There are many manifestations of this social malaise. Many scholars and pundits believe we have a "flawed" culture. The electorate attributes our condition to a corrupt political leadership. Politicians, on the other hand, say that the only way to stay in power is to be corrupt because the electorate demands constant handouts. In effect, they blame a so-called corrupt electorate that has to be bribed every election.
Corruption in the government bureaucracy is not anymore limited to a "few rotten apples." it has become systemic to the extent that it has become a way of life for the typical government bureaucrat. The corrupt politican has become the rule and the honest politician is considered eccentric or a relic from the past.
Nationalism, an ideology which assumes love of country, has been abandoned even by its last bastion – the intellectuals and the youth. I recently met a former activist now considered one of the country’s leading female journalists who told me that nationalism is passe.
In the past, student leaders believed that it was their duty to stay in this country and fight for a better future. Many gave up their lives for this belief. Now we have student leaders and speakers who are actually saying that it is completely understandable and acceptable for them to abandon their country in search of a better future for their personal benefits.
This present electoral process is a clear manifestation of the current state of our society. The electorate choose candidates either on the basis of the lesser evil or simply name recall. Thus, senatorial candidates win because they pour millions of pesos into advertising gimmicks. Winnability depends more on clever advertising than on competence or qualifications. The reason so many unqualified entertainers win is because the average voter believes that no matter who wins, things will remain the same.
It is true that society cannot change overnight. Neither can the change be the result of miracles. Thus, no one should have expected an overnight miraculous change of society to result from Edsa 1 and 2. However, no one expected that the change would be so slow that it sometimes seems negligible at best.
Five years ago, a Korean physics professor, Moo Young Han, wrote about the social malaise in his own country. His words, I think, seem like he was writing about the Philippines today.
"It is certainly true that the crushing tidal wave of social malaise, a lone individual – a mother, a bus driver, a junior government official, or a young faculty member – cannot even fathom the idea of changing the whole society. That things can begin to change only if the whole society fundamentally changes is a refrain that is often spoken and heard of.
"But, of course, the society cannot by itself and overnight at the swing of the magic wand, change miraculously – integrity over corruption, honesty over cheating, merit over bribes, compassion over selfishness, kindness over rudeness, courtesy over inconsideration of others, and respect over mean-spiritedness to others.
"The fundamental change, if it is to occur at all, must start with the segment of society that can most effectively address the issue. This change must begin with the people who are responsible for the present state of our society."
Who is responsible for our social malaise? The answer is very obvious. These are the people who have held or are holding leadership positions in all sectors of society. Who are they?
In government, we begin from the top – the president, vice president, senators, congressmen, Cabinet members and their deputies, governors, mayors, justices, judges, prosecutors and all the directors and bureau heads.
In business, there are the family business heads, taipans, leaders in the financial sector, senior managers of multinationals, entrepreneurs and the professionals like accountants, auditors, lawyers and consultants.
In society, there are the so-called society figures who callously build palatial homes and indulge in extravagant weddings amid the grinding poverty of the Filipino masses.
The list should include high-ranking officers in the armed forces and the national police. Then there are the leaders or agitators in the labor and farmers sectors.
Finally, there are those who help shape opinions and values. In the short term, are the media personalities. In the long term, there are the people who belong to the religious, intellectual and academic sectors.
The questions, of course, is how does a change from the top begin? By passing new laws? Certainly not, since morality and character cannot be legislated. By relying on the electoral process? One only has to watch the antics of our senators and congressmen, during the debate on canvassing rules, to realize that this is a doomed scenario.
By establishing a Committee on Values Transformation? This proposal would be considered as extremely ridiculous except that there are actually some people who see this option as the answer.
Do we rely on the leadership of the wealthy elite? Definitely not, since this group considers Filipinos as an inferior class. The elite sees the Philippines only as a place to exploit in order to finance their wealthy lifestyle, which is primarily spending their money abroad where they send their children because the Philippines is too backward for their children.
Can we still rely on the idealism of the youth? Unfortunately, this is a fading prospect as even leaders of the university that used to be the bastion of nationalism now speak of a borderless world which finds it acceptable to migrate and considers staying and leading the fight for change an obsolete idea.
Is the Catholic Church the last recourse? I wish this was true. But the Church’s influence seems to have waned and its courage to speak less evident. Maybe this is the result of internal theological struggles, a steep decline in religious vocations and several sex scandals.
How can such fundamental change then begin? The ideal answer is that it should come from within, from the "collective souls" of all the members of the leadership class. Moo Young Han suggested that all members of the leadership class must do some soul-searching and come to realize that their individual acts set an example and standard for millions to follow. From self-awareness, self-realization, self-assessment and self-motivation they must lead society to higher standards.
Brother Armin Luistro FSC, the new DLSU president, addressed the issue when he talked to the faculty last May. Conscious of the fact that De La Salle has produced and will continue to produce leaders in all sectors of Philippine society, he referred to the draft document on the Lasallian Development Framework, "The persistence of the socio-economic woes could also be attributed to the inability of the relevant social institutions to engender individuals who will constitute the social capital that will push for significant social change."
He challenged teachers to focus on their special role "in ensuring that the battle against poverty, ignorance and exclusion is fought daily in the classroom." It is, therefore, the duty of teachers in schools like La Salle to develop the individuals who will become the agents and leaders of social change.
Perhaps, most people will say that these are such idealistic and inadequate remarks. But, what is the alternative? If the change will not come from above, then it will have to come from below. If that is eventually the way to address the social malaise in our country, then we will have to expect class war and a violent route to change.
Brother Armin refers to La Salle when he said, "Our own experience in the Philippines – which is now approaching its centenary – continues the saga of a long struggle to fight the destructive forces of darkness in the world and that ever vicious cycle of poverty that leads to societal exclusion, exclusion that leads to ignorance, and ignorance that leads to deeper poverty."
The wealthy and powerful elite must take these same lessons as their own mission. The consequence for ignoring this challenge is that next time, the poor might find a real hero to lead them in their fight against the rich, rather than just the reel heroes they supported in the past few elections.
As a matter of principle I am not in favor of business people serving in government; the logic of business is profit while the logic of government is service. But if I were President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, I would appoint Doris Magsaysay Ho as my premier economic adviser.
Jaime Galvez Tan, former Undersecretary of the Department of Health and professor at the U.P. College of Medicine, focused on rural health initiatives and how we can manufacture drugs from local sources so that medicines will be cheaper.
Ambeth Ocampo, historian and chairman of the National Historical Institute, suggested improvements in our educational system, that to promote a sense of nation, more attention on Philippine history be given.
The last participant, Victor Torres, historian and playwright, noted the absence of cultural interest in the upper reaches of government because most officials have no appreciation of how culture works in developing a sense of nation.
In the discussions, Elfren Cruz emphasized that the real working unit in society is the family, that the family must be recognized not only as such but as an important element in business and industry because so many such enterprises are family owned. This, of course, is not unique to the Philippines. Some of the so-called family dynasties in business have existed for several generations in Asia, in Europe.
But the family is always transcended, first by the region and then by the nation itself. Such boundaries, however, have been blurred when family enterprises become multinational and global. Perhaps, it is also time for Filipino entrepreneurs to think global, for those capable of extending their reach to be international. In this direction, Doris Magsaysay Ho’s prescription is not only valid but imperative–the branding and the improvement of Filipino services and products which we can produce and excel in.
Elfren Cruz also suggested that it is time we stop telling "horror stories" about ourselves, that this self-flagellation does not inspire self confidence.
The seminar also recognized the changes in outlook of the new generation and the necessity of having the leaders of this new generation know one another not so much for them to have unity of purpose, but for them to interact and from such will emerge a sense of community and, hopefully, a sense of nation.
One very disturbing conclusion of the mini seminar was that it is often government that is a hindrance to development because of corruption and the obstruction by entrenched bureaucrats.
Because of such obstruction, it is best for individuals to forge ahead without relying so much on government assistance.
In other words, the change in the mindset as suggested by Doris Magsaysay Ho applies more to bureaucrats than to private citizens. Perhaps, bureaucrats should have these words emblazoned in their minds, that they are "public servants"–NOT "masters." When this happens, perhaps Carl Lande’s dismal conclusion about our country being without hope may yet be changed.