In Manuel L. Quezon III's blog entry Philippine Political Culture, he quotes President Jose P. Laurel:
Let's take JP Laurel's moral and intellectual aristocracy for a spin, shall we? If this is the ideal, i think it would be easier and more efficient in this case to do away with universal suffrage and instead have the citizens go through a proving process for moral and intellectual 'proficiency' before they are allowed to vote. People will dismiss this as arbitrary but then again so is arbitrarily setting the voting age to 18 and above. Why not 17? Or 25? Or 40, the same minimum age for one to be president? Laurel's benevolent government may not continue indefinitely however, so as to prevent MLQ3's concern:
In our society, universal suffrage is sacrosanct. Tampering with it is heretical. But if you think about it, universal suffrage could easily morph into the tyranny of the amoral majority. In a society where the grip on sound moral foundations is becoming increasingly tenuous as ours is, moral leadership would be at the bottom of the criteria for choosing leaders. The main criteria would be: What could he or she do for me? The subtext being, and the others be damned. In a society like ours therefore, to eliminate the tyranny of the amoral majority, you allow only the moral and intellectual minority the right to vote. This does not in any way impinge upon the inalienable rights of the citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To those of us (that is, to me) who see these rights as sacrosanct, the manner with which we choose our leaders isnt that important as long as the government we choose to govern us would not impinge on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as the government does not tamper with these rights, and as long as the government is there to secure these rights, then it has my consent to govern over me even if I werent deemed qualified to cast a vote. The moment it impinges on these rights, it loses my consent to govern over me. Suffrage is not one of the inalienable rights mentioned by the founding fathers of the American Revolution. For them, a government only has to govern with the consent of the people.
So where did universal suffrage come from? I could be wrong (in fact I probably am) but I suppose it started with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address where he began his speech with "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" and ended his speech with , "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
First, 'all men are created equal.' The context within which this should be read is that all men are created equal in the sense that all men have the same inalienable rights, and not in the sense that all men are equal equal, for clearly all men are not equal. Some have more ability than others. The only thing that prevents a stronger and smarter man from taking advantage of a weaker man is his moral code and his recognition that his fellow man, even though he is weaker, also has rights to life, liberty, and so forth.
Next, 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' The founding fathers wanted a government for the people, and of the people. By the people? This is construed as universal suffrage, something that the founding fathers never mentioned in their declaration. In fact, universal suffrage is a fairly recent phenomenon. Granted, suffrage was granted in the early days using highly questionable criteria such as land ownership, gender, or color of the skin. These are highly unjust criteria that are against any moral government which is the sort of government we want. The suffrage this thought experiment seeks is granted only to citizens of proven moral and intellectual standing, and does not give weight to a citizen's wealth, gender, religion, ethnicity. I dont know if Honest Abe had universal suffrage in mind when he said 'by the people'. Maybe he didnt.
How do we go about selecting the qualified voters? First, we have to raise the voting age to 35. Not too old to be cynical, and still young enough to be in touch with his or her youthful idealism. I see a written exam. I see the exam administered and written by the nation's intellectuals and would have emphasis on critical thinking, some grasp of economics probably, and history certainly. These tests can be administered to whomever wishes who is at least 21 years of age and is a citizen of the republic. That would give the administrators more than 10 years to evaluate the test results (since there arent going to be any right and wrong answers, the emphasis being on how well the examinees presented their case.) That takes care of the intellectual part. The moral part is tougher. Written recommendations from civic groups, religious leaders, and the like would be involved most probably and thoroughly investigated in a transparent process. Those who satisfy the moral and intellectual criteria will be allowed to vote as soon as they are 35 years of age and have not been convicted of any crime. Now faced with voters like that, I bet we'll see a marked improvement in the quality of the candidates seeking public office. There will be none of the accusations leveled at artistas and the like for voters like that will look at a candidate's ability no matter what the candidate's profession is, be it soap opera superstar or university professor.
Universal suffrage, the tyranny of the majority, was most likely instituted through the efforts of what would be termed 'liberals' today. It has the faintest hints of socialism in it. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the American creed probably didnt have it in mind when they began their great experiment.
The whole history of government shows that public affairs would be better administered and the welfare of the people better subserved in the hands of a moral and intellectual aristocracy. The people cannot be governors and governed at the same time… On the other hand, a good and efficient government, a benevolent government, may exist and continue indefinitely to function with admirable harmony, when men of superior moral and intellectual endowments are in control of the state.
Let's take JP Laurel's moral and intellectual aristocracy for a spin, shall we? If this is the ideal, i think it would be easier and more efficient in this case to do away with universal suffrage and instead have the citizens go through a proving process for moral and intellectual 'proficiency' before they are allowed to vote. People will dismiss this as arbitrary but then again so is arbitrarily setting the voting age to 18 and above. Why not 17? Or 25? Or 40, the same minimum age for one to be president? Laurel's benevolent government may not continue indefinitely however, so as to prevent MLQ3's concern:
The problem of course, is that who will ensure that the aristocracy will be of the mind and not a replacement oligarchy as greedy and stupid as what came before?The answer is: The voters will through regular elections. The qualified voters, that is. Voters of proven moral and intellectual capacity. How will we determine who is qualified? I'll get back to that in a bit.
In our society, universal suffrage is sacrosanct. Tampering with it is heretical. But if you think about it, universal suffrage could easily morph into the tyranny of the amoral majority. In a society where the grip on sound moral foundations is becoming increasingly tenuous as ours is, moral leadership would be at the bottom of the criteria for choosing leaders. The main criteria would be: What could he or she do for me? The subtext being, and the others be damned. In a society like ours therefore, to eliminate the tyranny of the amoral majority, you allow only the moral and intellectual minority the right to vote. This does not in any way impinge upon the inalienable rights of the citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To those of us (that is, to me) who see these rights as sacrosanct, the manner with which we choose our leaders isnt that important as long as the government we choose to govern us would not impinge on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as the government does not tamper with these rights, and as long as the government is there to secure these rights, then it has my consent to govern over me even if I werent deemed qualified to cast a vote. The moment it impinges on these rights, it loses my consent to govern over me. Suffrage is not one of the inalienable rights mentioned by the founding fathers of the American Revolution. For them, a government only has to govern with the consent of the people.
So where did universal suffrage come from? I could be wrong (in fact I probably am) but I suppose it started with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address where he began his speech with "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" and ended his speech with , "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
First, 'all men are created equal.' The context within which this should be read is that all men are created equal in the sense that all men have the same inalienable rights, and not in the sense that all men are equal equal, for clearly all men are not equal. Some have more ability than others. The only thing that prevents a stronger and smarter man from taking advantage of a weaker man is his moral code and his recognition that his fellow man, even though he is weaker, also has rights to life, liberty, and so forth.
Next, 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' The founding fathers wanted a government for the people, and of the people. By the people? This is construed as universal suffrage, something that the founding fathers never mentioned in their declaration. In fact, universal suffrage is a fairly recent phenomenon. Granted, suffrage was granted in the early days using highly questionable criteria such as land ownership, gender, or color of the skin. These are highly unjust criteria that are against any moral government which is the sort of government we want. The suffrage this thought experiment seeks is granted only to citizens of proven moral and intellectual standing, and does not give weight to a citizen's wealth, gender, religion, ethnicity. I dont know if Honest Abe had universal suffrage in mind when he said 'by the people'. Maybe he didnt.
How do we go about selecting the qualified voters? First, we have to raise the voting age to 35. Not too old to be cynical, and still young enough to be in touch with his or her youthful idealism. I see a written exam. I see the exam administered and written by the nation's intellectuals and would have emphasis on critical thinking, some grasp of economics probably, and history certainly. These tests can be administered to whomever wishes who is at least 21 years of age and is a citizen of the republic. That would give the administrators more than 10 years to evaluate the test results (since there arent going to be any right and wrong answers, the emphasis being on how well the examinees presented their case.) That takes care of the intellectual part. The moral part is tougher. Written recommendations from civic groups, religious leaders, and the like would be involved most probably and thoroughly investigated in a transparent process. Those who satisfy the moral and intellectual criteria will be allowed to vote as soon as they are 35 years of age and have not been convicted of any crime. Now faced with voters like that, I bet we'll see a marked improvement in the quality of the candidates seeking public office. There will be none of the accusations leveled at artistas and the like for voters like that will look at a candidate's ability no matter what the candidate's profession is, be it soap opera superstar or university professor.
Universal suffrage, the tyranny of the majority, was most likely instituted through the efforts of what would be termed 'liberals' today. It has the faintest hints of socialism in it. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the American creed probably didnt have it in mind when they began their great experiment.
7 comments:
Universal suffrage (for men) was first introduced in the mid-19th century in Europe as a means to prevent repeated incidence of revolts. Why do you assume that the majority is the one who will be amoral? Do you think that the self-proclaimed intellectual elite who thinks nothing of the masa getting cheated will be able to represent their interest during elections? Having a moral and intellectual priesthood is not a panacea for the simple reason that we are unable to identify, much less agree on who they are, and even if we are able to do so, i don't think there are enough of them who are able to look beyond their own parochial interests.
Hello, cvj.
Universal suffrage (for men) was first introduced in the mid-19th century in Europe as a means to prevent repeated incidence of revolts.
As appeasement? That's not a good reason to grant universal suffrage. What they needed was genuine answers to their grievances. The citizens in mid-19th century Europe, as shown by their repeated revolting, is no longer confident in the government's ability to secure their inalienable rights and have therefore withdrawn their consent to be governed by it. The revolt-ridden governments of Europe should have listened to the people instead and addressed their grievances to earn its consent. But Europe is not our point here.
Why do you assume that the majority is the one who will be amoral.
Because it is necessary for my thought experiment. It is one of my 'givens.' And I must say that looking around, Im inclined to believe this is the case.
Do you think that the self-proclaimed intellectual elite who thinks nothing of the masa getting cheated will be able to represent their interest during elections?
First, they won't be self-proclaimed. They will have to go through a process to determine if indeed they are the intellectual 'elite.' Second, they will be an intellectual and moral elite. I am assuming a moral elite will do what is morally right, that is, they will do what is good for all as they see it, including what is good for the masa. Those who think nothing of getting the masa getting cheated is by no means moral. A truly moral elite will be outraged.
Having a moral and intellectual priesthood is not a panacea for the simple reason that we are unable to identify, much less agree on who they are...
That could be true. This is the difficult part in this experiment. A problem I am not qualified to answer.
and even if we are able to do so, i don't think there are enough of them who are able to look beyond their own parochial interests.
Which means you agree with me that they are in the minority. (Again: Those who arent able to look beyond their own parochial interests can not be called moral.)
Jego, thanks for your response. We can call it 'appeasement', but that's how things actually turned out. Without access to the ballot, many people will eventually resort to the bullet as the means to enforce their 'withdrawal of consent'. Universal suffrage has been one of the keys to averting social instability and the resulting bloodshed in modern societies.
In terms of your proposed qualifying exams, how do we get from where we are now to the point where we able to administer such exams? If we cannot even get our nursing exams right, how do we go about establishing the integrity of an exam to determine someone's intellectual and moral fitness to choose our leaders? How do we prevent this qualification process from falling into the hands of an elite who is neither intellectual nor moral?
I agree with you that in any society, an intellectual and moral (and selfless) elite is always in the minority which is why it is not within their power to rule via the levers of State. They do not have the numbers nor the guns to enforce their will which is why they have to rely on moral suasion. The Gandhi's, Marx's, (and Manolo Quezons) of this world are most effective as role models or thought leaders.
My main point however (which is related to your point about 'appeasement') is that even a cabal of Jose Rizals cannot be counted on to represent every Filipino's interest. It is simply beyond any person's intellectual capability or powers of empathy. That is why everyone (moral or otherwise) should be given a chance to assert and protect their own interests (as well as demonstrate their enlightenment) through the ballot. No one can be counted on to do that for them on a consistent and regular basis.
I think they deserve something more than appeasement; more than the ballot. They deserved genuine justice and freedom. They deserve their rights and a government that secures those rights. I submit that a Filipino will give up his right to suffrage if it means his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will be secured, and I offer as proof thousands of our countrymen who choose to go to the US and other western democracies knowing fully well that they will lose their rights to vote for the leaders of their new country until such time they prove their worth as citizens, if it's citizenship they are after. Universal suffrage is used by those who grant those rights (our political leadership) to legitimize their stay in power, taking advantage of the majority's lack of resources and powers of discernment to do so, and claiming mandate. (And in this I do not discriminate. Lack of discernment, especially in morals, is not the monopoly of the 'masa.')
Without access to the ballot, the Filipino will not necessarily resort to the bullet. History has shown that Filipinos, in their exercise of their democratic rights, can try to effect change through peaceful means. (I recognize of course that in the first time this happened in our modern history--EDSA 1--the ballot being sullied was involved, but this was not the case in EDSA 2, and EDSA 3. But nevertheless, this can be prevented in the first place by a moral leadership with the welfare of the people in mind.
As for the how of the qualifying exams, etc, I admit that this is beyond me, but I dont think this is beyond anyone. It will have to start with a moral leadership that appoints the people that administers the qualifying process but that is begging the question. In this thought experiment, whatever method is used could evolve as the need arises into something close to the ideal.
The Gandhi's, Marx's, (and Manolo Quezons) of this world are most effective as role models or thought leaders.
Or as electors--those who are qualified to cast a vote for leaders, which is what the thought experiment proposes. This does not prevent them from seeking office themselves if they so desire.
My main point however is that even a cabal of Jose Rizals cannot be counted on to represent every Filipino's interest.
The qualifying process will not discriminate against anyone by virtue of their economic status. Every Filipino's interest will be represented. We mustnt assume that none of the 'masa' we're concerned about will qualify.
We all know how the current political oligarchs take advantage of the electorate's weaker position. In this case, the problem lies more with the political oligarchs. Why take it out on the voting public? What needs to be addressed here is inequality in power relations. Taking the vote away from the majority will only worsen such inequality.
I agree that our people deserve more than the ballot - but not less. That 'something more' (beyond appeasement) is active participation in the public sphere, via people power or various NGO's. This should be encouraged as it will add more of the element of authenticity to our democracy. A big part of our problem is that once elections are over, we more or less leave our officials to do what they please. History has shown that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only be ensured by free men doing their part.
Restricting the vote will not give you that 'something more'. In the real world, any situation where you have a segment of the population with no voice, as in pre-Civil war USA or Apartheid-era South Africa is bound to have more than its share of injustice, discontent and sense of exclusion. I disagree that EDSA2 and EDSA3 were not about the ballot. The ballot is all about representation and the three EDSA's were all triggered by crises of representation.
In terms of practicality, i think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that the qualification process has an element of begging the question. That is what characterizes the entire thought experiment. It cannot resolve the question of who will guard the guardians. A universally respected noble order like the Jedis exists only in the movies and even they are not immune from the Dark Side. No qualification process or any form of stacking the deck can save us from the downsides of democracy. Only genuine and vibrant discourse can do that.
In this case, the problem lies more with the political oligarchs. Why take it out on the voting public?
We have a vicious cycle here. Who put those political oligarchs in power in the first place? If suffrage werent universal; if it were conducted using the processes suggested in this experiment, the oligarchs wouldnt have come to power. Or at least the chances of them getting elected would be very slim indeed. And if by chance they did get elected, they would be unelected in the next election.
Anyway, the whole point here is that we already impose requirements for suffrage and the right to suffrage can be taken away. It is not an inalienable right.
That 'something more' (beyond appeasement) is active participation in the public sphere, via people power or various NGO's.
I agree. But limited suffrage will not impinge on the general population's active participation in the public sphere. Their voices will still be heard, as you said, via people power or various NGO's. In fact for the purposes of this experiment, NGOs that qualify will be allowed to cast a vote. One-NGO-One-Vote, instead of one-man-one-vote. Additional votes can be given to the NGO in the same way that Party Lists can be given more seats in Congress depending on the votes they get in the Party List elections.
In the real world, any situation where you have a segment of the population with no voice, as in pre-Civil war USA or Apartheid-era South Africa is bound to have more than its share of injustice, discontent and sense of exclusion.
Again, the limited suffrage of those societies was based on unjust criteria. This experiment proposes criteria that will not give weight to a person's (or NGO's) economic status.
I disagree that EDSA2 and EDSA3 were not about the ballot. The ballot is all about representation and the three EDSA's were all triggered by crises of representation.
Although all three involved fitness to govern, only EDSA 1 was triggered directly by cheating the people of their vote. EDSA 2 was about the people's sense of justice being subverted by a politico-legal process; a higher moral law was then invoked by the people. EDSA 3 was triggered by the unconstitutional way in which a president was ousted. Anyway, the point is, any action of the government that will trigger outrage will result in the Filipino brand of direct democracy.
In terms of practicality, i think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that the qualification process has an element of begging the question. That is what characterizes the entire thought experiment. It cannot resolve the question of who will guard the guardians.
Doing what's right shouldnt be limited by practicality. It isnt practical because the genie of universal suffrage is out of the bottle. Somewhere along the way, universal suffrage became synonymous with democracy so doing away with it is heresy. My point in this exercise is that universal suffrage is NOT synonymous with democracy. The voice of the people will still be heard even without suffrage. The problem of the guardians is difficult, but not insurmountable. Like I said, it may be beyond me, but I dont believe it is beyond anyone. Everyone is a guardian. The guardians will be watched by the guardians and will continue to be watched by the guardians, vigilance against the dark side being one of those things that's needed to sustain a democracy.
No qualification process or any form of stacking the deck can save us from the downsides of democracy.
A qualification process is already in place, but it is only applied to immigrants seeking citizenship. The right to vote really ought to be earned before being bestowed. Immigrants have to prove to the authorities that they wil be good citizens before citizenship (and the right to vote) is bestowed. This experiment merely applies a qualification process to natural born citizens.
Thanks for the 'genuine and vibrant discourse' cvj. You really ought to get your blog going. This one isnt really a political blog so I dont know what it adds to the general democratic discourse.
Thanks as well for bearing with me, Jego. In terms of 'rightness' of the idea, i guess our pivotal difference is on whether we believe that universal suffrage is NOT synonymous with democracy and everything else that it implies.
Post a Comment