Ferrer, Hanna Therese V.

GREATWK M81 Synthesis Paper

Is Democracy Really Appropriate for the Philippines?

The Philippines had been colonized for over 300 years, and with this, numerous ethos have been
passed on to the country. The democratic form of government that the Philippines has been employing is not a
system that grew out of the Philippine's own historical experience. It was inherited from the Americans.
Democratic government is a type of government in which the ruling power of a state is legally vested not in any
particular class, but in the members of the state as a whole. Being democratic means that the hands of the
country lies on the people, but how can it be a moving country when the mass itself is uneducated? How can it
be efficiently run by the mob when majority lacks knowledge and proficiency on how things should be done?
Are the ordinary Filipinos as a whole ready to rule the country?
The Philippines is still an emerging and a third world country. It has not fully developed yet, and it is
undeniable that there are still numerous things that the government should work on. However, it is unfortunate
that many of the country's leaders are incompetent. Corruption is very prevalent. Many government programs
are unnecessary. Many projects are overpriced. Billions of taxpayers' money is just put in the pockets of the
politicians. But who elects them? The people do. And yet, they are blaming the leaders. Yes, these politicians
are at fault, but they are not the only ones. The people also have a part on this blunder. They are the ones who
elected these actors, singers, athletes and other incompetent leaders, and yet they complain so much on why
the country is still not rising. This is actually absurd, and mainly the reason why the Philippines is dreadful
and might continue to be like this.
To some extent, this can be attributable to the lack of quality education. Poverty is very prevalent, and
with a system of government that the Philippines has, poverty hinders less fortunate people from having an
accessible quality education. This lack of education would just then result again to poverty of their next
generation. It is almost a never ending cycle for these pitiful people. The rich becomes richer, and the poor
becomes poorer. To a certain extent, this can be attributable to some of the corrupt and incompetent
government officials. Yes, the people are the ones who chose them, but one cannot fully blame them for doing
so. Poverty and lack of education hinders them from having the capability and thinking to really choose the
candidates who have the capacity to rule and uplift the country. These people usually cannot criticize well the
candidates that would be most suitable for the positions. They are poor, and one cannot blame them for
supporting those who buy their votes. They are in desperate need of money. They might die because of hunger
if they do not accept these. Fuelled by their lack of education, this pushes them to be swayed by the money and
the buying of votes of some candidates who are actually incompetent. They are easily deceived by the
campaigns that would promise to uplift them in their current situation. Unfortunately, many of the Filipinos
voters are made up of these less fortunate ones, and their collective votes can make uncompetitive and
undeserving candidates win.
For a country like the Philippines, which still needs a lot of improvement in its education for the
masses, a democratic type of government is still not appropriate. The people cannot rule the country if they do
not have the proper knowledge. It would just result to irrationalities. It could be possible to uplift the country
with this type of system, but a lot of difficulties may arise. As deduced from the Republic, Plato also acquires
distrust on the common man, since people tend to act on emotion instead of reasonable rational thought.
Nonetheless, the Philippines is in serious need of rational solutions. Plato also contends that when power is
placed on the hands of the people, it could have a detrimental effect on the efficiency and justice of the state. He
puts into question the people's ability to rule justly.
Furthermore, in the enemy of the people, Ibsen pointed out that the real enemy of the people is the
people itself. They were hindering the repair of their infected baths. They did not believe the statement of the

Doctor that the baths were really infected. They were concerned only on their present goodness because closing
of the baths would result to the downfall of their income, but, they did not take into account the fact that the
baths could be really infected and could pose health dangers to them in the future. Even if the mayor of the
town somehow wants to repair it, he would not do so. The rulers were elected by the people, and with it the
people gave them the right to rule over them. However, this power is not absolute. They are still subject to the
verdict of the people. These politicians may have power over the masses under their term, but once this term
approaches its end, the power would then belong to the people who have the prerogative to choose the leader
for the next term. To still acquire the support of the people, most of the politician's actions are usually done in
accordance on what the masses would see as desirable, even if it is not rational and would not be beneficial for
the town.
Nonetheless, employing a democratic system in a state or a country is not always and absolutely
detrimental. Democracy allows the people to be represented. It provides equality to the citizens, and allows
them to have a very significant role in the economic and political system of the country. There are countries
employing this kind of system, and yet are rising very well. Take the United States for instance. They are a
democratic country and yet they have a great economic and political system. However this kind of system
works for them because they have a good education system. The people there have better knowledge on how
things should work and be done. Their public education system contains good quality; hence the status of the
people is not much of a hindrance from acquiring quality education especially on elementary up to secondary
education.
However, in the Philippines, while education and other concerns still need a lot of work, and the
people cannot exploit their power well yet, an aristocratic one would be more appropriate. As with the world
that Plato created, a philosopher king would be an appropriate leader. In the context of Philippine government,
that philosopher king could be a very capable and intelligent leader. In this aristocratic type of government that
would be apt for the Philippine, many of Machiavelli's concepts can also be applied. It would be beneficial if the
ruler is to be respected and feared by the citizens. Absolutely, there would be a lot of people who would contest
to this temporary shift of system, therefore a ruler with conviction, strength and real ability to rule would
lessen this resistance from those who oppose. It is better for a ruler to be feared than loved, and to stay in
power at all costs. With this aristocratic system, the rulers would tend to do anything necessary for the
betterment of the state without minding the opinion of the masses. They would not have to do inappropriate
things just to satisfy the people, maintain their image and acquire the masses votes.
Furthermore, the aristocratic leader that would lead the country should have care for the country and
should not have greed for power. That leader should be willing to give back the power to the people when
things and systems in the country are going well already and when the masses already acquire appropriate
knowledge and capability of leading themselves. This could be a risky move because a simple blunder of
having chosen a terrible leader could just worsen the country and the life of the citizens. It could also be hard
for the country to shift in this kind of system because people had been used to democracy and it has been
employed for a long time. This system might get a lot of disapproval from some people. However, when this
system becomes a reality and becomes employed in the Philippines, the country might be governed better. This
might cause the Philippines to rise fast and could even be one of the mighty countries in Southeast Asia.
With the issues the Philippines are facing, questions regarding the applicability of democracy arise.
There are things that have to be done first in order for the country to execute democracy better. The autocratic
leaders that could be chosen should first focus on things that the country needs to improve. One of these that
have an immense value is a quality public education system. This can then cause a lot of improvements not just
to the citizens' individuality but also to the country as a whole. Furthermore once the country has fully risen,
and the people are already lifted from ignorance and filled with knowledge, that would be a more suitable
instance for the Philippines to adopt a democratic system for the people to govern themselves once again.

Nonetheless, for the meantime, while the country is still prostrate with poverty, unemployment, and lack of
education, democracy could just worsen the devastated condition of the country.