Monday, July 15, 2013


The science of governance, the administration of public affairs, and the conduct of the affairs of the state – these are some of the more general and common understanding of politics. One thing is certain, no matter how politics is perceived and/or defined in this and that country, in the past and in the present, its over-all objective finality is the good of man, the welfare of society. In other words, people remain at the center of politics as the latter’s corporate subject-beneficiary. The benefit of man as the fundamental concern and primary focus or politics, remains independent of whatever certain individuals, some leaders and politics in tenure of public authority, may say, claim, and/or do.

When politics is other than pro-people, thereby comes the sad yet true realization that it becomes instead a veritable impediment to the satisfaction of people’s standing needs, the pursuit of people’s rightful aspiration, the pursuit of people’s development – all of which are but in accord with intrinsic human longing in line with the essence and objective of basic human rights. Such are all but stipulations of Natural Law which is pro-people – unless people themselves treat it as its enemy such as by deliberately and insistently contradicting its ground-reality provisions.

In case politics become anti-people, then it becomes logical for people themselves to shun, abhor, and hate it even. It is however well worth remembering that there is a whale of difference between politics and politicians. Most of the latter do not know nor care to know what really is politics, why is there politics, what politics is for as demanded by sound reason and as stipulated by ethics. This misfortune if not disgrace, has particular relevance to the so-called “politicos”, viz., professionals in the world of politics who use it to inflate their egos, to protect their personal and/or family interests, to promote their selfish individual and/or dynastic concerns. These are the bane, the same, the malediction of politics, the contradiction of what politics and politicians are for in reality and truth.

So it is that to mention but the word “politics” is already inviting people to react with sobriety or frivolity, with seriousness or ridicule, with appreciation or disgust. The over-all reason for such a reactive ambivalence consists in the rather common thinking that “politics” and “politicos” are but one and the same reality. Needless to say, in the Philippine context, it is certain and true that the nature and finality of the former are debased by the action and reaction patterns of the latter. Yes, there are still politicians who know and observe the essence and import of politics. But they are becoming much less. More, no!