Civilising Philippine Politics

Since we have inherited a Western political system and our consciousness, our ways of life, our identity is tied to the State, so must we look back to its history to see where we are going wrong. Where some are obsessed about the idea of adhering to what has been written in the highest law of the land - well, because we must obey the "rule of law," they seem to miss the big picture in favour of the details.

From the earliest Anglo-Saxon political philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, all the way to the continental ones - the State, that construct, is supposed to be a metaphorical and physical space where its inhabitants can live safely from "the state of nature," where its literally every person for herself.

The State is a social contract. It is a promise between those who give up some of their rights and privileges to the Leviathan - the State - that entity which has the legitimate and supreme authority of to kill and tax. The State is a promise to its people that they can live civilly with each other - that there be absence of violence within its borders and that there be security of life and livelihood.

It is the task of civil society - all of us - to hold accountable our State to this promise. That there be security for all who live within its jurisdiction. That there be justice for all. That the letter of the law be applicable to everyone - and not only those who can afford it.

Given these simple concepts, how has the Philippine State fared? In recent history, has it guaranteed security for all of us? Has it guaranteed that physical space where we can live civilly with each other? How has it used its exclusive power to maim and to tax?

Given these simple concepts, what must we, civil society, do?