Power in Power: Privileged Duty

Former Czechoslovakian President Vclav Havel, in the speech he delivered upon accepting

the Sonning Prize for his unmatched contribution to Europe, expressed a rather realistic take on

power, specifically that of the political sphere, deviating from the clich romantic view on it. He

presented the possible reasons accounting for the desire of some to participate in political power

being driven by ideas about a better way to organize society, having faith in certain values, and

wanting to turn these abstracts into reality. On top of these societal concerns, he also mentioned that

a sense of self-affirmation is found in taking part in political power, allowing an individual to leave

a legacy in his or her jurisdiction. Lastly, he mentioned the reluctance or the hesitation of those who

are already in the mist of political power to part with it, because of the privileges that come with a

high political position. Indeed, former Pres. Havel made it clear that possessing power is not only

impactful externally, but it also has a tremendous effect on the individual.

Pres. Havels insights on power surely relate to each ones experience of it. We have seen

politicians being treated with privilege in different settings as guests in school events, during

town/city campaigns in election season, and even just in ordinary situations such as traffic and

shopping at the mall. I remember asking my father to invite a politician for a school talk in grade

school, because our teacher asked us to do so as a class project. This board member accepted the

invitation, and was set to appear and speak in front of students and some teachers, but at the last

minute, he backed out, sending his chief-of-staff instead. At that point, although we were upset about

what this public official did, we could not do anything, not even express this frustration, for obvious

reasons. Political leaders being treated in this manner, special treatment as described by many,

which goes beyond mere respect, has become a norm. After all, we dont expect former Pres. Barrack

Obama or Pres. Donald Trump to ride the subway or the bus on their way to a State affair or to an

important conference, or Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to wear a 10-dollar suit (if there is

any). This brings me to thinking, Pres. Havel saying that a probable reason why many long for

political power is the necessary entitlement the office brings may be accurate and actually very

apparent in territories governed by a leader.

 The examples former Pres. Havel cited to concretize his ideas on the privileges that go with

power are not unusual situations even in the context of our country. These remind us of the iconic line

of then Pres. Noynoy Aquino, Walang wang-wang, walang counter flow, walang tong, expressing

his dissociation from traditional politicians who in one way or another employed the privileges that

come with the office in their daily dealings with people. It was a great effort to somehow rebrand the

leadership of his administration, and it was seen in his efforts to show the Filipinos that he would lead

a humble government. However, this was not true for all. When former Senators Bong Revilla,

Jinggoy Estrada, and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile were convicted during his term for being involved in the

10 billion-peso pork barrel scam maneuvered by Janet Napoles, although they were imprisoned, their

cells were not the typical cells every other convicted felon is in. Former Sen. Revilla, specifically, was

sent to a 20-23-sqm room cell rather and was detained there alone. To top it off, his family visited

him in his first day in jail beyond the set visitation hours. To add to that, his wife, Rep. Lani

Mercado, even brought him a cooler, because he was complaining about the heat and about rats and

roaches.

Here we can see that a privileged treatment, even including those who committed public

crimes like plunder, is an indispensable part of gaining power through political means. Although some

parts of it are apt because they represent the entirety of the State, supposedly work to ensure a

progressive country, and were elected by the citizenry, this kind of excessive prerogative is

detrimental not only to their constituents but also to themselves. Former Pres. Havel explicitly stated

this predicament at some point in his political career, he asked himself whether his motivation for

assuming the office was still the best interest of his country, or if it was already tainted by the

advantages he enjoys. For the most part, drawing a clear line between these is not only extremely

difficult, but also almost impossible to do when a public official is endowed with power. Here goes

the Filipino colloquial expression, kinain na ng sistema.

However, that is only the superficial part of this privileged duty. If we scratch the surface,

possessing the privileges brought about by power involves more than being specially treated in

ordinary situations. Assuming a public office entails having control over a particular jurisdiction,

hence, having the capacity to make decisions affecting a myriad of people. This may be the biggest
privilege a person with power can receive. This is also the biggest privilege a government official can

exploit.

On the other hand, in the attempt to curtail the production, distribution, and use of illegal

drugs, a war on it was launched by the government under the title Oplan Tokhang, which caused a

great turmoil in the country over the last eight months. A lot has been heard and said about the extra-

judicial killings (EJKs) happening under the present administration, with the death toll reaching a

devastating number of 7,000, and unfortunately, counting. This is very alarming, as human rights

organizations, alongside academic institutions have questioned recent events and have expressed

being against these killings. Senate hearings were also conducted to determine whether these

murders were really committed by authorities instated in the Philippine constabulary, or whether the

implementation of this war on drugs effectively minimizes the number of crimes. Several public

figures, even those who are working under the present leadership, have criticized this move by the

Philippine National Police (PNP), particularly the rising death toll that it allegedly caused.

It is irrefutable that the person who started this war on drugs is the president himself, Pres.

Rodrigo Duterte, who did the same move in Davao City during his turf as its mayor. It was one of his

first actions after being inaugurated, and it received divided reactions from the public. However, it

seemed like this was a decision that only he made, without consulting other government officials. He

just instructed PNP General Ronald Dela Rosa to launch this operation in the pursuit to eliminate

illegal drugs in the Philippines. As aforementioned, this move led to the death of thousands of people,

some although admitted using illegal substances, expressed their willingness to undergo rehabilitation

and to change but it was too late.

To me, this is an example of exploitation of privileges that come with the office. Because

Pres. Duterte had the power to do so, he decided on a matter singlehandedly. Because he believed that

it worked for his previous jurisdiction, it will also work for the entire country. It comes off as if he is

not open to listen to those who are against this kind of government that he established. Now, we live

in a country that instills fear not only to criminals, but also to innocent civilians.

How I see it is that Pres. Duterte, having this powerful hold on the police force and the

military, cannot seem to delineate this privilege from his political agenda to eliminate illegal drugs in
the Philippines. I understand that he deems it necessary to make a radical move to be able to so, but

executing such a plan in the expense of thousands of lives, including collateral damages, is not a risk

worth taking. But since he employed his power, he pushed through with this violent operation, with

all requests to soften it or to formulate an alternative falling into deaf ears.

This kind of exploitation of power is something I was able to observe in one of the topics

discussed in class. Former president Ferdinand Marcos, subsequent to finishing two terms of

presidency, called for the establishment of a new constitution the 1973 constitution that will allow

him to become a Prime Minister, thus still being the head of State, given the prohibition of the

preceding constitution (Commonwealth Constitution of 1935) for a president to run for a third term.

Since he wanted to extend his ruling over the country, he used his existing power and capability as the

president to open the gate to more power and longer duration of being in the office. Clearly, his initial

political motivation to improve the country in various aspects was then clouded by his ambition for

power just like how Pres. Havel, in his speech, described some politicians who cannot delineate

privilege and having the best interest of the country as their motivation anymore because of

possessing great political power.

It is indeed correct to say that although the power political leaders have over their jurisdiction

and constituents is essential because of the pivotal role they play in the lives of many, it should be

used for pure intentions, keeping in mind that the interest of the State should be their priority, as what

Pres. Vclav Havel said. However, because of the grandiose privileges that come with this power,

some forget that the reason they have this power is the trust their constituents gave them, all in the

spirit of democracy. Political leaders should therefore employ this power to fulfill their duty to their

State, and not wrongly take advantage of it for merely personal gains. With this power comes an

obligation and there should be a clear line between using it for serving others, and for self-serving

intentions.