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.