Media and Democratization
The Philippine Case
Speech
Only recently, last August 21, when the Philippines celebrated the 25th death anniversary of the most promising statesman considered instrumental in the reborn of Philippines democratic society and the modern hero of the Filipino people was the man significant in the revival of Philippines democracy against the authoritarian rule of the late . His unexpected death delivered his people to freedom from oppression, abuse, and injustice by the Marcos dictatorial government. The act of revolution was an archetype of what democracy is all about. The democratization process involves a great collective power of people to bring down the undemocratic attitude of a leader. Due to undemocratic attitude and his political interest to monopolize the state’s power, he was overthrown by his people by virtue of a collective power to revolt against him without using harmful instruments. His Machiavellian principles that centered on monopolizing and concentrating the power within his space branded him as autocratic and power hungry.
Significant to this historical event is the role of media in uplifting the democratic ideals of the Philippine society. In this paper I will deliver the important role of media and its relation to democratization using a national case which I choose to be the Philippines in its struggle to bring back the democratic power to the people instead of letting this power concentrated to a specific leader. Moreover, I will use two large historical events about Filipinos political struggle and on how media play a vital role to preserve and maintain the long-time democratic system. The power of people supplemented by the media power simultaneously assumed the role as a catalyst for change. Here, and known as will be under my analysis.
The historical significance of and was brought about by at least three important elements which serve as the main actors in the success of toppling down the authoritarian regime of and corruption of namely: people, history, and media
People
Tracing the lines of Philippines’ complex and complicated history, Filipinos first taste of democracy was during the time of American occupation. They were given the rights to establish its own republic, formulate its own laws and constitution and given the freedom to do whatever they wanted for the common good. In any democratic society, any leaders appointed to administer the country are under the process of suffrage. People are given the rights to vote and select whom they think are capable leaders. Ideologically speaking, this exercise means a voluntary rendition of one’s political power to a chosen capable leader. Logically, this proposition inferred that the locus of power is found in the hands of the electorate and not to the state’s leaders. In this context, people power revolutions were premised on this basic democratic principles and ideals.
The Edsa shrine serves to be the locus of public domain wherein Filipinos came to rescue the sinking democratic system. The influx of people along Edsa was a symbol of their vigilance on the depressing political turmoil and the awareness to democracy’s inherent trait on power.
Despite the differences in beliefs and political principles uphold by various political entities, various civic and religious leaders of the society, and people in all walks of life, yet they still come together, crossing each other’s arms serving as a shield against the military armor tanks and high caliber of armaments carried by military. This mass movement leads us to think about people’s struggle to preserve democracy and putting an end to the oppression and injustices done by the era. Filipinos no longer desire to a trauma on injustices, persecutions, and oppressions from the powerful leaders. This movement happened in the now known as , which stands as the meeting point of public domain during the first and second people revolution. People’s collective power was concentrated in that historical landmark that launched an official declaration of bloodless war against in 1985 and in 2001. It was the place in which people expressed their suppressed political sentiments about the turmoil and persecutions done by and corrupt practices.
History
Although the people power movement is unique in a way that it disproves the theoretical construct of revolution which political theorists and philosophers believed as violent and radical. Yet, the people power revolution when tracing its historical background; we can infer that it was in fact a positive result of a conglomeration of different understanding, values and principles about revolution of the previous revolutionary history that culminates in adhering to a non-violent, bloodless and peaceful revolution.
When we dig deeper into the cognizance of the cultural and historical consciousness of their society, we can see the development of Filipino’s consciousness towards revolution. The historical civilization of the Filipino people is at large a struggle for independence and freedom. More of its historical accounts tell us about the constant revolution and revolutionary struggles of Filipinos to gain a distinct and unique identity from the identity which the Spanish people insisted to inculcate and integrate. While the culture of Filipinos is somehow distorted due to the various influences injected by various colonizers, we could even still warrant them of their distinct culture which made them successful in toppling down an undeserved leader.
As what I had said in the previous discussion, prior to a non-violent revolution, the Philippines with its inhabitants were constantly struggling for a revolutionary change of their system. From the friars monopoly of education, religion, lands, production and goods, to Japanese occupation and later on by the Americans, with the long-running oligarchic system espoused by the Spaniards, the brutality of Japanese and the Americans’ hidden political agenda, Filipinos did not disturbed to constantly wage a revolution. They have , the great reformist, a national hero, , the counterpart of , a propagandist, revolutionist and reactionary publican,, the brain of the , a champion constitutionalist, , a revolutionary turned republican first president of the Philippines, and, the modern hero and allot more.
There revolutions sparked complex effects to the consciousness of every Filipinos and that became elemental in the newly established kind of revolution which other countries tried to pattern after.
In any democratic society there is some kind of differences on how to practice democratic system. underlined the notion of ‘multiple democracies’ visible in various democratic countries. He further argues, “In reality, all democracies are historical and contextualized. They may differ in terms of institutional arrangement, election mechanisms, political culture and other traits (2001: 2).” This argument is properly situated in the context of the Philippine’s democratic style of governance. Although, Americans are the one who introduced the kind of leadership and political system, it does not mean that Philippines have the likeness of democracy with the United States. It is rather a kind of democracy that is culturally and historically Filipino. Clearly, underlines these differences by bringing in the light the comparison of American democracy with other countries like Asia. Unlike the American democracy which emphasizes on the individual rights, political antagonism, self-interest and uncommon judicial review system, other countries like Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, India, Nigeria and etc. “there political outlook puts greater value on the harmony between the citizen and the state, one-party leadership, the priority of public interest over citizen’s rights and the power of the state to make laws it deems necessary (2001:2).” Fair enough, the Philippines have that kind of democracy in which puts greater interest on the development and progress of the public instead of an individual. Yet, Philippine democracy although, people enjoy the benefits from it, is dysfunctional and somehow fragile. believed that Philippines democracy remains problematic and fragile. Fraud, violence, and patronage still pervade Philippine elections rendering the quality of democratic representation dubious in many instances. In addition, “state institutions remain weak, unaccountable and resistant to reform (
But, despite of this weaknesses and criticisms against the Philippines democratic system, it can be argued that this dysfunctional system became an instrument for a grand reform on the political state during the regime and administration that halted the long political turmoil.
Under this line of thought, media in any democratic society assume a significant role. Media is considered to be a watchdog of the state as it assumes the responsibility of being a 4th estate in any democratic society. This function is premised on the idea that people should have an access to information, in order to form intelligible opinions on various societal issues. In the Philippine context, under the totalitarian regime of Marcos, media that time had a restricted space and freedom in exercising their role to report necessary public issues. Hence, there was limited media coverage. regime suppressed the freedom of the press by disallowing and paralyzing the media operations of anti-media outfits. The media institutions which actively operating that time was those of the government owned media outfits. One classical example on this was during the time of burial wherein millions of Filipinos gathered to sympathize with his family. Yet, print, radio and television media was under control by the cronies and in order to prevent people’s uprising they control the publication of texts and pictures that would force people to revolt. There is no aerial shot estimating how many people attended the burial, it should not be put on headlines, and no crowd estimate. This is in order to avoid mass movement coming from the grassroots and powerful few.
However, even though media had a limited democratic space at that time, the government did not totally control the media operations. Significant to the resistance of media actors was the historical people power revolution in which through a religious radio station, people got a wide access to the political upheavals happening in the metropolitan Manila. Through the late at that time, with his vocal political antagonism against Marcos bravely called the people through to gather in Edsa for a prayer rally that eventually turned out to be a political mass movement that lasted for three days.
On the other hand, in the people power 2, media had a more democratic space and freedom in reportage and investigation. In fact, the historical impeachment case of was freely accessible to media and fed it live for the public viewing. The televised court hearing held in the senate was indeed fostered another bloodless revolution that led to downfall. This happened during the time when majority of the senators acted as judges of the court voted not to disclose the content of the 12th envelope. Again, due to media mileage, people were no longer unaware of the political turmoil happening in Manila unlike in the 1986 revolution. The re-gathering of people in the same historical landmark in Edsa was not much difficult compared in the time of wherein the access on media became rough and difficult. During the time of media serve as political watchdog informing people of the current political events.
From the beginning of the predictable scenario in the time of , people became dependent on the information disseminated by the media institutions, in fact, there had been issues of political maneuvering of the government to some media outfits just to make sure that will remain in the position by making segues to set aside the political issues, yet, it did not prosper.
To end this report, I would like to stress some important issues concerning the role of media in the democratization process. Media believed to be an institution as well as instruments in which it primarily serves to provide information significant to the development of a democratic society and preserving the democratic ideals. Yet, media also position itself as institution that wields its inherent power in maintaining the status quo and social order of a democratic society. Furthermore, while media practitioners struggle to remain objective in delivering information and messages to the public, for many, this has become optional. While media practitioners are still perceived to be partial and subjective disseminators of information, the public also preserves their image as social critics who denounce social evils, expose political trickery and defender of freedom. While Tri-media remain the main tool for disseminating information to influence the public, television is the medium that people see as their main source of information and, thus, is the most influential. This crucial role is important in the democratization process of the society in which it assumes a role of being a 4th estate responsible for sourcing out information that is credible, objective, and fair.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment