Aling Dionisia, Sen. Santiago, and the politics of personalism

The spat between Aling Dionisia Pacquiao and Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is an emblematic story of our political journey. The adventure has been going on for more than a century and it is not yet over. And I am very discouraged. I must say that it has been a tortuous voyage and will likely continue as such with nothing new to discover. Over the years we have learned a very familiar pattern about the way we politically think and behave both as individuals and as a people. In the midst of changing fortunes, it remains steady and predictable as a political value. And more so, even when fortunes do not change. It is our way of life based on the politics of personalism. The politics of personalism falls into two well-worn lines. One line is essentially the psychology of victimization. It is an outlook of political life that deems any form of political criticism as a personal affront to one’s honor or self-esteem. As a consequence, a retributive act is usually meted out to an opponent to restore one’s honor or self-worth. That is why Aling Dionisia lashed out at Senator Santiago with “Huwag ang anak ko ang pakialaman niyo…Para kay Senator Miriam, parang binasura niya ang anak ko. Bakit mababa ang tingin niya sa anak ko?” ("Don't gang up on my son…Why does Senator Miriam trash my son? Why does she belittle my son?”) It is appealing to say that she was just merely defending her legislator son. But isn’t this really a victim’s primal scream of “don’t you ever dare to victimize my son?” How would she have behaved though if her fortune turned for the worse? Would she have the same outlook? I think so. Most likely, she would not engage Senator Santiago in a verbal tussle, but just the same, she’d probably think like what many Filipinos would often think when they feel being wronged--that because they’re NOTHING, the more they’ll be stepped on. In plenty or in want, Filipinos can’t just get over it. There is not, of course, anything irreprehensible to be immodest in lifestyle when your son happened to be the current number one pound for pound boxer in the world and a millionaire. But there is something irreprehensible to be immodest in self-importance because your son happened to be an athletic icon and a legislator to boot? Of course, Aling Dionisia can buy anything that her heart covets and I am truly happy for her. The lifestyle change brought about by her son’s good fortune and wealth is understandable. And yet, I cannot easily dismiss her sense of self-importance in lashing out against those who oppose her son's stance on the pending RH Bill in the legislature. Just like many Filipinos, she has no clue that politics is the process of mediating competing interests. And in doing so, there will be winners and losers. Losers will have to be magnanimous in defeat. They will have to swallow it up and remind themselves that “it’s nothing personal, it’s just politics.” But more importantly, just like many Filipinos, she has no clue on the kind of politics that few legislators like Senator Santiago are committed to uphold—a particular way of thinking circumscribed by professionalism rather than by personalism. And most of all, a particular way of thinking that requires political leaders most suited by virtue of their intellectual discipline and legislative qualification. In other words, political leadership based on meritocracy. Unfortunately, Senator Santiago is “a voice crying out in the wilderness” muffled by the cacophony of grunts and noises emanating from political atavists without any imaginative or moral purchase to uplift our country’s political mental horizon. Unfortunately, such a retrogressive condition merely contributes to the crass perpetuation of our political illness. This is the second line of our politics of personalism, to wit--the vulgarization of politics. It is the exhausted brand of “business as usual” that is on open display 24/7 in our local and national body politic. Without the daring politics of bold and rational ideas, it does not actively seek to adapt to the new and emerging political landscape. Rather, it relies on what is familiar and thereby develops a resistance to evolutionary change. As Aling Dionisia insecurely reaffirmed her son’s political stature: “Ano tingin nila kay Manny, tau-tauhan? Di ba congressman sya?” (“What do they think of Manny, a puppet? Is he not a congressman?”) Manny is a congressman alright. But this is where Aling Dionisia and Senator Santiago versions of politics are two worlds apart. The former is boorish and the latter is cultured. The former obfuscates and the latter illuminates. Some will argue that Senator Santiago herself is sometimes feisty and rude in her ways. So what is the difference between the spunky Aling Dionisia and the plucky Senator Santiago? Well, for me, it’s the difference between night and day. Senator Santiago may have a volcanic temper but she has a disciplined and refined legal mind that the legislature sorely needs. And so, if she does not mince her words in calling ignorant people ignorant and unqualified people unqualified, she’s doing the future of Philippine politics a favor. In a country where politics is mainly characterized by mediocrity, popularity, and money, Senator Santiago is on track to put political throwbacks into their rightful place. Otherwise, how can we evolve politically?