Authoritarianism

Batas Mauricio

WHAT is the difference between members of political parties in Bhutan (a country adjacent to China and India) and members of political parties in Philippines?

The first is that, party members in Bhutan are duly identified and registered by their parties, and their membership is not by mere convenience or for purposes of supporting the candidate who has in the interim assumed leadership of the party. In Bhutan, people become members of political parties long before any election period, and are often taught the doctrines, and the rules and regulations, of the parties.

That is a far cry from party membership in the Philippines. Here, there is no identification and registration of party members. There is no indoctrination nor teaching of the parties’ rules and regulations. In fact, it happens that one person here declares membership in one party, and then works with another party.

What is more, Filipinos associate themselves only with the leader of the party, who oftentimes assumed party leadership only because he or she is contemplating on running for a high elective position, usually the presidency. Then, Filipinos generally stay with a party only because they derive some material of financial benefit, or only because they are enamored with the party leader.

Once the leader of the party ceases becoming its leader, or once he or she loses in the electoral contest that made him party leader almost from out of nowhere in the first place, the member usually drops out of the party, too, unless he is offered other material benefit in the meantime.

In Bhutan, the clear loyalty of a member is to the party itself, and not simply to its leader. Consequently, even if the leadership of the party changes for any reason, the party members are expected to remain with the party.

Of course, Bhutan’s political parties are relatively new, and almost all of their 800,000 or so population, are still greatly struggling with the installation of a democratic system of government after their king abdicated absolute monarchical rule in 2006.

But given the urgent desire of the leadership of the parties in that country to teach their members in particular–and their countrymen, in general–the rudiments of people’s organizations and their role in assuring good governance by those given political power, I am sure that they are going to ultimately thread the only way towards effective governance.

• •

One startling revelation that surfaced when I was lecturing on people’s organizations in the Philippines, and on our own experience on government corruption, among political leaders of the Royal Kingdom of Bhutan was the sudden and dramatic drop in “happiness rating” for Bhutan citizens right after it converted from absolute monarchy to a democratic form of government.

Before Bhutan’s transformation from monarchy (a government ruled by a king) to democracy (or the rule of the majority of the people, a system of government adopted from western countries) after their king gave up all his powers in 2006, the Bhutanese people were ranked number one in the “happiness rating” in Asia, and No. 6 in the whole world.

In 2016 however, or after about 10 years of democracy, Bhutan’s rating slipped, and it is now ranked No. 86 or so. This drop in “happiness rating” couldn’t be explained by the political leaders of Bhutan who listened to my five-hour lecture on Friday, saying they are still studying the reasons for this development.

My view is that, people in Bhutan were certainly happier when they were ruled by a king who had absolute power, because that is the nature they have been accustomed to for a long time. It might be that, through time, the Bhutanese king managed to make the lives of his citizens successful and prosperous, making them happy and contented.

It is also possible that Bhutan citizens were not ready for a democratic system of government, where government power is exercised by someone who is elected by the people, either directly or through their representatives. In Bhutan, the government leader at this point is a prime minister elected from its parliament which has two houses whose members, in turn, are elected by the people.

Of course, 10 years is a short period during which a democratic system of government could work well and succeed, especially for a people who had long been under a monarchy. I think however that this democratic system, which encourages and allows political squabbles and wrangling and the concomitant rise of political patronage and therefore, graft and corruption at the highest levels, is found distasteful by Bhutanese citizens.

I told the Bhutanese political leaders who attended the lecture sponsored by the Industrial Advancement Academy of the Philippines (a non-governmental educational institution) that even in the Philippines, there is a tendency towards authoritarianism among our people.

I explained that this could be the reason why many Filipinos are raring to vote for a presidential candidate who publicly expresses authoritarian leanings and advocates strong arm tactics–like executions of criminals and grafters–in solving crimes, and for a vice presidential candidate whose father assumed power all by himself and ruled the country for 20 years with an iron hand.

The prevailing sentiment here is that, Filipinos are already fed up with the incapacity of government leaders to deliver on their election promises to give a better life for the poor and the marginalized, under a supposedly democratic set up of government, so that they are now inclined to side with candidates who offer shortcut but effective solutions to national problems.

E-mail: batasmauricio@yahoo.com