An old truth is by definition a new truth because truth never changes. I owe the discovery of a new old truth to a reader of this blog. The particular truth we shall consider was written down by a man who was an ambassador to the Philippines from 1957 - 1959. As a former ambassador to Moscow he was not content to be exiled in the Pearl of Asia. His expertise was in Soviet affairs. But when anyone moves to this wonderful archipelago they cannot help but notice the way things are.
That man is Charles E. Bohlen and his memoir is Witness to History.
 |
| https://archive.org/details/witnesstohistory00bohl |
From the book Witness to History by Charles E. Bohlen:
It is difficult to imagine a greater contrast in ambassadorial posts than Manila and Moscow. The cities themselves were so different. About the only thing they had in common was that both names began with "M." In the Philippines, society was disorganized and free. There was practically no governmental control of anything, and there was complete freedom of expression. In Moscow, everything was organized and contrived; the government controlled all; there was no freedom to criticize. Manila was a city of brilliant color, with blue seas, fleecy white clouds, and waving palm trees marred by the shocking contrast between wealth and poverty. Moscow was gray and cold, homogenized and depressing. In Russia, however, you felt a sense of power that was lacking in the Philippines.
There was a sharp difference between the people, too. The Filipinos were charming, friendly, warmhearted, and outgoing, whereas the Russians were reserved and suspicious. In a few months in Manila, I made closer friendships than I had in all my years in Moscow.
The average Filipino looked on the United States with respect and affection. In large measure, this sentiment was due to the hundreds of American teachers who set up schools in virtually every barrio in the country at the beginning of the century and taught the young to read and write English. The memory that these people left behind was still vivid in the minds and hearts of the people. The American military campaign that drove out the Japanese in World War II and the subsequent granting of independence to the islands certainly contributed to the Filipinos' affection for the United States. So great was this affection, which bordered on loyalty to the United States, that it was a matter of concern to some of the younger politicians in Manila. To offset what they regarded as excessive dependency, emotionally anyway, on the United States, they built little fires of anti-American sentiment. Some pohticians in personal conversations with me admitted that they indulged in anti-American attacks to enhance their political fortunes.
page 451
Not so very different from today. Filipinos are known for being friendly, warm hearted, and outgoing. Many Filipinos love America and long to live there. The AFP is sure dependent on the US military for weapons and training among other things. It is interesting that Bohlen says some politicians indulged in anti-American attacks to relieve Filipinos from being dependent on America even going so far as to indulge "in anti-American attacks to enhance their political fortunes." Could it be that Duterte's anti-American tirades are all an act? Everyone knows, or should know, he has not kicked the US military out of the country and that even under him the Philippines remains dependent on the USA. For all his anti-American bluster America remains the Philippines' most important ally.
In my reporting to Washington, I stressed a number of general conditions in the Philippines. One was the fact that the governmental institutions, modeled unfortunately on our own, were too sophisticated for the Filipino people to manage effectively. Also, the Filipinos had been oversold by us on the virtues of free enterprise (quite a statement to make bv a man who had seen the stultifying effect of Soviet-style socialism). In a developing country, the result of a rapid expansion of capitalism is almost invariably that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With thousands of Filipinos graduating from college each year (another American legacy), the society was unable to absorb them. These two factors laid the basis for a revolutionary movement. Corruption was rampant; in fact, in the Filipino mind it was immoral not to feather your nest when vou were in a position to do so. Virtually no one's ethical standards put duty to country first— another contrast with the Soviet Russians. Thoughtful Filipinos even then saw trouble ahead. The death of Ramon Magsaysay in an air crash just before my arrival in Manila removed a leader who offered great hope for the country. However, even if he had lived it is doubtful if the Philippines could have avoided the breakdown that occurred in 1972. Too much was wrong with the society.
page 452
This is the only paragraph about the state of Filipino government and society in his whole memoir and there is absolutely nothing new here. Western governmental institutions are too complex for Filipinos to manage effectively. Corruption is rampant because it is immoral to not take advantage of your position if you have the chance. No one puts duty to country first. 1972, when martial law was declared, was the point when Filipino society broke down.
It's interesting that Bohlen says the Filipinos have been oversold "on the virtues of free enterprise." He is talking about large scale capitalism and the rich getting richer but on a smaller scale take a look at how everyone sells everything! Every house is a sari sari store in its own right with dried fish or coke or snacks for sale. In the Philippines everyone tries to be an entrepreneur of some kind. Many entrepreneurs have succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams. Henry Sy and Lucio Tan come to mind. But unlike the west everyone in the Philippines tries to be a businessman.
"Too much was wrong with the society." That remains true to this day. It's amazing how insightful some men can be when visiting a foreign land. Take Tocqueville who visited America for only nine months and yet the book born from his experience, Democracy in America, captures American society so completely. But when one visits the Philippines and comments how messed up it is they are excoriated by Filipinos and called the worst of names. However if you praise them they eat it up and you become BFFs for life.
Filipinos really do not like to be judged. Who does? But in their defence they blame the ones who judge calling them biased conquerors.
This was in response to my posting the observations of San Augustin on Filipino society written in 1720. You can read that here. Perhaps they are right and it is not correct to judge Filipinos by Western standards. Perhaps stealing from the public treasury and not repaying loans and constantly undermining and tricking your fellow man are just Filipino things Westerners can't understand.
Bohlen really hits the nail on the head when he writes, "the governmental institutions, modeled unfortunately on our own, were too sophisticated for the Filipino people to manage effectively." Filipinos are not Westerners and the institutions of the West are not their inheritance. Tocqueville's thesis is that America is the inevitable outcome of the evolution over thousands of years of political and philosophical trends. Democracy was not thrust upon America. The free and democratic institutions of America is the natural outcome of the development of the West.
When you foist a foreign system upon a foreign people what else can one expect but abject failure?
It's interesting that Bohlen says the Filipinos have been oversold "on the virtues of free enterprise." He is talking about large scale capitalism and the rich getting richer but on a smaller scale take a look at how everyone sells everything! Every house is a sari sari store in its own right with dried fish or coke or snacks for sale. In the Philippines everyone tries to be an entrepreneur of some kind. Many entrepreneurs have succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams. Henry Sy and Lucio Tan come to mind. But unlike the west everyone in the Philippines tries to be a businessman.
"Too much was wrong with the society." That remains true to this day. It's amazing how insightful some men can be when visiting a foreign land. Take Tocqueville who visited America for only nine months and yet the book born from his experience, Democracy in America, captures American society so completely. But when one visits the Philippines and comments how messed up it is they are excoriated by Filipinos and called the worst of names. However if you praise them they eat it up and you become BFFs for life.
Filipinos really do not like to be judged. Who does? But in their defence they blame the ones who judge calling them biased conquerors.
This was in response to my posting the observations of San Augustin on Filipino society written in 1720. You can read that here. Perhaps they are right and it is not correct to judge Filipinos by Western standards. Perhaps stealing from the public treasury and not repaying loans and constantly undermining and tricking your fellow man are just Filipino things Westerners can't understand.
Bohlen really hits the nail on the head when he writes, "the governmental institutions, modeled unfortunately on our own, were too sophisticated for the Filipino people to manage effectively." Filipinos are not Westerners and the institutions of the West are not their inheritance. Tocqueville's thesis is that America is the inevitable outcome of the evolution over thousands of years of political and philosophical trends. Democracy was not thrust upon America. The free and democratic institutions of America is the natural outcome of the development of the West.
When you foist a foreign system upon a foreign people what else can one expect but abject failure?
No comments:
Post a Comment