It's the culture, stupid!

At least from the time Spain sold our country to America for an amount much smaller than the cost of the aborted ZTE deal, doubts have lingered if our sense of nationhood would ever show up. We seem like a race pretending to be a nation. And our problem, I suppose—and as pointed out countless of times before—is culture. Some say it is damaged. Others may say there is just not enough “glue” to bind us as a people.

What was it that justified Andres Bonifacio’s death at the hands of his fellow Filipinos? If we assume that his execution was legal, then I suspect that our laws have not worked in ways that inspire national unity.

What drove us to sign parity and all kinds of agreements with the US then? Because we wanted economic progress. At least that was how our leaders told—and continue to tell—us. Why are we tying ourselves up with China, among other countries, in our attempt to exploit the Spratlys now? The reason may well be same as above.

Years after we signed deals with other countries, and after putting in billions upon billions of pesos of public funds through national and local budgetary appropriations, along with billions more from loans and grants, we see what economic progress means. More and more families in the past few years have earned incomes below the poverty line; a line set so low that wags wonder if it has something to do with our height. An October 28, 2007 Philippine Daily Inquirer report says in part: “The share of the poorest 30 percent of the country’s families in 2006 accounted for only 8.6 percent of the country’s total income, while the top 10 percent accounted for almost 36 percent … the combined wealth of the 40 richest Filipinos according to Forbes Asia is P773.5 billion, which is equal to the total incomes of nearly 60 percent of Filipino families, or almost 52 million (out of 86 million) Filipinos.”

What I am trying to say is this: we lack a determined and relentless drive to propel our country forward on the path of justice and equity. Our government is driven not by strategic development needs in the context of what we see our nation to become in the next hundred years. It is driven by what compels us today until the next elections. It does not draw its power from representation; ours is a dysfunctional republic. It does not represent the people. It represents but a few interest groups in the land.

America was right. We Filipinos are not capable of governing ourselves by genuine democratic rules. On January 9, 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge boomed on the floor of the US Senate to defend the Treaty of Paris ending, among other things, the Spanish-American War. He also argued against granting us our independence; instead he urged America to colonize the Philippines.

Part of the Beveridge speech said: “… in all solid and useful education (Filipinos are) dull and stupid. In showy things … they have apparent aptitude …. In their stupidity (they) are like their carabao bulls… we must never forget that in dealing with the Filipinos we deal with children.” America went Beveridge’s way and ruled us until nobody knew when.

We are dull, stupid and poor organizers because our culture tolerates it. We thrive on being clowns because that is how we cope with the travails of life. Are we not among the happiest races in this planet? We idolize entertainers more than we hail scientists. Our culture sees individuals as members of the clan—or gang—more than they constitute a community that requires serious organizing. We have no need for visual expansion. In my limited view, two things stunt our cultural activism. One, our faith in the gang frees us from worries of this world and inhibits our concern for others. Two, our faith in the resurrecting power of the Sacrament of Penance frees us from worries of the next world; it suggests that we may defile ourselves mortally and as often as we please.

Unfortunately, that same retarded culture has sanctioned the death of Bonifacio. And it is the same culture that allows our students to disappear in the night. That same culture has, in the name of economic progress, pushed our government to strike deals with governments that satisfy the needs of a few more than they address the needs of the many. That same culture has debased public institutions and made public policy captive at the hands of powerful gangs. It is the same culture that whets immoderate greed and breeds unrestrained corruption.

We reached this point because we lack the kind of moral fitness that can allow our value systems to regroup. Where have our teachers gone? The traditional guardians of society’s morality are themselves hardly inspiring. The catholic bishops, for example, denounce gambling in all its forms. But they accept Pagcor and PCSO funds to help the poor. They are masters of rationalization. They make it easy for us lesser mortals to steal public money now and give to charity later; they make thieves look good. They are quite a sight—church, government, thieves—in a unity walk against poverty! They also preach and practice freedom. Many priests, for example, freely take liberties to break their vows.

Over at the palace, the President dishonored the words she ejaculated on the day she honored our national hero. She desecrated the electoral process by ringing an election officer at the time rigging of votes was alleged to have taken place. When her supporters explained she did nothing wrong with that “hello,” people wondered what she was sorry for. She admitted that something smelled wrong with the ZTE deal (this time not in front of TV cameras, the better, perhaps, to conceal her acting), but accorded it her official approval anyway. Far from being a creation of political noise as Malacanang says they are, these are facts made known by what the President herself said. The truth stares us in the face and the bishops urge us to seek it.

In my confusion I can only imagine the bishops may want na makuha naman kayo sa tingin. Why would we expect a President to keep her constitutional covenant with the people when our pastors blithely violate their sacred vows? Indeed, who does not sin? The only difference is some sin against private grace while others sin against public weal and accountability. One answers oneself, the other answers the taxpaying public.

Perhaps the question is not for how long we can endure a President who prostitutes her word, her office and the people she theoretically represents. Maybe the question is how wretched we can be to see the standards drop just to accommodate her moral shortage. Being called unworthy is one thing. Losing all moral balance is another. One is about lack of something; the other is about lack of everything.

Beveridge’s point slams it home: like children, we entertain ourselves even if it is time to be serious. We break our vows, say sorry, but do not feel the need to resign.