Time and again, the blog has raised the question, “How could Lee, Mahathir and Deng beg for Western money and technology while we’re still – well into the 21st century – figuring out how to raise FDIs?” Is it because (a) we don’t recognize that the West had a head start in moving civilization forward; (b) we don’t want to be beholden to them; (c) we see their hypocrisy; or (d) all the above?
But we don’t mind being beholden to China and Russia because hypocrisy is not them? And hypocrisy is not us either?
Or are we simply parochial and insular – which we confuse with sovereignty and nationalism – and explains the absence of dynamism in Juan de la Cruz?
Do we realize that Lee, Mahathir and Deng learned from each other because they were outward-looking? While we are inward-looking and defer to hierarchy because we value paternalism … and political patronage and dynasties … and oligarchy? And our being the regional laggard and … the protracted war against poverty be damned?
Can we trace our static – as opposed to dynamic – nature to our brand of Christianity? “It has always seemed completely strange to me that there should be any resistance whatsoever to evolution in Christian theology or practice. Christians should have been the first in line to recognize and cooperate with such a dynamic notion of God.
“It’s hard to imagine why so many still have a very static notion of God with Christianity’s rich wisdom: Trinity; the Indwelling Holy Spirit; Incarnation; salvation; the development of consciousness as seen in Judeo-Christian Scriptures, history, and individual lives.
“We largely surrendered to a notion of time with the human story ending in Armageddon and Apocalypse, which is complete heresy.
“If our God is both incarnate and implanted, both Christ and Holy Spirit, then an unfolding inner dynamism in all creation is not only certain, but also moving in a positive direction, with a divine goal that is always set before us.” [Evolution, Faith and Science, Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, 25th Oct 2017]
But we’re happy where we are? Except that we’re doing a disservice to our God-given endowments? “We Aren’t Built to Live in the Moment,” Martin E. P. Seligman and John Tierney, The New York Times, 19th May 2017.
“What best distinguishes our species is an ability that scientists are just beginning to appreciate: We contemplate the future. Our singular foresight created civilization and sustains society. It usually lifts our spirits, but it’s also the source of most depression and anxiety, whether we’re evaluating our own lives or worrying about the nation. Other animals have springtime rituals for educating the young, but only we subject them to ‘commencement’ speeches grandly informing them that today is the first day of the rest of their lives.
“A more apt name for our species would be Homo prospectus, because we thrive by considering our prospects. The power of prospection is what makes us wise. Considering the future, consciously and unconsciously, is a central function of our large brain, as psychologists and neuroscientists have discovered — rather belatedly, because for the past century most researchers have assumed that we’re prisoners of the past and the present.”
Thankfully we are getting a timely reminder: “Special EU envoy Angara: No need to take offense at rights report,” Gaea Katreena Cabico,philstar.com, 26th Oct 2017.
“The government should consider the latest annual European Union Report on human rights as an ‘eye opener’ and not criticism, special envoy to the EU Edgardo Angara said.
“Angara, a former senator, said President Rodrigo Duterte should not be offended by the EU Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World.
‘To us, it’s an eye opener. It’s an impetus for us to look at it and do something,’ Angara said … He pointed out that the country is not being singled out by the bloc’s report since EU’s human rights monitor group also looks into other countries.
“They’re not saying: ‘You should not fight the drug lords or peddlers.’ They’re saying: ‘But please tell your policemen not to shoot them, not to kill them. They should catch them, prosecute and rehabilitate …’”
Shoot them … kill them? Do we realize how uncivilized that is? See above re the West had a head start in moving civilization forward. And we wonder why ours is a culture of impunity and not the rule of law?
Then think why we have been left behind in: (a) infrastructure development; (b) in industrialization; and (c) in innovation and competitiveness. Instead of stepping up to the plate, we accepted OFW remittances and more recently the BPO industry as the path to progress, growth and development – aka “pwede na ‘yan.”
Where we have been left behind – surprise, surprise – are the requisite development levers espoused by the new UN SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).
Yet instead of taking stock of what we did – and failed to do – we are injecting form of government, for example, in our hypothesis [yes, it’s what it is, not a fail-safe solution] reminiscent of what we did with land reform. That it was the be-all and end-all.
Why and how did we get it wrong? As we now know from the Malaysian experience, agriculture development demands economies of scale – not fragmented, small-scale farming. And it brings about sustainable outcomes. And so decades later while we’re still debating rural poverty, the Malaysians have long eradicated it.
On the other hand, we don’t address community and the common good – which is what economies of scale yield via the pooling of small-scale farms into a critical mass. And because of “crab mentality” – which is focused on me and myself – we cannot imagine and visualize community and the common good.
In short, we constantly fall into the trap of shortsightedness … that feeds our lack of foresight like a vicious circle.
And how are we getting it wrong when we impute the form of government in our failure in development? Consider: Will federalism remake Juan de la Cruz, that he will no longer be parochial and insular, no longer defer to hierarchy and expect paternalism in return, no longer value and rely on political patronage and dynasties and oligarchy?
As the German ambassador explained, the rule of law – which has characterized their public sector – is what makes their federal system strong. That until we embrace good governance, no form of government will work … and save us.
In case we have forgotten, a democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And why the blog has repeatedly discussed Juan de la Cruz.
The bottom line: Given dynamism isn’t us, should we be surprised Juan de la Cruz is foresight-challenged?
“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]
“Now I know why Paul dared to speak of ‘the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13). Law reigns and discernment is unnecessary, which means there is little growth or change in such people. When you do not grow, you remain an infant.” [Faith and Science, Open to Change, Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, 23rd Oct 2017]
“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]
“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” [William Pollard, 1911-1989, physicist-priest, Manhattan Project]
“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]
No comments:
Post a Comment