is too much entertained with our traditions and customs; we are tremulous that the occurrence of changes will disregarded the major component of our nationality or maybe individuality. We are pent in the past and we can’t entertain new innovations that may help our development in the local levels up to the national levels.

                Democracy is not quite effective in the Philippines context because it is primarily the idea of the westerns, and it was created for the development of the westerners. Democracy led us to the rampant practice of informal institutions and the recognition of it among the people and the nation. We are given too much of freedom that’s why we cannot avoid the manipulation of the elites on the local levels. It is well explained by the three authors that the informal institutions are more express on the local level, because local elites are also the political rulers in the local level. How can they be punished when they are the one implementing the law? The decentralization of political or governmental function down to the local government gives opportunity for some political ruler to formulate a law that will benefit his/her and his constituents. There is nothing wrong with our political structure; the only thing that makes the structure wrong is on how Filipinos collaborate our tradition in running a political sector. It is inevitable and it will continue to impinge in delivering good governance with a rapid change, we must wait or take time on our development in socially, economically and politically.

Issues in International Relations

A.    Introduction

International Relation became a discipline to study the relation among nations. It aims to have cooperative, united and peaceful nations around the world. International Relation intends to seek a better international community by analyzing and formulating foreign policy, and for securing the welfare of all states around the world. Diplomatic act is the way that is use by International Organization to avoid igniting world wars. Establishing international organization (League of Nations) after the war the IR emerged as a formal academic ‘discipline’ in 1918. In the past century we have seen the role of International Relation to maintain and develop welfare among nations to nations. It involves a diverse range of issues on international community. The principle of the study of International Relation is based on world history and used it to prevent states to engage in war for the welfare of the world. League of Nation is establish to have a economic development among states and it didn’t  succeed, United Nation is establish to show how to maintain peace and welfare in the international community as well as economic cooperation. The diversity of United Nation as an international organization is very helpful to secure and protect lives, resources, peace, security, market, territory and promote development among nations. UN is a tool that prevents nation to nation conflicts that may lead to world wars. It is near to impossibility to maintain peace and welfare to the world based on our history but International Relations have prove that it is not impossible to secure welfare around the world.

B.     Ancient Era

In old world expansion of empires is everywhere, Ancient Greece, Roman Empire, China’s Dynasties and etc. The Old World comprises Africa, Asia, and Europe (collectively known as Afro-Eurasia), plus surrounding islands (or at least those parts which were known to classical geography before the 15th century). It is monarchical rule and territories gain thru wars. Basically empires are group of kingdom and with one ruler, the emperor. International Relation are a lot different back then, messenger are sent not to prevent war but to warn kingdoms to join their ruling or they will engage in war. Religion is one of the factor to expand a territory, like in Holy Roman Empire, Constantine reunite Rome with Christianity and able to expand his territories. In China’s history Qing dynasty has the hugest territory and the last. In reality, Chinese history is not as neat as is often described and it was rare indeed for one dynasty to end calmly and give way quickly and smoothly to a new one. Dynasties were often established before the overthrow of an existing regime, or continued for a time after they had been defeated. Rulers gain their respect with other empire by means of how large their territory is. In the world history there are many well known individuals for expansion of their territories, and the best example I will give is Alexander “the Great”. By the age of thirty, he had created one of the largest empires in ancient history, stretching from the Ionian Sea to the Himalayas. He was undefeated in battle and is considered one of the most successful commanders of all time. In old world of ancient world the International Law was non-existent, the natural state between foreign nations was universally considered to be war. Peace could only exist as the result of express treaties. Nations were enemies or allies; there was, in theory, no middle ground. The development of any system of international law during a period of this character was impossibility.

C.     Wars and Diplomacy (1648-1914)

During the Medieval Period wars are inevitable, in 1648 the Thirty Year’s War end and that is one of the most devastating war of religion. In 1900’s another war shocked the world and a truly devastation and destruction to the world. The World War I started in 1914 and ended in 1918, and this war produces many genocides, revolutions and unreasonable killings. In the 19th Century, the major European powers had gone to great lengths to maintain a balance of power throughout Europe, resulting by 1900 in a complex network of political and military alliances throughout the continent. Many had died around the world in this war, but an ideology of maintain the welfare of the world emerge. Introduce by Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nation is established on Paris Peace Conference and by the Treaty of Versailles the League of Nations is established on 28 June 1919. The league was intended to introduce international welfare by using diplomatic acts instead of violence. Economy is one of the major reasons why the league is established. The First World War had a lasting impact on social memory and this war brought International Relation as a discipline.

D.    Birth of International Relation (1919-1939)

After the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919, the economy of the world became vigorously and trade & cooperation are done around the world. Industries rises all around the world and the effect of globalization had felt. The birth of International Relation arises, by Woodrow Wilson showing the political ideology of Idealism can fit into the international community. Diplomatic act is being used to maintain peace and prevent of war. IR is the key to achieve cooperation and to trade with other nations. This era is the pick of industries around the world, and by the help of the League of Nation many countries had experience dramatically development on their economy. Institutionalising diplomacy is the foundation of LON and as being introduced as a field of academe study. But the league didn’t last, in 1939 the league failed to prevent another war from emerging. The World War II happened and the league was abolished. The ignition of war came from the conflict in the Europe, especially in Italy with the fascism leader Benito Mussolini.

E.     Hot and Cold War (1940-1993)

The World War II is a failure of League of Nation, another devastation war to the world. The war is being ignited by the Pearl Harbour Attack in Hawaii the largest naval base of the United States in 1941 of December. The war wage on the western and south, many have died and many nations suffer. The World War II was a global conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, involving most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million military personnel mobilised. In a state of "total war," the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. Marked by significant events involving the mass death of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it is basically war of political ideology. The leadership of Adolf Hitler of Germany killed many civilians as well as Josef Stalin in USSR/Russia, of Benito Mussolini in Italy, and other leaders that create genocides.

The Cold War emerged after the World War II and it is between the wars of “ism”. The mass production of nuclear weapons of USSR as well as with Cuba for their security reason and the political ideology that is contrary to the ideology of USA, communism/socialism versus democratic form of government. It is cold war because there are no mass killings; it is only a rivalry of who is the world power. The Cuba is being embargoed as a sanction for collaborating with USSR to produce nuclear warfare. The war of ideology comes to an end and John F. Kennedy successfully managed not to engage into war. The Cold war end in 1993, and Cuba and USSR stop producing nuclear warfare.

F.      Environment and Human Rights

The impact of Globalization has consequences, the environment degeneration. That’s why United Nation does not only focuses on maintaining order and welfare to the world. UN form a international organization to protect and preserve our resources in our environment and also human development. UNEP or United Nation Environment Programme intent to promote the protection for environment and UNICEP or United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund focuses on the welfare of children around the world. As we see the impact of globalization, has a huge effect on our environment and the degeneration of our environment affects the food supply that is chain to the health of every human in the world. Having this both international organization will remind the world that we must act now for us to have a sustainable development. International Relation has come to a bigger picture after it is establish, promoting the total welfare of the world is their advocacy.

G.    The Philippines-What do you want?

The Philippines is very well known for their agricultural products and we will be economic competitive if we are dedicating ourselves for one goal. The issue on Spratly Island with the China is very sensitive; we can’t fight against China to acquire that territory. The thing that we probably do is to keep in silence and let the international community push our ownership to the Spratly Island. The corruption in our country is very rampantly practiced, that is why we are burden with so many grievances. It is also the reason why we are the number one supplier of workers around the world; if we reduce the practice of corruption probably there will be no OFW and poverty. If we just implement our laws and policy very effectively probably there will be no injustice in our country. We must not abuse the use of our resources for us to be able to maintain the beauty of our country, to attract more tourists.  If we educate our people, probably there is no hindrance in passing a law that is essential to everyone, like RH bill, we must have a full knowledge before concluding our views. If only our government allocate equal respect regardless of their religion, probably there will be no MILF’s and Abu Sayaff to spread violence in our country. We must be obliged to follow the rules imposed by the government and the government shall put an outmost responsibility to every Filipino people.

Instead of complaining, we must develop the things that we are known for, like agriculture. We must focus on ourselves; we must not rely to other countries for us to be able to survive. We must know what the things that we will to prioritize most are; concentrate to that for achieving our goals and development. Our government must always advocate the idea of patriotism and not promote imported goods and culture by letting our domestic product rule our market. We must set our mind to one goal for us to have an order and have a clear draft of our aspiration. Instead of questioning the government, support them. We don’t have any problem in the structure of our government, the problem lies into the diverse culture of the people.

The Probable Solution to Attain the Claim in Spratly Island

            The Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is rich in natural resources that can boost an economy to a dramatic success. Six nations claimed that Spratly islands are included to their territory but until now the debate on where the islands will go seems difficult to determine. The six nations have their own proof to justify their claim on the island. The claims of different nations invites conflicts to arise, they may use brute force or diplomacy just to acquire the rich island of Spratly. The Philippines is the one of the claimant of the island, and the impendent rise of conflict in other nation has been observed. If the Philippines have a claim on the island so long with other strong nation what course of action should the Philippines government will take? To pursue the settlement on the issue of ownership of the island, to enter in a joint venture in other claimants of the island and negotiating the ownership of the island in a period of time or following the other approach, which is engaging into all out war. It is hard to determine for a weak country like the Philippines on what to be prioritized. As I dissected the different probable solution to the claim of Spratly islands I came at in one point, not to use violence but the advantages of the probable solutions in benefits of the Philippines.

            Pursuing the ownership of the Spratly islands would be not practical for the Philippines. First of all, even the Philippines attain the ownership of the island it is impossible for the government to waste big amount of money to extract natural resources to avail the benefits of the island. The Philippines would search for an foreign excavators to extract the minerals and other natural resources of the Spratly, the Philippines surely cannot avail the service so it will goes sharing of extracted resources for both players. It is very impractical for the Philippines. The second aspect is the relation of the Philippines in the neighbouring claimant of the islands; it will weaken the relationship of the Philippines that may result in many negative effects for the economic development of the Philippines. The worst scenario would be engaging in war and the Philippine is not capable of financing the military for international war. And lastly, if the Philippines attain the ownership on the Spratly, the intervention of other states would be observed especially the United States of America because of its oil reservoir.

            Declaring all out war to other claimants of the island would only deliver the Philippines to devastation. Entering in war will cost too much and for the Philippines it is not very practical to waste the national funds in engaging in war. Even the promised aid of the USA it would be a tragic moment for the Philippines. Philippines cannot afford to go to war and even if it can it is not the best way to attain the ownership of the Spratly islands. First, the Philippines have an impotent arm forces and naval forces. Second, there is more to be prioritized that the claim of the Spratly island. And third, the relation of the Philippines to maintain in its neighbouring country for overseas workers.

            As I apply my analytical thinking to come up with the best probable solution on the claim of the Philippines for Spratly islands I came up with the joint venture. This paper will illustrate the possibilities when the Philippines engaged in joint venture with China. Why China? China is one of the most economic boosters of Asia and has the most powerful force on all of the claimants. The Philippines has the advantage of engaging joint venture in China because the Spratly Island is located at the territorial sea boundary of the Philippines. If only the Philippines and China meet at the half way, it is surely satisfy their claims. First, the Chinese government can allocate their funds to extract the resources in the Spratly Island which is the weakness of the Philippines. China has more access in new technologies that will hasten the excavation and they persevered because of the oil reservoir on the main island. It is basically a win-win situation for both claimants. Second, boosting the economy of both countries and will open a new door for trade. It will help the Philippines to open the door for the Chinese Market. My estimated sharing is 80% for China because they provided equipment and technology for excavating the islands and 20% for the Philippines and the ownership of the island. It is a big help to boost the Philippine market. Lastly, the relation of the Philippines will be solidified and will give a strong political, economical and social relation to both countries. Entering in a contract with China will disregard the other claimants of the island.

            The Philippines must enter a negotiation for its benefits. The win-win situation may serve as an answer for the claim in Spratly Island. The Philippines cannot choose other option to acquire the ownership of the islands but to enter in a contract that would be both beneficial for both claimants. 

Thailand: A Stable Semidemocracy (Article Review)

            The disturbance of Thailand democratic stableness is determined through the long term monarchial regime. The challenges faced by Thailand to maintain their democratic aspiration is the social disorder and social confusions, the attempt of the society to overthrow   the government led to many cultural re-orientation and conflict in their interest as a nation. Thailand has never been a colony of western countries and it is the major reason of the political chaos of Thailand. The introduction of democracy in Thailand is very limited, even scholars from Thailand that have studied in western hemisphere have a little knowledge on the procedure under a democratic government. Democracy is a real foreign subject for Thailand, so that is the one reason of Thailand on their confusion understanding the democratic form of government. Their long period of monarchical regime was embedded on the way do politics. The authoritarian twist on the democratic form of Thailand is reflected on their profound political culture of Thailand. A semi-democratic form of government shows that democratic success will be observed at basic formulation or establishment of a government, it must be a complimentary and fit to the culture of a country.  The application of democracy to a government shall not be forced, the agony of Thailand’s government illustrate that the application of democracy comes in a precise timing. The installment of democratic form of government by force will result in social and political disorder and the economical aspect will dragged down, so the three aspect of the society will experience an epic fall. The establishment of pure democracy in Thailand is in grave challenge in the acceptance of the society, the Thailand customized democracy to fit their culture promoting their big difference on the western countries. The semi-democracy or democracy with a flavor of authoritarian shows significant effect on the pursuance of Asian countries towards democracy, the effectiveness of semi-democratic form of government invites some Asian countries to customize their form of democracy. Many attempt of twisting the idea of democracy have been introduce in the modern politics. The maintenance of Thailand independence shows that the rapid shifts of political system will mislead the development of political, economical and social factor of a country.

             The military regimes in Thailand, the failure of Thailand government protecting its government from autocrat’s ruler serves a solution to their agony on how they will pursue democratization. The twist of authoritarian will fit the democracy aspired by Thailand. The pure authoritarian regime has come to an end and Thailand has formulated the form of government they are seeking for. Institutionalizing democracy faced many challenges on time when Thailand experiencing disorder. The different interest of Thailand’s people led them to many coup attempts and revolution to overthrow the government. The delivery of political and individual’s rights in an authoritarian rule would be very contrary to the concept of military regimes, the aspiration of the people to attain political and individual rights had been addressed by the present government. The regime of military in Thailand political setting is based on their monarchial history and inherited by the society. The outrageous reaction of youth leaders is also the factor that brought Thailand to military regime. The disorder on their society invites an authoritarian regime to promulgate discipline into the society. The abuse of the use of military power encourages the society to revolt and to overthrow the authoritarian regime. The society puts an end to the authoritarian regime in Thailand.

            The Thailand democracy and its fall, the insufficiency of the democratic establishment on Thailand’s government faced challenges that led them to failure. After an authoritarian regime the youth scholars experimented a democratic form of government, there representatives are elected and appointed by the elites. The protest of the society against the democratic experiment has escalated and disorder in their political setting comes. The stability of the democratic form of government is challenge by different sector of the society. The democratic government has been a failure addressing the interest of Thailand socio-political aspects. The successive shifts on Thailand’s political setting have put a devastating effect on their political, economical and social stability.

            The birth of new political system of Thailand, the establishment of military regime to serves as a vanguard against communism. Abolishing all democratic institution to have genuine authoritarian regime to secure the national interest and hindered the penetration of communism. The authoritarian rule with a package of liberalism to secure them from the threat of communism and a strong drive towards reunifying the society of Thailand, ensuring the order in the society is the primary focus of the authoritarian regime. Their aspiration of Thailand government to formulate a political system that will address the problems of the society has begging to crystallize. The semi-democratic emerged from the Thailand political system, the aspiration of Thailand to have a government that will fit their culture has been materialized in the semi-democratic form. Its neither authoritarianism nor pure democracy but a mixture of two ideology that compliment with their chaotic political system. The effectiveness of the semi-democratic form on Thailand’s political setting is reached its stability. The present Thailand political system can be called neither a democracy nor an authoritarian system. It falls between the two political modes but has been shifting incrementally away from semi-democratic towards democracy. The semi-democratic model, which was a political compromise between the bureaucratic and non-bureaucratic forces, has been under pressure both externally and internally (Thailand: A Stable Semidemocratic). The semi-democratic setting of Thailand promised a thrust towards democracy, the substantial aspiration of Thailand to gear towards democracy is a long journey for the Thai’s political setting. The disadvantages of both authoritarian and democracy are the factor that puts Thailand in a great agony. The political inconsistency of Thailand led them to pursue a semi-democratic form of government.

            For my conclusion, the search of Thailand’s government for a type of government that is suitable for their inconsistency and political disturbance has been found in the form of  mixture of authoritarian and democracy, the semi-democracy. All Asian countries have hard finding the missing essential element on how they can pursue democracy. The diversity of the Orientals led them to seek a hybrid government or political system. The ideology from the western hemisphere is somehow find it way to cope with the extreme and diverse culture of Asia. Thailand illustrate that aspiring democratization would not be impossible for the Asian nations. The complex inhabitants of Asia show significant transformation on how a foreign ideology will fit their custom. In the case of Thailand democratization, the time will come for them to deliver full democratic government to its people and resolving the agony of inconsistency.

           

            The semi-democratic form government is an indication of the complexity of the field study of politics; you cannot determine what will be done by different political thinkers. The customization of different ideology is an evolution on our age, the filtration of good factors on every political system until it will attain the highest form of government. It is observed around the world that the mixing of different forms, type and ideologies is a factor reaching success in governing. The ideal prospect of every government around the world will meet its solution, the Thailand political context show a well-defined pursuance towards democratization. The quest of different nation to acquire democracy will come to an end and the solution will be determined by their vigilant aim to pursue democratization