THOUGHT LEADERS

Have we become better citizens under Aquino?

It is practical politics on the ground that can make things happen

Nicole Curato
Published 10:00 AM, July 24, 2015
Updated 11:12 AM, Jul 26, 2015

Every year, the President’s State of the Nation Address provokes public discussion
about the extent to which Daang Matuwid’s promise is realized in practice.

Experts and citizens alike weigh in on how the administration’s good governance
and inclusive growth agenda has made an impact in our everyday lives. The
SONA in a few days’ time is particularly exceptional. As the President’s final
address, it prompts questions not only about this administration’s legacy but also
about the future of its unfinished projects.

However, the state of the nation, as the phrase implies, is not only about the
President’s policies and pronouncements. While it is a time to critically examine
the Aquino regime’s decisions (and indecisions), it is also an opportunity to reflect
on how we as citizens fared in our own contribution to nation building. After all,
governance requires collaboration between the state and the people. No
amount of institutional reform can secure meaningful changes without an
engaged citizenry able and willing to take part in shaping the nation’s destiny.

Hence, in anticipation of Aquino’s final SONA, it is only fair to broaden public

discussion to these questions: How have we experienced politics in the past five
years? To what extent have we fulfilled our civic duties? And, for citizens that
have benefitted from the country’s economic growth, what have they done to
make sure that no one gets left behind? Have we become better citizens during
the Aquino regime?

A pessimistic assessment

There are, of course, many possible responses to these questions.

One is a pessimistic assessment. Filipinos are accused of remaining apathetic in

spite of the space created by digital technologies to deepen political
engagement. In 2013, for example, only a small number of registered voters who
have internet access used social networking sites to post their thoughts about
politics, shared links about issues or encouraged others to vote. This reinforces the
impression that social media is predominantly used for personal and sometimes
narcissistic projects, instead of serving as venue to develop a political voice that
can influence democratic debate. The selfie capital of the world still has a long
way to become the global exemplar of e-democracy.
Becoming better citizens is also challenging in the context of inequality. Being
one of the most unequal societies in the region not only has implications on
social cohesion, but also on the character of political participation of citizens
from different walks of life.

In our research project in Tacloban, for example, we have documented several

cases where impoverished communities prefer not to take part in political
activities like joining protests and speaking up against corrupt and incompetent
village officials for fear of getting their names dropped from the list of aid
recipients. This observation demonstrates how economic insecurities disempower
citizens – the President’s so-called bosses – from holding public officials
accountable and asserting their legitimate demands in the process of post-
disaster recovery.

On the other hand, economically better-off citizens – those that have the power
to mobilize resources and provide support to marginalized communities – also
had shortcomings in civic engagement.

After Haiyan, we had glimpses of volunteers who devoted time and talent to
raise funds for affected communities. These initiatives, while admirable, were also
fleeting. We may have witnessed unprecedented levels of nationalism and
solidarity from Filipinos all over the world in the immediate aftermath of Haiyan,
but we also witnessed privileged citizens choosing to return to the comforts of
everyday life once compassion fatigue strikes.

Haiyan could have been a game changer had moments of compassion been
translated to sustained modes of political action. But given the uneven impact of
disasters and many social issues, it was fairly easy for some citizens to choose a
privatized instead of politicized response.

After all, why take part in campaigns to resolve Metro Manila’s transport
problems when one can simply download an app that can identify a route with
the least traffic congestion? Why bother with the 2016 elections if one can just
use a green card and leave the country if the most undesirable candidate
becomes Philippine President?

I wonder, therefore, to what extent privileged Filipinos have stepped up to the

challenge of citizenship – to find collective solutions to shared problems instead
of individualistic ways of coping with gaps in governance.

Do-it-yourself politics

There is some room for optimism. Aside from the past 5 years being a period of
individualism, it was also an era of “do-it-yourself politics.” In the Philippines and
around the world, recent history has been defined by creative forms of civic
participation – occupations of public squares, flash protests, clicktivism,
hacktivism, direct action and social media-led campaigns.
Compared to conventional modes of political action, “do-it-yourself politics”
works through voluntary self-expression. It is often but not always enabled by
digital technologies where citizens can colourfully express their political
sentiments. These forms of political action are often without dominant leaders.
Instead, they are loosely linked by networks of citizens who broadly share
common views but are ready to dismantle these associations once issues are put
to rest or interest wanes.

It is easy to recall how do-it-yourself politics came to life in the Philippines under
Aquino: from politically unaffiliated citizens carrying playful placards in Luneta for
the #MillionPeopleMarch, to the tech-nerds who challenged provisions of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act, to the passionate young feminists ready to lose
conservative friends to support the RH Bill, all the way to concerned Filipinos
worldwide who converged to #SaveMaryJane.

All of these campaigns brought attention to critical issues through memes,

hashtags, shame campaigns, text brigades and poignant digital images that
communicate what is at stake. Twenty first century politics may be left wanting of
big, organized and solid political movements, but it is awash with fragmented,
issue-based and creative forms of civic action made possible by new media.

From fleeting to committed participation

But there is one crucial similarity.

These mobilizations made considerable impact because there were individuals

who tirelessly translated outrage online to practical politics offline. Here I refer to
civil society actors and government officials who worked together to find
evidence and file cases against the accused in the pork barrel scam,
concerned netizens who filed a Supreme Court petition against the Cybercrime
Prevention Act, women’s movements who worked with legislators to pass the RH
Bill and volunteer lawyers who closely followed the case of Mary Jane Veloso.

Practising citizenship online may have to power visibility to popular outrage. But it
is practical politics on the ground that can make things happen.

This, I argue, is the greatest challenge Filipinos face as the Aquino regime comes
to an end.

Netizens can continue bashing the Binays online, question Grace Poe’s
competence and make fun of Mar Roxas’s electability. But unless a critical
number of citizens commit to the grunt work required in vetting, persuading and
fielding decent candidates that can stand up against self-anointed personalities
gunning for presidency, we are left with no other option beyond a 6-hour dinner
in Malacañang deciding our fate for the next six years. – Rappler.com
Nicole Curato is a sociologist. She holds the Australian Research Council’s Early
Career Research Award for the field of deliberative democracy at the University
of Canberra.