Fritz Cyfer D.

Aribas

1. James Fallows in his article critiques the Philippines regarding its culture and how it affects
the country, wherein he pointed out that it is our culture itself that serves as the main barrier for
our development, that it "pulls many Filipinos toward their more self-destructive, self-defeating
worst". This notion is elaborated as James Fallows pointed out that our culture should be thought
of as a failure of nationalism, and as opposed from our Asian cousins, it is seen as a detriment to
our country. From problems in the Philippine political culture, the cronies, the elites, which
practically monopolize most of the industries, which cripple development, the divide of the rich
and poor, the fragmentation of peoples, the Malay culture of deference to our leaders (colonizers)
all seen as failures of nationalism. The culture of delicadeza, which is a barrier of transparency.
He also brought up Philippine capitalism as its own kind, a kind of capitalism that lags the
development and is worse than in other countries, in which he implied as because of culture.
2. Fareed Zakaria presented democracy as a flawed system, wherein it was seen that it was prone
to setbacks that would hinder development without even pertaining to culture, and it can also be
the other way around as in a liberal democracy, wherein this system can thrive and the country
can develop with rights, civil liberties, and etc. In my understanding, Fareed Zakaria presented
democracy as could be easily tainted, it is flawed, it can be illiberal, while it can also be liberal,
which can be seen in countries with a non-flawed democracy or a true democracy. The
Philippines is a flawed democracy, it has its fair share of corruption, scandals, and other flaws in
its government, and it is illiberal. Fareed Zakaria presented the Philippines as one of the
countries that hinders its development because of the aforementioned flaws within its democratic
system, it is not unique in that sense, as the problems of democracy encompass every country
that has it, with some more than others, like in India’s semi-liberal democracy as presented by
Zakaria, despite its varied languages, cultures, and castes, its democracy survived because of
pluralism. Is every country’s culture the same? No, it is not. Do they face mostly the same
problems? Yes, they do, with some overcoming it through liberty. With democracy comes
challenges, regardless of culture, in an ideal sense, it is a great system, but the world is far from
ideal; even Socrates hated it as he noted that the people are easily swayed and many would take
advantage of democracy, but at the same time, it can be rewarding if done right.
3. James Fallows’ ideas indicate the Philippines to have a flawed culture to the detriment of its
development and democracy, while Fareed Zakaria’s ideas indicate that the culture of a country
is irrelevant to the decline or the success of democracy in a country. Fallows presented culture as
one of the driving forces of the future of the country, that its root runs deep within the people,
that it affects how they live their daily lives, while in Zakaria, he presented that the institutions of
the government and the citizens rely on the various concepts of democracy and liberty for its
future, like rights, liberty, pluralism, and etc. in the contrary, corruption, elitism, nepotism, and
etc. Both are valid, both make sense, and I feel, after reading their works, that we should take
both of their ideas into account, as our country needs the relevant help it can get to straighten its
flawed democracy and culture.