Oliveros, Joshua December 15, 2014

BS Biology
2014-74128

An Egalitarian Prison
Freedom can have several interpretations from different viewpoints. A prisoner can be
freed from his offenses after being released from prison, yet he will still be caged within the
guilt that his crimes had made him feel. A doctor can feel a state of relief after a successful
operation, however he may still feel detained by the risks and dangers tomorrow’s surgery
might bring. These varying instances suggest how the definition of freedom is dynamic.
When one asks about the meaning of freedom, the answer usually deals with the description
of a philosophical, judicial, political, economic, and social system.
In general, freedom is a state wherein there is an absence of restriction or limit.
Freedom can be incorporated as a natural right, which is intrinsic to every human being born.
It can also be identified as a constitutional privilege, wherein one can do whatever he/she
wants as long as it is in the jurisdiction of his/her country’s constitution (Anderson, 2002,
p.35). All of these characteristics exhibit a definite but paradoxical meaning of freedom; it is
not absolute.
In the Philippines, democracy and freedom are two misguided ideologies used to
describe power. Democracy as a governmental structure formed and constructed by the
people of society, is the source of sovereignty of the Filipinos. This type of regime was
adopted by the Philippines as the pillar of its administration ever since the Americans
colonized the country on 1946. The Western colonizers implemented this type of system in
the Philippines in order to protect their colony from the influence of communism that was
being promulgated by the different Communist leaders (Paredes, 1989, p.12). In this type of
government, citizens exercise power and civic responsibilities directly and through their
elected representatives. The Filipinos were given the power to enact laws and decide how
these laws will be enforced. Even though not every definition of democracy is alike, as
culture and society influence people’s ideals, the fundamental principles it upholds still
remain consistent in every form (Kramer, 2006, p.433).
At present, democracy in the Philippines is still alive and active. The population is
still able to elect their officials by the means of electoral voting. The Filipinos, in terms of all
the rights and opportunities their country’s jurisdiction can provide, are still able to exercise
the liberty and the freedom of speech and information. Although, the sovereignty that it once
had attained is very much different from the autonomy it has today (Mckenzie, 2012, p.157).
Before, there was a genuine balance of power between the executive and legislative
branches of the government, even if this sometimes resulted in political stalemate and

POSITION PAPER REVISION 1

administrative inaction. Now, due to the abuse of the granted “rights to speech and
information” by the systemic government, the population, including the administration and
the society, is currently experiencing instability within its economic system (Paredes, 1989,
p.11). Although democracy is fair and nondiscriminatory, it relies mostly, if not solely, on a
majority to make an informed decision, and in the Philippines, that unaware majority can be
manipulated by capitalist politicians, this can lead to ineffective governance.
Democracy in its direct form, mostly favors small governments and personal liberty
over large administrations and personal freedom (Marsh, Blondel, Inoguchi, 1999, p.197). It
also has intrinsic characteristics that suggest how it can be a feasible type of government in
developing countries. The voice of a states citizen and their liberties are the most important
factor, thus personal interests of the democratic people are protected and safeguarded by the
government. This suggests how democracy is a type of government that is appealing to not
only the state officials but also to normal citizens in a nation. A representative government is
established in a democratic country, thus elections are free and fair. Media and press are also
autonomous, meaning that these mediums of communication cannot be influenced or
controlled by the government, thus transparency of information is attained. It is a form of
administration wherein it represents the views and notions of all the citizens of the country,
whether majorities or minorities (Keohane, Macedo, Moravcsik, 2009, p.8). Thus, the
citizens are able to voice their opinions without fear of governmental retribution.
A democratic state also promotes equality in terms of its law-making judiciaries and
law-implementing councils. It is a just government wherein all members of the State are
equal in the eyes of law. All enjoy equal social, political and economic rights and the state
cannot discriminate among citizens on the basis of caste, religion, sex, or property. All have
equal right to choose their government. And because it is a system based on public will and
interest, there should be little, or perhaps, no chance of public revolt, thus forming a stable
administration (Anderson, 2002, p.35). Representatives elected by the people conduct the
affairs of the state with public support in order for the administration to branch out its
influence and maintenance to the society effectively. This results to a harmonic
communication between the government and the people, thus public revolts and chaos will be
avoided (Holcombe, 1985, p.223).
All of these characteristics of Democracy show how it is a type of government
wherein unification of equality and power are its main techniques to establish a stable
economic nation. However, most of these qualities also contain ambiguities that can become
gateways for abuse. This accountability is also a very significant element especially in the

POSITION PAPER REVISION 2

Philippines, wherein the majority of the democratic community population is a part of the
marginalized sectors of the society, a region of the society wherein the influence of the
wealthy dominates the minds of the unfortunates. Another issue can also be accounted to this
is the conflict about the middle class sector of the community, wherein ever since the
transition of the Philippines from the authoritarian rule to democratic government, more and
more citizens from this section try to expel democratically elected leaders through extra-
constitutional actions like protests and rallies (Ungpakorn, 2007, p.8). These actions further
promote instability within the democratic government
Democracy in the Philippines is an important paradoxical issue. The nation is the first
country in the region to topple authoritarian rule (Girling, 2002, p.47). Signs of a vibrant
democratic atmosphere are extensive: high voter turnout, civic engagement, and institutional
arrangements that theoretically promote accountability and safeguard rights and liberties. Yet
the flaws in the democratic process are also extensive: elite dominance, institutional
feebleness, and widespread abuse of public office (Mckenzie, 2012, p.157). Concerns about
the quality of democracy have become central to political discourse in the Philippines.
According to Jose Sison (2014):

We have been on this “experiment” of an independent republic anchored on a US-

style democracy for nearly three (3) generations since 1946. True, we were under an
authoritarian regime for a brief 14 years, but we have been back on a democratic track
for 28 years or twice as long as the Marcos dictatorship and yet the level of economic
prosperity, quality of life and happiness index remains much to be desired (n.p.).

One point of argumentation why democracy is not a feasible system of administration

in the Philippines is the flaw of its original definition on the emphasis of quantity vs. quality.
This definition states how democracy doesn’t really seek out what is best for the citizens, but
simply does what the majority of the citizens’ want. A defect of this definition is it
generalizes the fact that what the majority wants will always be what the majority needs. It
does not account the errors in human decision-making wherein the views of the people aren't
always the ones that will lead to the greatest outcome, in fact they often aren't. In direct
democracies, like in the Philippines, where the people rule, they often make mistakes in their
decisions, because of fleeting passions and not having full knowledge which has severe
consequences for everyone (Mckenzie, 2012, p.158). This loophole of democracy can

POSITION PAPER REVISION 3

eventually lead several shortcomings; unawareness of national political status and misuse of
the granted “democratic” rights.
According to the principles of democracy, the common man has all the powers or
rather rights to elect their government as well as their main authorities. However, too much of
these powers can be dangerous for various reasons. For example, it is evident that not all
people are aware of the political conditions in their country. Additionally, majority of the
common people are not familiar with governmental issues affecting the society because the
only source of information of the marginalized community are news cycles and media, which
can be insufficient and inaccurate at times. This can be supported for the rich may hold the
media and use it for their own advantage. Big business houses influence dailies, like Rappler,
and use these for creating public opinion to their favor (Vajpeyi, 2003, p.95). How can they
make an informed decision in terms of their nations well being when the information being
fed to them isn’t exactly bipartisan?
This issue can furthermore affect the principle of democracy in the transparency of
law, wherein this code of egalitarianism will be useless if people are not knowledgeable
about the mechanisms that ensure transparent governmental transactions. Any government
can easily abuse its people if people are bereft of the tools or knowledge that will secure their
welfare. A starving man, for example, will simply say that he has no time to think about
corruption in government nor will he reflect about the character and qualifications of the
person he will vote for during elections. He will just vote for the person that will “allegedly”
satisfy his “hunger” without thinking of the consequences this one-sided reason can entail.
As a matter of fact, a study was conducted in Sorsogon to test the predictions of a behavioral
model of transactional electoral politics in the context of a randomized anti-vote-selling
intervention in the Philippines, particularly in areas wherein the citizens are more or less
apathetic or unaware about the political state of their society. According to the analysis, there
was approximately 47.1% of increase of vote-buyers by just using simple interventions, like
eliciting promises of money and food after the elections. This proves how the minds of
people can be easily manipulated by money and influence (Hicken, Leider, Ravanilla, &
Yang, 2014, p.26).
It can also be said that anti-corruption drives and the right of suffrage are only seen in
a negative way as an exercise of one’s negative freedom, and not as positive opportunities to
empower one’s self in public (Vajpeyi, 2003, p.95). Thus, there is no certainty that
democracy will lead people to not be being apathetic or unaware of one’s own nation’s
political status. Democracy cannot assure that no wrong choices will be made during

POSITION PAPER REVISION 4

elections, suggesting that this flawed system can bring into power devious and moneyed
individuals who are likely to misuse the rule of the republic.
Lastly, Modern democracy is, in fact, capitalistic in nature. It is the rule of the
capitalists. Electioneering is carried out with money and influence. The rich candidates
purchase votes. Might of economic power rules over the whole process. This sad truth of
democracy is a blatant quality of the innate freedom and liberty that a systemic citizen-
controlled administration exhibits. The net result is that we get plutocracy under the garb of
democracy-democracy in name and form, plutocracy in reality. It is a significant issue for the
common man. The need to raise enormous sums to have some impact on an expanding
electorate has, of course, naturally strengthened the influence of the rich and those

organizations favored by the rich over the electoral system. In this respect, Philippine
electoral democracy is a splitting image of its parent, American democracy. In both, the
influence of moneyed elites in shaping electoral outcomes is enormous and widely influential
(Girling, 2002, p.47).
Fig.1. Gross Domestic Product growth rate of the Philippines (1999-2011)
One statistical proof of this stagnant development of the economy in the Philippines is
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of the nation. GDP is the overall output of goods
and services in a specific time period. It primarily gauges the health of a country’s market
economy. In the Philippines, Fig.1 shows that there is stagnant growth of GDP for the last
decade. It disagrees to the economic principle that with the supposedly humanitarian
government, increasing the GDP should be no problem for a developing country. In order to
experience economic development and economic growth at the same time, a nations
government should be able to stabilize a continuous growth of its nations GDP. However,

POSITION PAPER REVISION 5

this data proves how the democratic government is not that effective in sustaining its own
nations’ economic health (Barrientos, 2011, n.p.)
The root cause of Philippine poverty is its dysfunctional democracy. In line with this
unstable government are the scheming officials that continue to swindle and abuse the
democratic society. Many of the “democratic” institutions and programs have failed to even
deliver basic services to ordinary people. An example of a program is the Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program of the present president Benigno Simeon Aquino. This specific
program was supposed to pioneer the eradication extreme poverty in the Philippines during
Aquino’s term (Girling, 2002, p.46). However in November 2012, the Commission on Audit
(COA) released a report that found critical problems in the implementation of the program.
COA discovered that a large number of beneficiaries were not really poor yet were included
in the program (Girling, 2002, p.47). This is another proof that the democratic government of
the Philippines is not capable of maintaining its implemented programs. This loophole in the
administration shows how the corruption of the few can easily overcome the government of
the many.
With the kind of leaders and bureaucrats who have ruled the nation in the past, the
present, and maybe even the future, an interim possibility can be assumed that the reduction
of extreme poverty and progression to economic prosperity can be attained by the Philippines
only after it detaches from its current democracy. Through all these decades ever since the
nation became a democratic and independent republic, it can be perceived that poverty in this
country and the lack of authentic economic progress is mainly due to the corruption and
incompetence of the administration (Marsh, Blondel, Inoguchi, 1999, p.196). What freedom
is and is not is pivotal to comprehending how the ideology is being reflected in the
Philippines today.
The Filipino nation should understand that democracy is not only intrinsically
important, but it is also instrumentally vital. It means that not only the liberty that democracy
endows to its citizens is significant, but also the power and influence that this type of
government grants its people. People empowerment should not be abused just to satisfy the
wants of the many. Freedom should not become a gateway for corruption and exploitation of
resources and wealth. Today democracy in the Philippines is still not as effective after years
and decades of experience, as it was planned to be by the Americans and by the Filipino
administrators as well (Girling, 2002, p.47). Citizens from different sectors of the community
are expected to stabilize democracy and mitigate conflict within the administration.
Although, because of the bestowed power and control of information and speech within the

POSITION PAPER REVISION 6

democratic government, the democratic citizens are now more concerned of protesting
complaints rather than suggesting ways of economic developments. This just shows how
democracy in the Philippines is stagnant and unmoving.
In conclusion, since in Philippine democracy the majority wins, and when the
majority of the voters are poor, and the poor can be bought, it necessarily follows that
democracy can be bought and the winner in any election will be the person that that has the
most money to buy the votes. This statement provides a general conclusion why democracy
in the Philippines is not a feasible type of government for it seems that only the power of
wealth and the influence of authority can exercise freedom in the Philippines. A power that is
louder than the voice of the democratic people and an influence that is strong enough to
imprison freedom within a state of democracy.

POSITION PAPER REVISION 7

References:
Anderson, C. (2002). What is Freedom For? In A deeper freedom liberal democracy as an
everyday morality (pp. 35-36). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Barrientos, M. (2011, January 1). Philippines - Population - Historical Data Graphs per Year.
Retrieved December 1, 2014, from
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=rp&v=66
Girling, J. (2002). The Philippines: Acquisitive elites. In Corruption, capitalism and
democracy (Taylor & Francis e-Library ed., p. 46-47). London: Routledge.
Hicken, A., Leider, S., Ravanilla, N., & Yang, D. (2014). Temptation in Vote-Selling:
Evidence from a Field ,Experiment in the Philippines. Temptation in Vote-Selling:
Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Philippines, 26-27. Retrieved November 28,
2014, from http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~leider/Papers/TemptationVoteSelling.pdf
Holcombe, R. (1985). The Growth of Government. In An economic analysis of
democracy (pp. 224-226). Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
Keohane, R., Macedo, S., & Moravcsik, A. (2009). Democracy-Enhancing
Multilateralism. Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism I, 63(1), 8-9. Retrieved
November 28, 2014, from
https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/multilateralism.pdf
Kramer, P. (2006). The Difference Empire Made. In The Blood of Government: Race,
Empire, the United States, and the Philippines (1st ed., pp. 433-434). The University
of North Carolina Press.
Marsh, I., Blondel, J., & Inoguchi, T. (1999). The Philippines. In Democracy, golvernance,
and economic performance: East and Southeast Asia (pp. 196-198). Tokyo, Japan:
United Nations University Press.
Mckenzie, D. (2012). The Unlucky Country. In The Unlucky country: The Republic of the
Philippines in the 21st century. (pp. 157-159). S.l.: Balboa Pr.
Paredes, R. (1989). The Paradox of Philippine Colonial Democracy. Philippine Colonial
Democracy, 11-12. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from
http://badaboum.bidibom.free.fr/mat-old/notes/sea-pol/content/39.html
Sison, J. (2014, September 29). A law each day keeps the trouble away. The
Philippine Star. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/09/29/1374318/fake-democracy
Ungpakorn, G. (2007). The Taksin Crisis. InA Coup for the Rich Thailand's Political Crisis(p.
8). Chulalongkorn, Bangkok: Workers Democracy Publishing.
Vajpeyi, D. (2003). Nepal in Crisis: Democratization and the Failure of Local Government.
In Local Democracy and Politics in South Asia (p. 95). VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.

POSITION PAPER REVISION 8

 Outline
Thesis Statement: Although Democracy is fair and nondiscriminatory, it relies mostly, if
not solely, on a majority to make an informed decision, and in the Philippines, that unaware
majority is too easily manipulated by capitalist politicians which can lead to ineffective
governance.

I. Democracy and Freedom are two different ideologies especially in the context of the
Philippine Government.
a) Freedom is not just a state of liberty.
1. The definition of freedom can be different if viewed in varying
perspectives
2. Freedom is not a gateway to commit immoral acts.
3. Freedom can never be absolute.
b) Democracy is the type of Government in the Philippines.
1. The Americans instituted Democracy in the Philippines.
2. Democracy became the Philippines initial and staple administration
after it became independent.
3. Filipinos have integrated democracy in their culture.
c) Democracy is a part of the Filipino lifestyle.
1. Democracy is active and alive in the Filipino society.
2. Filipinos mostly depend on their leaders for support.
3. Managing Political propagandas is considered a money-earning job in
the Philippines.
II. Democracy is a type of government that best suits developing countries.
a) Democracy protects the rights of the citizens.
1. The government safeguards the rights and privileges of its citizens.
2. A democratic governments’ power comes from the citizens and their
rights.
3. Democracy promotes constitutional freedom.
b) Democracy emphasizes on constitutional and social equality.
1. The constitution considers everyone equal in the eyes of the law
2. The citizens have the power to elect officials and be elected as leaders of
their nation.

POSITION PAPER REVISION 9

 3. A democratic government grants the right to free media and information
to its citizens.
c) Democracy is a pillar of a stable administration.
1. A democratic government is instituted on unity.
2. The democratic people construct the administration.
3. A democratic government promotes a harmonic communication
between its citizens and its leaders.
III. Democracy is not an effective type of government in the Philippines
a) Democracy doesn’t seek out what is best for the citizens but simply does
what the majority of the people want.
1. It generalizes the fact that what the democratic people want will
always be what they really need.
2. People abuse their rights to speech and information
3. People step on other peoples’ rights in order to be free.
b) Abusive and Incompetent Leaders can be elected as officials
1. Voter turnout quantity is more than enough but voter profile quality is
overrun by the marginalized sectors.
2. GDP growth is stagnant ever since the Americans left the Philippines.
3. People’s votes can be bought by money.
c) Capitalism is imbued within the Democratic government of the Philippines
1. Market economy and Democracy
2. Money overpowers the democratic government
3. Wealth and Media pair up to influence the democratic government.

POSITION PAPER REVISION 10

Annotated Bibiliography

Anderson, C. (2002). What is Freedom For? In A deeper freedom liberal democracy

as an everyday morality (pp. 35-36). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

This book explains freedom in terms of democratic concepts and ideologies. It helped
me define freedom in a different perspective.

Girling, J. (2002). The Philippines: Acquisitive elites. In Corruption, capitalism and

democracy (Taylor & Francis e-Library ed., p. 47). London: Routledge.

This volume discussed the different interrelated political and economic ideas in the
Philippine setting. It helped me compare and contrast the different periods
wherein of the Philippines in terms of the Market and Political Economy.

Hicken, A., Leider, S., Ravanilla, N., & Yang, D. (2014). Temptation in Vote-Selling:
Evidence from a Field ,Experiment in the Philippines. Temptation in Vote-
Selling: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Philippines, 26-27.
Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~leider/Papers/TemptationVoteSelling.pdf

This journal talked about a study of vote buying and the psychological aspect of this
issue. It helped me support my statement about “votes can be bought” and
“will be bought” by the ones who are in need of money.

Holcombe, R. (1985). The Growth of Government. In An economic analysis of

democracy (pp. 224-226). Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.

This book talks about democracy in an analytical viewpoint. It talks about how a
government grows from within a democratic aspect.

Keohane, R., Macedo, S., & Moravcsik, A. (2009). Democracy-Enhancing

Multilateralism. Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism I, 63(1), 8-9.
Retrieved November 28, 2014, from
https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/multilateralism.pdf

This journal shows how democracy can be enhanced by multilateralism. It helped me

by suggesting new ideas how democracy can be strengthened and structured
by the used of international unification.

POSITION PAPER REVISION 11