Pursuing alternatives to democracy
THE previous two parts of this series discussed Philippine perspectives on democracy as handed down to us by America. We were gifted a version of governance that was deemed suited for us. America gave us a liberal unitary-presidential system of government, not its homegrown federal-presidential system, making this an experiment in its first colony.
We also briefly examined a model rooted in China with its underlying authoritarian ideals that propelled the massive, rapid lifting of its people’s lives from stark poverty, but at some considerable cost to their freedoms and human rights, ideals so cherished in a democracy.
This third part attempts to seek an alternative system to democracy and its opposite, autocracy (totalitarianism). Our sights are drawn to authoritarian China, extracting the best features from each that could be adapted and suited to our culture while minimizing their deleterious effects.
After a century of Philippine governments tempered by the subtleties of our brand of patronage politics, the original concepts of democracy may have to undergo drastic rethinking. In the environment of fluid geopolitical dynamics, we reassess our basic principles against developments in the real world. Questions become relevant, foremost of which: Is the preservation of democracy and human rights crucial for poor countries like the Philippines to attain economic growth while achieving respectability among the family of nations?
Democracy and its antithesis
For simplicity, I cite five basic ideals of democracy and contrast these with authoritarianism, the less extreme version of autocracy/totalitarianism, and against how Philippine governments are run as democracies.
1.Power is vested in the people. In a diverse society, power is distributed among the people exercising the same through recurring elections where the majority rules, and those voted to office must govern solely on the people’s acquiescence and for their own benefit. Governments must be accountable to the people through their transparent acts, safeguarded by checks and balance mechanisms.
In an authoritarian system, power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a cabal. A monolithic political party exercises control with or without the consent of its citizenry, confirmative of the archetypical Marxist catchphrase — dictatorship of the proletariat.
In the Philippines, we conduct costly elections amid a festive atmosphere, participated in by around 100 political parties, formed by political families and single advocacy groups solely for elections, administered by a weak, inutile and oftentimes corrupt constitutionally independent body (Comelec).
Only a handful of political parties are anchored ideologically. Most have “political butterflies” floating from party to party, a Philippine electoral phenomenon. Upon election, therefore, they owe primary obeisance to their sponsors, political dynasties and their allies in the oligarchy.
2. The rule of law Government operates within a framework of legal principles, where laws are applied equally to all and none above. In authoritarian models, the interests of the ruling elite or the state are prioritized over those of individuals, resulting in restricted freedoms. In the Philippine setting, the rule of law has elicited much concern about its implementation and enforcement. Instances of selective application of the law favor the powerful and the rulers over the governed.
3. Protection of freedoms, civil liberties and human rights
Democratic governments uphold and protect civil liberties and human rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. People are free to express their opinions, even those contradictory to that of government’s and the majority’s.
Under authoritarianism, these liberties are often curtailed, and citizens face censorship; press freedom is non-existent; freedom of expression is limited; dissent is suppressed; and political participation is restricted.
In the Philippines, civil liberties and freedoms are protected. But corruption within the justice system is rampant, and violations of human rights have caught the attention of international multilateral agencies. Over the decades, public trust in the justice system has been eroded, particularly among the poor and dispossessed.
4. Rights and obligations
In a democracy, while citizens enjoy their rights and freedoms accorded by their constitutions and the exigencies of democratic ideals, they also have obligations. These are summarized under three main categories: the obligation to vote, pay taxes and obey the law. Qualified citizens are exhorted to vote, and candidates with differing views are allowed to be voted upon. All must pay taxes in varying degrees, with sanctions for non-payment; a justice system to implement laws, apprehend transgressors, provide them with a fair trial, and impose appropriate punishment for the guilty.
In authoritarian regimes, citizens have limited or no right to vote. And if tolerated, they vote for those that the monolithic political parties select for them. All pay taxes, although the powerful have the influence, the privilege, and the mechanisms to avoid payment. And laws, particularly those that impact personal freedoms, are severe and oppressive, and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention may be curtailed.
In the Philippines, elections are the only time when the citizenry reigns supreme over the proverbial “servants of the people” who seek anointment or reelection, where candidates seduce the citizenry for their votes. In many cases, candidates buy votes, and the voters are free to sell them — at an agreed price.
Payment of taxes has become a Filipino practice of gaming the system, particularly for high-income earners and many businesses. Taxes are simply an inconvenience and, short of evasion, must be avoided. This mindset is attributed to bureaucratic corruption, where money is diverted to personal pockets and private accounts instead of the public coffers. Corruption is the biggest disincentive to tax payments.
And the directive to obey laws, as a citizen’s obligation, has been reduced to a Filipino dictum, “lulusot kung makakalusot,” meaning “one gets away — when one gets away.”
5. Political pluralism and participation
For democracy to prosper, the active participation of the citizenry and engagement with their elected representatives are required. Political pluralism allows for a free market of ideas, where real ideologically distinct political parties are formed to represent a diversity of beliefs competing for political power.
In authoritarian regimes, political power is inexorably concentrated on one party or individual. Only the monolithic party line is allowed, marginalizing dissenting voices, containment of political diversity, and inhibiting opposition.
In the Philippines, elections are the overarching environment in which political patronage incubates. The political dynasties and the oligarchy pervade the process, rendering elections mostly choices between opposing members of the elite and the powerful. Political parties are convenient structures for political families and dynasties to perpetuate their hold on power.
Democracy is not working
From empirical evidence, the inevitable conclusions are that the democratic experiment imposed by our American colonialists after centuries of Spanish perversion of our Filipino datu-sultanate culture — a forced marriage of their Western and our Eastern values — resulted in a mongrelized version of democracy that has not worked as intended. Its opposite, the autocracy/totalitarian system, may run against the grain of Philippine experience and culture and may not work either.
But looking back, democracy, as we inherited it, could have succeeded given certain preconditions. Central to this is when the great majority of our people, mired in poverty and ignorant of the nuances of these concepts, are liberated from these conditions. After which, democracy may just survive and flourish.
Philippine perspectives on China's experience
The American precepts we adopted gave precedence to values that may not be congruent with Filipino culture. Individual freedoms, which are products of America's historicity and political evolution — freedom of speech and the press, religious beliefs, freedom to bear arms, a bill of rights, etc. — are basically alien to our own. Adherents of democracy as practiced in the Western world argue that democracy has many defects, but its opposite, authoritarianism, is no better an alternative. But empirical evidence shows otherwise.
China's experience
I mentioned in the previous column the experiences of Singapore and Malaysia under authoritarian regimes and their rapid growth over the decades, surpassing that of the Philippines. But this column alludes to the biggest elephant in the room, China, which may surpass America in a decade. China has reduced poverty substantially and elevated millions of its citizens. With a population of 1.4 billion, or roughly 18 percent of the world's, China declared in 2021 that its government had succeeded in lifting 770 million of its people out of poverty in just four decades. Under authoritarian rule, their poverty reduction program rested on fundamental strategies and transformed the economy from a socialist closed model to a capitalist open market one. Underlying this was the reform of their system and structures of governance, resulting in a more effective implementation of policies.
China welcomed foreign investments, privatized state-owned enterprises and implemented market-oriented policies. This led to rapid economic growth, job creation and rising income levels.
The rural areas were developed by investing in infrastructure, such as roads, railways, electricity, water supply and communication systems, and providing subsidies to farmers to increase agricultural productivity.
To provide workers in developing industries, people not needed in the rural agricultural sector were relocated to urban areas and provided with job training for employment.
More importantly, China made significant investments in education, particularly in rural areas. The government has provided free compulsory education for all children and increased funding for higher education.
All these combined toward poverty reduction and placed China among the industrialized countries of the world. But these couldn't have been made possible were they not directed by a professional bureaucracy run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Professionalizing bureaucracy
The CCP composed the elites of China. In their authoritarian system, the CCP pervades the political life and the bureaucracy from whence the leadership is culled; for the eventual leaders, life membership starts at the lower levels of local governments and layers of the bureaucracy, climbing up the ranks over the years.
Membership in the CCP is merit-based, and applicants or recruits are accepted based on their qualifications, expertise and performance, seldom their political connections. The most capable and competent officials are appointed to understudy the running of government and, in this case, oversee poverty alleviation efforts.
Earlier in their membership, many are provided with specialized training in economics, management and social development, equipping them with the knowledge and skills to implement policies. And they undergo performance-based evaluation programs assessing their effectiveness and the success of programs on the ground for which they are held accountable. To advance in the party, they are allowed a modicum of innovation and experimentation, testing new approaches and strategies.
This professionalized bureaucracy under the tutelage of the CCP demonstrates its critical role in the success of well-designed, effectively implemented and efficiently managed poverty alleviation that unshackled the millions of Chinese from their stark and dire poverty trap, elevating them to the middle class.
Authoritarian vs democratic methods
Last week's column partly described the Philippine political development experience under almost a century of democratic experimentation in governance. And I concede that our system is pockmarked with democratic deficits that have only stunted our growth comparative to that of Singapore, Malaysia, and even South Korea and Vietnam, which by many metrics have left us in the dust. And these blemishes could even be obtrusive when compared to China. Admittedly, China's authoritarian practices produced desired results — the emancipation of its poverty-stricken populace, for one — by using methods antithetical to our American political heritage.
Foremost of these is their program of urbanization, where large segments of the population were forcibly relocated from rural and impoverished regions and provinces. This was meant to improve living conditions and concentrate limited resources in urban settings for easy access. By Western democratic precepts, these were violations of their human rights.
No, China is not a democracy. Its political leadership at the top does not exist for the sufferance of the general public. Their legitimate hold on power is decided through a process of internal selection by the established party hierarchy tasked with this burden of selection. It is slightly different at the local and regional level, where the people elect their local leaders from a list provided by the Communist Party. There are no opposing political parties with adversarial ideologies and programs of government. All follow the communist line.
Herein lies the difference from democracies. For the Philippines in particular, the political leadership comes from different segments of society, where anyone with the propensity to run for office with enough logistics can join several political parties and vie for office. Electoral politics and changes in leadership at the national or local levels are done through elections with the direct participation of the general public qualified to vote. But in the last few decades, the electoral process has been dominated by political dynasties and the oligarchy, fulfilling the observation of Alexander Tytler of the devious nature of democracy and its eventual collapse (see "Philippine perspectives on Western concepts," The Manila Times, Sept. 6, 2023).
In contrast with the CCP, our democracy inevitably led to Filipinos electing from a pre-selected list of name-recognizable candidates embedded in more than 100 political parties anointed or owned by political dynasties and the oligarchy, the reason why actors, media personalities and sports celebrities win hands down and therefore assume a flawed mantle of political leadership.
But are there alternatives between democracy on one end and authoritarianism on the other that are suitable for Philippine governance? Or are we condemned to our colonial legacy?
Philippine perspective on Western concepts
CD's history and antecedents can be accessed through our publications, collection of speeches, documents and essays on our website (www.cdpi.asia), and thus will not be the focus here. This series of columns is meant to reassess the premises for Centrist Democracy's cherished precepts. To refresh, our core value is centered on human dignity, and therefore we hold that political, economic and social order must be logically designed so that the dignity of each person is promoted and enhanced. These concepts are not homegrown. These are Western ideas that we adopted over the years after the transition from Spanish to American colonial rule.
America introduced a totally different system, which evolved over a century and a half of American experience in government since 1776. America convinced us that the type of government adopted by the Philippines from the start of the 20th century toward the Philippine Commonwealth and onwards emanating from these tenets was one suited to us.
Democracy, freedom and human rights
Democracy, freedom and human rights are the basic concepts America imparted to its first colony in the Far East. A break from the centuries of Spanish monarchical rule, the premises of America's political endowments to the Filipinos after wresting control of the islands run counter to what was inflicted on the colony by the 300 years of Spanish colonial rule. Democracy is the foundation of its system of governance where power is vested in the people exercising the same through elected representatives. The citizenry, in effect, has the right to participate in the decision-making processes that affect their lives.
Freedom is the fundamental value of governance, encompassing personal, economic and political aspects. And human rights emphasize the protection of individual rights and liberties that are embedded in America's Constitution, the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech, religious beliefs, and a right to a fair trial.
These three principles are closely interconnected and mutually reinforcing; democracy overarches the two, allowing the protection and promotion of freedom and human rights; and the flourishing of freedom and human rights is critical for the functioning and legitimacy of a democratic system.
As a drastic departure from the perspectives of monarchies and authoritarian systems, the ideas of self-governance and popular sovereignty were alien to the Spanish legacy. These ideas continue to shape America's sorties into the world and provide the basic impetus for its foreign policies. In an evolving modern world, they germinated attendant notions such as the rule of law, a free market economy and global trade.
Philippine experience
In a span of five decades, toward gaining our independence, democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law were piggybacked into the centuries-old native practices of our ancestry — the subservience of the inhabitants of the islands to our sultanate and datu culture, engraved into our psyche by 300 years of Spanish tutelage but perverted to a large extent in our system of governance, spawning a patronage system that became the core of our practice of governance. A corollary to these concepts was the adoption of a presidential system of government, an embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured. For almost 100 years, the system flourished, feeding upon the least desired facet of the Filipino culture: the desire for and dependence on a benefactor from the datu and sultan, heading a clan; to the Spanish patron looking over the indios, to the American "big brother"; morphing into the Philippine president, the "father" of a people..."
Democracy and patronage
Over the decades, the Filipino discovered other facets of democracy. And this was articulated by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish thinker who, two centuries ago, made a profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses..."
How true the observation was as translated by Filipino voters over several decades of elections and changes in governments. Perhaps this could explain why the Philippines has lagged behind in its development from the time we adopted these foreign concepts and married them to our culture. As practiced, the Filipino voters invariably vote into office those that benefit them and their families the most, directly breeding another phenomenon pervasive in Philippine politics — the political dynasties. These are families that oversee local politics, where relationships are personal and intimate. They retain their hold on power by all means, converting "public service [into] a private business," passing on to their progeny these elected positions and public largesse. They now permeate national politics — validating the aphorism "that all politics are local."
By Tytler's interpretation, our democracy and its attendant principles are collapsing. It may not even be the right one for us in the first place, after all. It is a given that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of its citizenry, lift them up from poverty and ignorance, and provide for them and the next generation the wherewithal for a good life. But are we achieving this within our system of governance? Are there alternatives?
Looking toward our neighbors
It is touted, but perhaps only a myth, that the Philippines, before World War 2, was the second-most developed country in Asia after Japan. But now the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by nominal GDP and other metrics such as per capita wealth, worker's pay and buying power, rates the Philippines far below China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. and at par with Vietnam and higher than Laos, Cambodia and Bangladesh.
I cite two Asian countries with different political historicity and considered as backward countries compared to us at the turn of the century and even toward the end of WW2. But today, they are more developed economically with their citizenry's living standards uplifted. Their model of governance has not been a liberal democracy akin to what America imposed on us. They have authoritarian governments, but their economies have soared under the authoritarian leadership of Lee Kuan Yew (1959–1990) and Mahathir Mohamad (1981–2003; 2018–2020). During the regimes of these two, the Philippines underwent seven "democratic changes" in regimes.
To be continued next week
Trump indictments: Imprisonment or the presidency
MY columns these past weeks focused on the Ukraine war and its alternative outcomes. A case was made for Putin and Zelenskyy slugging it out over Ukraine. But overarching this is a bigger fight being played out in a geopolitical setting between the real protagonists, the placeholders in this proxy war — US-NATO versus Russia. Advocates for either side argue on the basis of perceived realities and the facts on the ground, which in any case are muddled and even distorted, as interpreted in a parallel rivalry between the two types of media platforms that shape public opinion and influence the war narratives while the dynamics of the conflicts are evolving: newspapers, television and radio directing public discourse on one side, and on the other, Facebook, Twitter (now X) and YouTube providing real-time images. Both platforms advocate conflicting results on the war.
With all the permutations, it appears that in these proxy fights, the biggest loser is Ukraine itself, with its economy devastated and land scorched, its populace driven into exile, and countless numbers of its youth dead in battle. And in this calculus, a clear winner is the emerging hegemon — China ("Postscript on Ukraine," The Manila Times, July 26-August 2).
Timeline on Trump indictment
But we have developments in America that could have some direct bearing on the Ukraine war and impact geopolitical dynamics. We refer to the upcoming presidential elections, where the former president, Donald Trump, is far ahead in the polls, auguring a comeback. He has averred blatantly that had he been president in February 2022, the Ukraine war would not have happened. Now that it is raging, he will end it on the day he reassumes the presidency. But a compelling drama is unfolding during this year-long American political season. Trump is facing several criminal indictments that may alter his re-run. Trump's four years in office had been tumultuous, eccentric, and divisive to America's body politic and these threaten to even deepen the chasm with the outcome of these indictments.
Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection case
Last week an indictment was directed against Trump, the third since he left office. The charge was conspiracy to deprive millions of Americans of the right to vote and to have their vote counted. To quote Politico's website: "In the two months between Election Day in 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021, Trump mounted a wide-ranging campaign to subvert Joe Biden's victory in the presidential election. Trump and his advisers spread false information about voter fraud, urged Republican state officials to undermine the results in states that Biden won, assembled false slates of electors and pressured Mike Pence, the vice president, to unilaterally toss out the legitimate results. The effort culminated on January 6, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and disrupted the peaceful transfer of power."
These are very serious accusations, as many of the participants in that January 6 assault on the Capitol have now been found guilty and incarcerated.
The classified documents case
On June 9, 2023, the Donald was indicted on 37 felonies for retaining classified documents after he left office, which were found by an FBI search stashed in his residence at Mar-a-Lago. America's Espionage Act makes it a crime to retain records containing sensitive national security information and show these classified documents containing secrets on US and foreign military capabilities, military activities, or nuclear weapons to persons unauthorized to view them. Trump, no longer president, couldn't declassify these documents as he claimed. Furthermore, he obstructed the FBI investigation by directing his people at the residence to move the boxes of classified documents around the building and destroying security camera footage after the FBI requested the same.
Hush money case
His first indictment was on March 30, 2023. The Donald through his lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid off porn star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence to avoid a sex scandal at a sensitive time in Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. Cohen, acting as the fixer, paid her $130,000, which Trump later reimbursed in installments when he was already president. Accordingly, these payments were fraudulently disguised by Trump as corporate legal fees — a criminal violation. The charges contained 34 felony counts. Not only was the Donald accused of falsifying business records, but of using these amounts in an underlying crime — the payoff constituting an illegal contribution to Trump's presidential campaign.
Georgia state election interference
Aside from these three indictments, an investigation is ongoing in the state of Georgia on election interference, where Trump sought to overturn the result of the presidential elections. President Joe Biden won the state's 16 electoral votes, but Trump and his camp spread lies about voter fraud, even plotting to send fake electors to Washington. What could be a criminal offense for election meddling was a recording of Trump calling Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to "find" 11,780 Trump votes to overturn Biden's win.
Implications
No American president has been charged with such serious criminal acts. Depending on where you sit, these developments are a measure of America's collective sense of decency, reflecting its ideals of justice and fairness. That these investigations and indictments are necessary to hold public officials accountable for their actions, upholding the cherished democratic-republican concept of the rule of law. That Trump, the most powerful American while he was president of the United States, is not above the law.
Or, is this simply a witch hunt as claimed by the supporters of Donald Trump, particularly the MAGA (Make America Great Again) which Hillary Clinton once described as "a basket of deplorables," putting forward arguments that from the very start of the Trump presidency "the deep state" was out to delegitimize and destabilize it? The Donald burst onto the American political scene, breaking the mold of the usual politicians who rose through elective offices and are creatures of the political party establishment or political dynasties. Trump was a maverick who never held any government position or any elective post and came from the world of business. He doesn't owe his rise to the political kingmakers from the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms." In his rhetoric, the "deep state" comes from both major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, and the shadowy entrenched bureaucrats and civil servants following their own agenda irrespective of the government of the day. Trump has always been apolitical and was once a Democrat and a heavy contributor to both political parties. He won the primary as a Republican, trouncing the revered names of party stalwarts. But he now owns the GOP. In a more pedestrian language, he holds the mainstream Republican party by the balls. His MAGA provides him with a base vote of 30 percent that could propel him back to the US presidency.
These indictments have not sunk his image. backfiring instead and providing a boost to his campaign. The actual trials and their results scheduled over the entire primary season towards the election itself could be decisive.
By 2024, America could have Trump the President or Trump with a numbered striped jacket at the back: the prisoner.
Postscript on Ukraine: China wins
Last of 3 parts
THE last few columns were a play on the outcomes of the Ukraine war, suggesting alternative endings to how the conflict unfolds. The first is that Russia wins. Ukraine is destroyed, and Russia occupies the country, installing a puppet government. The second possibility is that NATO and Ukraine get the upper hand, stop Putin dead in his tracks, and perhaps arrive at a negotiated settlement in the Donbass region and the Crimea. The third alternative could either be a prolonged war with no clear winner among the proxies except the continued devastation of Ukraine, or the war escalates into a much wider conflict, resulting in greater instability and violence and perhaps even the unthinkable consequences of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons. This last one may not happen because it couldn't, but because all sides are only too aware of the consequences of mutually assured destruction (MAD).
Russia wins
This will usher in the resurgence of Russia's position as a major global power with the self-fulfilling prediction by the neocons about Putin's imperial ambitions to revive the old USSR. With close ties with China, both will challenge the dominance of America as a counterbalancing force in a multipolar world order.
Putin thus regains his image as a strongman after the West has been taunting him as weak after the Prigozhin affair. This will reestablish his preeminence along with his Kremlin cabal, giving him carte blanche to redo the world's second-biggest authoritarian structure.
The immediate effect in Eastern Europe is to induce a sense of anxiety among the countries it shares borders with, prompting them to reexamine their relationship with NATO against the renaissance of the Eastern European hegemon.
NATO's touted umbrella, a guarantee to defend non-nuclear allied states, by the nuclear-capable members pouring in conventional logistic and war material short of boots on the ground yet unable to stave off Ukraine's defeat, may no longer be reassuring. These border countries, particularly the Balkan states and Poland, Norway and Finland, full NATO members, may have to rethink their existing protocols. In any case, Russia could wreak havoc with some of these former Warsaw Pact allies and may dissuade those with NATO membership aspirations — Sweden, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia — to back out of NATO and the EU.
From the standpoint of Russia's gaining control of its economy, this could impact energy supplies and agricultural products. Russia's oil fields feed Europe through pipelines passing through Ukraine. And as Europe's breadbasket, imports of wheat, corn, animal and vegetable fats, sunflower seed oil, and cereals are critical to their economies. European imports from Ukraine alone were valued at $29 billion in 2022. Russia's revived role in Europe alters the power dynamics and may drive a wedge between the US allies.
US-NATO-Ukraine wins
There are permutations in the event that Russia doesn't overrun Ukraine in the next couple of months, retreats (unlikely) and goes into a negotiated settlement (likely). The Kremlin cabal will most likely topple Putin, but the replacements are at present unknown and may prove even more unpredictable and volatile than Putin, a known quantity. Or it may not. In any event, this scenario will strengthen the NATO alliance by projecting its clout in Eastern Europe and a strong perception of its relevance in a multipolar world. It would signal that the international community is able and willing to stand up to violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity — this, of course, from the standpoint of the West.
This could further isolate Russia from the family of nations, making it a pariah. The Western alliance would be a real deterrent to future Russian aggression, weakening its influence and standing, limiting its ability to assert its interests in Eastern Europe, and driving it further into the arms of China — unless America manages its foreign policy well and gets the new Russian regime into its fold. Overall, this will contribute to greater stability in Eastern Europe, enticing the other former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO and the EU and perhaps discouraging them from any military adventurism against their neighbors.
Whatever the outcomes in Ukraine
The Ukraine war does not have a direct impact on US-China relations per se but has broader implications for geopolitics, indirectly affecting the dynamics between the two hegemons. China, in some sense, supports the Russian side but has refused to send in any war materiel — except for encouragement and moral support — hardly critical logistics during wartime.
But observant China must be calculating the risk involved in a parallel concern China has with Taiwan — in case of another proxy fight. China must have studied well the nuances of the strategy and tactics of a US-led war. China may conclude that America may be reluctant to go all-out in Ukraine for fear of widening the conflict with Russia — and perhaps in the same vein, America will not risk its boys in defending Taiwan if China makes its move. Biden's confession of America running out of ammo and critical war materiel suggests America's unpreparedness. China has long built its arsenal for any eventuality. America apparently did not. It is consumed with its internal politics and its society's divisions — fruits of a libertarian-democratic society — unlike an authoritarian one, untrammeled by what the Chinese populace wants but what the Communist Party dictates.
China the victor presumptive
A prolonged war and a stalemate work in China's favor, gloating at NATO's bleeding, exposing to the world its inutility. This distraction in the Eastern European theater leaves China bolstering its moves in the Indo-Pacific region and Africa, where it continues to make inroads with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
On the other hand, Russia's or NATO's victory in Ukraine may not be at all negative for China. Outcomes could enhance China's position. I draw heavily from Dr. Sari Arho Havrén (associate fellow and specialist in China's foreign relations — This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.). And I quote:
"China sees Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine through the lens of great power competition between itself and the US ... Europe seems to misunderstand — or disregard — how Beijing sees the war and its geostrategic position, including its view that the EU and its member states form the weak link in the trans-Atlantic alliance."
In a unipolar world where America is the lone hegemon and China is still on the geopolitical fringes, America's dominance has always been stifling to its own drive to global power. As the emerging hegemon, it is intent on abrogating the old order established by America, which did well for itself in a unipolar world. In a multipolar world order, China wants its own model of international relations, and after the success of Deng Xiaoping in adopting the concept of the market economy, it also seeks to redefine democracy, one shaped by the Chinese Communist Party that is acceptable to the rest of the world or at least within China's sphere. To echo Dr. Havrén, China needs to fashion an international order aimed at structuring the world and making it safe for China.
And for the world. And in the process, we hope, not precipitate Cold War 2.0.
Postscript on Ukraine implications for a multipolar world
Second of 3 parts
AFTER 18 months, it seems obvious that NATO and Zelenskyy are running out of options. There are limits to how much military aid can be sent to Ukraine to fight non-nuclear conventional warfare. And NATO does not possess the wherewithal nor the will to put boots on the ground. Even the former Eastern European allies of the old USSR, which are now NATO members, will not have the gumption to involve themselves by sending warm bodies. And if they do, they will still need war materiel handouts from NATO. It seems that Putin, who after the Yevgeny Prigozhin telenovela was deemed weak by the West turns out to be still firmly in control — not only of the Kremlin cabal but the war in Ukraine. This column attempts topresent another perspective viewed against the framework of Putin's original declared intentions in Ukraine.
Putin's justification for his Ukraine adventure was to preserve Russia's geopolitical strategic interests against the encroachment of NATO (Russia's Black Sea fleet is in Sevastopol, Crimea); protect the rights and interests of the ethnic Russian-speaking population in the Donbas and Crimea; and replace an anti-Russian Ukraine government, which is aligning closer with the West. The overarching cover of purported denazification of Ukraine was earlier debunked and did not gain wide traction in the global community. Putin had to recalibrate his strategy after the disastrous first few weeks in February, March and April of 2022.
At the outset, Russia never did indicate destroying a country that provides a buffer against the USSR's old nemesis. Russia preferred a neutral Ukraine that it can do business with, Ukraine having one of the biggest economies within Russia's sphere of influence. It is obvious that the pro-Western Zelenskyy had to be replaced by a Russia-friendly or puppet government. These probably are the reasons why Russia moves cautiously and deliberately, avoiding major confrontations. As it is, the never-ending war is bleeding NATO dry, draining its resources, and depleting its logistics. And reportedly, despite the Western sanctions, Russia's economy is growing by a comfortable annual 2 percent. This war of attrition is likely to drive a wedge between NATO allies.
NATO'S belligerence
The Ukraine war should not have happened. But the West, particularly the neocons in DC, propagated the fiction that Putin is an imperialist bent on reviving the old USSR. There never was any evidence of this. Putin came to power only in 2000 a decade after the Cold War ended. It took another two decades for the Ukraine crisis to erupt in 2014 induced by NATO intrusion. In those intervening years, there were no accusations in the West of Putin having imperial aspirations.
Post-Cold War, a weak Russia was intent on holding on to its sphere of influence. But in 2004, NATO expanded its membership to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all former Soviet republics. This expansion which NATO justified under the pretext of promoting stability and security in Europe yielded undesired consequences. It was NATO's opening gambit for East European hegemony. Russia saw this as a threat to its security. In retrospect, in a multipolar world, Russia could have even become a US/NATO ally against China rising in the East.
In 2008, another of the USSR's former Soviet republics began to seek closer ties with the West intending to join the alliance — encouraged no doubt by NATO. Russia invaded Georgia, justifying the intervention of putting down separatist groups in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, simmering ethnic and territorial disputes between Georgia and the breakaway regions. This is a template that Russia employed in 2014, when it annexed Crimea and occupied Ukraine's Donbas regions.
Putin's acts could not simply be attributed to his imperial impulses. NATO's relentlessdecadeslongbelligerence impelled Russia's response. NATO's military alliance during the Cold War was met to some extent by the Soviet Warsaw Pact. But after the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO lost its reason for being and should have been disbanded. But the alliance moving into Russia's borders became an existential threat.
An analogous case would be the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Russia's deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba posed an existential threat to America and the Western hemisphere. This brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war. The same logic can be applied to NATO's moves toward the borders of Russia.
Political realism With these geopolitical realities in a flux as backdrop, John Mearsheimer, an eminent political scientist, articulated in his theory of political realism a compelling assessment, postulating that "...great powers are principally concerned about the balance of power... they care about how powerful they are relative to other powers." Evidently, they will take advantage of any weakness as this is imperative for their own survival. Mearsheimer further advanced that at the incipient unipolar world with the ascendancy of America over the carcass of the USSR, its remnant Russia was so weak emboldening America to do whatever it wanted. This simply follows the tenets of political realism. That the first primordial consideration is to be more powerful, economically, and militarily to survive and flourish. The second consideration is "...political realism doesn't discriminate between democracies and non-democracies; or liberal states and fascist states or communist states." Therefore, the emerging hegemon — America, must maximize its relative power regardless of the political order at the home front, the GOP- or Democratic-led government. Traditional inclinations by the Western-influenced, Greco-Roman governance concept still adhere to democracies being the "good guys" and communism, authoritarianism, fascism, etc., the "bad guys." Political realism simply negates these concepts. Competing for power and being more powerful trumps all ideological concepts.
During the Unipolar era from the Cold War's end, 1990/1991 to 2017, the US, the lone world hegemon with no rival for political power on the horizon, acted not in a political realist but in a liberal fashion, pursuing foreign policy as liberal hegemony. Why? Because great power politics no longer mattered with no rivals in the system.
But with the transition to a multipolar world, it was a mistake for America to be conducting itself as if it were still the only kid on the block using the tools and concepts of unipolar conventions.
So, America pursued a liberal foreign policy of engagement helping China get rich, integrating it into international institutions like WTO (China already is in World Bank and IMF) hoping it would become a responsible stakeholder and voila! — a liberal democracy, like the Asian Tigers did a few decades back.
Xi Jinping was only too glad to accommodate America's naivete and proceeded to grow economically and built China's military. Its navy is now the biggest in the world. It took a Donald Trump to understand this geopolitical development and began to confront China but unable to follow through, even unwisely alienating America's allies in the process. Mearsheimer put it succinctly upon the ascendancy of Joe Biden: "...America is pursuing realpolitik behavior towards China, but disguises it with liberal rhetoric — with a mailed fist. America has to change its posture as China grew powerful." America began to fear China!
The closing act on Ukraine
ONE of the more somber assessments of America's behavior as a world hegemon comes from an eminent member of its establishment, Richard Hass, outgoing president of America's prestigious think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Having no official role in either political party, it nevertheless has unmatched expertise and connections in formulating foreign policy. The CFR is a microcosm of American hegemony, with its disciples and true believers coming mostly from a diverse segment of the upper crust of American society, including business, academia, government officials and the intelligence community. Their influence in shaping American discourse on foreign policy for the last 100 years is invaluable.
Thus, Haas's pronouncements that "the United States has become the most profound source of instability throughout the world" are serious indictments, not simple musings, in light of America's role as the world's lone hegemon and its impact on recent developments, particularly leading towards this third part of my column on the Ukraine war. "The closing act" could be a loose term, as it is pregnant with nuances. It could mean the end of the Ukraine war — the defeat of Ukraine and triumph of Russia or vice versa — or the perpetuation of a never-ending one. There is a precedent. The Korean War (1950-1953) is technically still going on, with no final peace treaty signed between the protagonists, North and South Korea — but simply an armistice agreement. This could be the template for the closure of the Russo-Ukraine war.
America's global role
Since the USSR's collapse ended the Cold War, the world has metamorphosed into a unipolar US-dominated construct — militarily and economically ascendant with considerable social and cultural influence. America broke away as a child of European monarchical traditions to evolve into a fiercely independent nation with a bias toward individual freedoms, translated as liberal capitalism and a free market economy, promoting itself as a beacon of democracy, providing leadership from WW2 onward, growing economically, rising with "the tide that lifts all boats," and enforcing its own imprint of order and the rule of law. But power concentrated, bereft of checks and balances, leads to abuse and misuse. Decision-making on world affairs became unilateral, solving mounting crises here and there to the exclusion of other less dominant powers.
A unipolar world
In establishing a world order, America's default response to any perceived deviation threatening or distracting its global role is to wage war, under whatever pretext, imposing its sense of order and the rule of law. This is perhaps the interpretation of Richard Haas' insights. Since the end of World War 2, America has started, been involved in, and intervened in more than two dozen conflicts, more than any other country in the world, thus earning for itself the sobriquet of the world's "warmonger" — all achieved purportedly to uphold democracy and preserve a way of life according to its tenets. But America's actuations and motivations are suspect.
The Vietnam War (1964-1975) used the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretext for increased involvement. The eventual US withdrawal and defeat saw the two Vietnams unified under communist rule.
The Afghanistan War (2001-2021). Taliban terrorists harboring al-Qaida was the US's justification for its invasion after 3,000 were killed on September 1 at the World Trade Center. This righteous excuse for revenge cost the US $2.3 trillion and killed 200,000 civilians. Now the Taliban are back in control of Afghanistan.
The Iraq War (2003-2011). Citing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the US invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. The war led to a protracted insurgency and sectarian violence, claiming 1.03 million civilian casualties in 20 years. The US leadership knew there were no WMDs prior to the invasion.
These three perfidious interventions are just samples of a dozen more cases, from Lebanon (1958) to the Central African Republic (2013-2014) to Ukraine (2022).
It can be argued that these wars and interventions were for a noble purpose. But also mixed among these motherhood statements above are geopolitical considerations involving US and Western economic interests, access to resources, and the hegemonic desire to exert influence and maintain global dominance, advancing specific political and military objectives.
Current US involvement —Ukraine's final act
At the summit in Lithuania, NATO evaluated the Ukraine war, setting the strategic direction it would take. Unsaid perhaps is the war fatigue setting in on all protagonists — with the US/NATO in a pissing contest with Russia on who can outlast and outsuffer who, playing chicken with the nuclear trigger.
One scenario sees Zelenskyy retaking occupied territories, particularly Crimea. This is going to be bloody, as Putin has now had the time to reinforce and fortify the only viable entrance for the armies of Ukraine — the Isthmus of Perekop, the strip of land connecting the peninsula to southern Ukraine.
Five to 7 kilometers across at its narrowest strip, this is the gateway to Crimea and, "from antiquity, was the site of furious battles that decided the fates of empires." This could be a veritable killing field unless the US and NATO provide what Zelensky demands — F-16 jets for air cover and the long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).
The US's reluctance to place this advanced weaponry in the hands of Zelenskyy is perhaps due to two related concerns. American incongruous foreign policy has been to help Ukraine win the war but stop short of providing all logistics for this to happen. This is in the DNA of US foreign policy, as evidenced by its eight years in Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan. America goes to war not to lose but not necessarily to win — puzzling!
With these new weapons, Zelenskyy and some Ukrainian generals may go rogue, raining these newly acquired cruise missiles on major Russian cities, giving Putin no option but to respond with his own tactical battlefield nukes. And all bets are off!
The alternative scenario is that Ukraine/US/NATO continue to change the dynamics, somehow convincing Putin that this war is unsustainable on the battlefields and on the home front, where economic sanctions continue to be tightened, hoping that all this chaos will go away through negotiated solutions. Ukraine may not get back 100 percent of its territory, but NATO membership and a Marshall-like reconstruction plan similar to that in post-World War 2 Europe can be incentivized.
Or just hope for a quick regime change in the Kremlin — the downfall of a weak Putin and his replacement by any of the Siloviki.
But again, hope is not a strategy.
Postscript on Ukraine: A contrarian view
The Ukraine war fought in the media has partisans taking sides. From where one sits, one has the choice of who to root for. My columns have so far depicted Ukraine winning. This time, this column portrays the contrarian viewpoint. Ukraine is losing the war and its implications for NATO, particularly its main sponsor — America.
I draw from the blogs, podcasts and video clips of a certain Col. Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter, who both claim to be former US military and intelligence operatives and are widely followed on social media. But I mix this up with the assessment of John Mearsheimer, a noted American political scientist. I don't purport to go deep into the backgrounds and motivations of these people. But I compare their pronouncements against those of other platforms presented "as facts."
Instability caused by US/NATO
This is a takeoff from last week's column on CFR's Richard Haas's pronouncements that "the United States has become the most profound source of instability throughout the world." The Ukraine crisis could be traced to what America did in the early part of its ascendancy as the world's lone hegemon in a unipolar world after the end of the Cold War. Excerpts are cited from my columns of March 9, 2022, "Ukraine: Putin's war — a briefer" and "Closing act to Putin's war," March 16, 2022 — all written two months after the Ukraine invasion. After 17 months of the war, a different perspective on the war is developing.
All these started upon the dissolution of the USSR when Washington assured Gorbachev that NATO would move "not an inch eastward" with the withdrawal of the Russian troops from East Germany and the eventual German unification. NATO was not to expand into the ambit of Russian influence in the crumbling Warsaw Pact. At that point, there really was no longer any need for NATO. It won the Cold War. But NATO was more a business of arms and weaponry, influenced most by the military industrial congress complex (MICC) which marches to the beat of American hegemony whether the US government is run by GOP or Democrats. America reneged on that promise.
As I wrote back then, John Mearsheimer came up with a disturbing but logical conclusion negating the conventional wisdom that Putin and Russia bear the primary responsibility for the Ukraine crisis and the Russo-Ukraine war that long started with the Euromaidan movement protests, culminating in the Revolution of Dignity and eventual regime change in Ukraine and the ouster in 2014 of President Victor Yanukovych, who fled to Moscow. The CIA was believed to be heavily involved in fomenting these protests, and the subsequent Ukrainian governments were sympathetic to joining the EU and eventually NATO.
Putin considered the new Ukrainian government illegal. In response, Putin annexed Ukraine's southern peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and recognized the Russian-sponsored separatist states of Donetsk and Luhansk in the southeast, collectively known as the Donbas region. In 2016, the UN General Assembly condemned the annexation as "...the occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine — the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol."
With the help of Germany and France, a series of protocols called the Minsk Agreements were hammered out in 2014–2055, aimed at establishing a ceasefire and a political framework for resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine. These were agreed to and signed with provisions to run for eight years. Looking back, Ukraine Presidents Poroshenko and Zelenskyy, French President Francois Holland, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch considered these agreements a sham. Its provisions were never going to be implemented but were designed to buy time for Ukraine to build its military capability. In fact, the US/NATO built training facilities in Western Ukraine in 2015 where battalion-sized Ukrainian forces were trained to NATO standards and sent to Donbas to fight.
Putin had been had! The US/NATO used diplomacy as a shield to build up Ukraine's military. By early February 2022, Russia had officially recognized the breakaway separatist Donbas region, declaring that the Minsk Agreements no longer existed. On Feb. 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Status of the war
Seventeen months after the invasion, both protagonists have not gained the clear upper hand. But since the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, several weeks ago, things are coming to a head — events that may augur well for Russia. The much-heralded spring counterattack to retake Russian-occupied territories and Crimea seems to have petered out. Zelenskyy's demands for more advanced NATO war material could not be met, and Ukraine's NATO membership has been tabled for another time. This has now become a war of attrition, and this hiatus will work to the advantage of the home team rather than NATO. Putin can sit this one out while continuing to build his forces. Reportedly, they now have 750,000 men at arms, ramping up to a million. Ukraine, though having an excellent war machine but a smaller population, will deplete its manpower over time. It's a mathematical certainty.
And as Russia's cities are untouched, their production facilities are intact and are operating 24/7. There is no danger of Russia running out of ammo, drones, missiles, parts or equipment to fight a war. US President Biden recently admitted they're running out of logistics and couldn't transfer sorely needed materiel from other theaters. The US/NATO will not put boots on the ground, nor do they have the forces for conventional warfare.
Zelenskyy is in panic mode and may know Ukraine is losing. The reluctance of the US to supply cruise missiles may be a prudent move. In desperation, Zelenskyy may just go rogue, raining those missiles on Russian cities and dragging the US and NATO into a wider war, something Americans ignorant of the nuances of what's happening did not sign for. Supplying such weapons is an invitation to disaster.
The conundrum of why Russia moves cautiously and deliberately avoids major confrontation may be explained by the fact that it is confident of its eventual triumph by attrition, knowing full well that the US will not spill American blood in Ukraine. But this can change with dumb things happening with a desperate Zelenskyy.
This explains Putin's tolerance for Zelenskyy, allowing him to live. Putin needs the man to surrender all Ukrainian forces.
To be continued
Wagner insurrection: Business deal gone awry
THIS column is the second part of last week's "Wagner insurrection — business deal gone awry!" All these are just now coming to light two weeks after the event.
Looking back, both Putin and Prigozhin misinterpreted each other's bizarre moves. Prior to this debacle, it should have been clear to Putin that his game of pitting Wagner/Prigozhin against the Ministry of Defense (MoD)-Shoigu/Gerasimov would yield unintended consequences detrimental to all actors. Putin is a political survivor because he did not allow groups like Wagner to grow too large to become a threat; the same strategy was employed to prevent the siloviki, the oligarchs and the bureaucracy becoming too independent and powerful to challenge the centralized vertical power system that he has painstakingly built up over the past 23 years.
The rivalry between Wagner and the MoD came to a head when Wagner saw some successes that portrayed the MoD as incompetent — and incapable of winning this Ukraine war. Starving Wagner of war materiel resources, designed to rein in the group and sign contracts with the MoD, folding Wagner into the MoD by the July deadline — no doubt with a complicit Putin — was an irresponsible retaliatory measure.
This march to Moscow, a show of force by Prigozhin, was perhaps designed to force Putin's hand to resolve Wagner's dilemma in its favor. This march was not — at first — against Putin. Its direct targets were the MoD and the military bureaucracy, principally to establish a modus vivendi and extract some concessions. But with Prigozhin's arrogant public demand for a replacement of the MoD leadership, this altered the tenor of the whole exercise. In some imprecise logic, Prigozhin sees the participation of Wagner in Ukraine as a patriotic duty and his loyalty given freely to Putin — the man who really made him what he currently is, from a status of "caterer-restauranteur."
Putin's misinterpretation of Prigozhin's move with his knee-jerk, harsh harangue on June 24 rejected Prigozhin's credo, painting Prigozhin instead as a traitor, condemning the march as an affront to his authority and power and threatening criminal cases against him. Putin took the MoD's side. Bad move! Whereupon Prigozhin's declaration of "presenting a new Russian president" hinting of a regime change was an afterthought. The whole scenario was a caricature of a Keystone cop's series of deadly faux pas that exposed all sides' perfidy toward each other — with deadly consequences!
The aftermath
In retrospect, Putin's flaws were incipient even prior to Prigozhin's march. The autocrat was oblivious to the signs everywhere, hubris veiling his weakness, becoming transparent when his voice was not heard; no direct orders filtered down to the national guard, the police, special forces, or the army. Or if they were given, they were disregarded — an even more ominous breach. This was made obvious by the free passage of the mutineers toward Moscow, where they were unopposed along the route; except for a few skirmishes by helicopters of the Russian Armed Forces, only a token resistance was offered. In Moscow and the Kremlin itself, the elites and the billionaires, Putin's natural allies, were profoundly quiet. So, where were the hordes of Putin supporters?
In May 2023, according to the Russian media, 80 percent of Russians approved of Putin, a popularity level higher than the 77 percent bannered in his last election. By contrast, we saw on video the adoring crowds in Rostov-on-Don when the Wagner columns entered — like conquering heroes. Prigozhin's act inadvertently exposed Putin as the proverbial emperor with no clothes.
This will haunt Putin, irreversibly damaging his image of invincibility. The long-seething grievances by Prigozhin/Wagner encapsulated in that march exposed all of Putin's warts, except that the simple Prigozhin couldn't do a closure and was forced to accept a negotiated settlement, allowing Putin some wiggle room. With the shady help of Putin's other loyalist president, Lukashenko of Belarus, Prigozhin has been had; perhaps he was tricked into accepting a deal: 1) full immunity from charges and amnesty for Wagner fighters who joined the June 23-24 march; 2) a possibility for Prigozhin and Wagner's return to Africa; and 3) a promise to replace people at the Ministry of Defense — principally Gen. Sergei Shoigu. All these a vengeful Putin reneged on.
Wagner as a conglomerate
My last article depicted the Prigozhin/Wagner adventure as a business deal gone bad. With Prigozhin's difficulties in Ukraine, one of the demands was for Wagner to draw down its forces in Ukraine, cut its losses — as any good businessman does when faced with reversals — and relocate back to Africa and the Middle East, where Prigozhin may have the bulk of his wealth. But with what transpired and the sensitivity of Wagner as Russia's dubious instrument of foreign policy, there was no way Putin would allow Prigozhin to play a role. His exile in Belarus, if true, may be permanent — and there, permanently terminated.
Putin's revenge, to salvage whatever is left of his tattered aura, will have to be swift, total and deadly. A purge of Wagner supporters and Prigozhin's people is reportedly underway. Gen. Sergei Surovikin, the deputy commander of Russia's military operations in Ukraine, has reportedly been arrested and detained. Surovikin is a highly decorated veteran of Russia's wars in Chechnya and Syria and has a reputation for ruthlessness in Ukraine, earning him the sobriquet "General Armageddon." Putin's long arm of reprisal has netted Wagner chiefs in Syria, now detained by Russian military police.
Unconfirmed reports are now filtering in that some of those Wagner leaders have been summarily executed; others recalled from overseas are facing a bleak future in the motherland.
An entr'acte
With this fiasco, the weak and pathetic Putin becomes doubly dangerous, as this wounded man in the next few intervals will have to compensate for his effeminate response to an open defiance by a subaltern — before the eyes of the world, but more humiliatingly, among the Kremlin's Brutuses, Cascas and Cassiuses, now sharpening their daggers, emboldened by the vulnerability of a wounded gladiator.
In a totalitarian setting, leadership and regime change are seldom gentleman's sports. And Putin's is no longer just the game in town. We have on the periphery less powerful men than Putin; nonetheless, their collective interests may no longer align with those of Russia's strongman. Their concerted or individual action before an enfeebled despot, burdened by a war in Ukraine, may be what is needed to topple him. In the next few months, more reversals will happen in the Ukraine theater, perhaps compelling Putin to cut Russia's losses — to survive. But his days may be numbered. It is no longer a win-win for him, and Ukraine will continue to be Russia's graveyard — and perhaps his, too. Either way, he is a dead man walking.
Speculations
Looking back to December 1991, Gorbachev, an ally of Yeltsin, resigned the presidency of the Soviet Union, precipitating the dissolution of the USSR and the incipiency of Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It was not a bloody regime change. This could be a template for the four factions dominant in the Kremlin. One may emerge — bloodlessly to replace Putin.
To be continued on July 19, 2023
The politics of gender choice
JUNE is Pride Month — a celebration of the LGBTQ community. This is never as passionately celebrated as in America, where this community has gained equal rights, political power and overall equality in the land of opportunities. In the Philippines, we too have our Pride Month, as always being spellbound by American culture, aping whatever America does, being her brown brothers or sisters, or whatever politically appropriate gender appellation lodged between the traditional biological male (M) and biological female (F). In America, it is offensive to address people as simply biologically born M or F. What was once simply known as the third sex, lesbian and gay (LG), now has more permutations: binary (B), transgender (T) and queer (Q). This article will attempt to dissect, dichotomize and demystify the arcana surrounding the concepts of gender, hopefully making it understandable to the Filipinos who "gaya-gaya" now are undergoing the same issues as America is today.
Time was simpler when gender issues as topics of debate simply ranged from gender roles, identity, sexual choices and inequality, and discussions revolved around social and cultural expectations that are associated with being male, female, or gay (lesbian). No longer! Gender roles have become more fluid than just the gender identification assigned to individuals at birth. An invented term, — cisgender, which did away with the old concept of straight," now describes people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. Someone assigned female at birth (AFAB) and identifies as a woman — is a cisgender woman — vice versa with that of the (AMAB) as a cisgender man. On the other hand, an AFAB or AMAB person who identifies with the opposite is a transgender woman or transgender man.
Gender identity now refers to an individual's internal sense of being male, female, or somewhere in between. Translated in layman's language, gender identity is a deeply personal experience, with individuals being able to express themselves in a way that feels authentic to them. In short, transgenderism (trans) is related to a person's gender identity — the way they identify sexually, regardless of biological definitions of sex. This is usually a rejection of the gender assigned to them at birth.
Transgender and intersex
Another perspective, intersex," was introduced in the book "Galileo's Middle Finger" (Alice Dreger, Penguin Press). The author uses biology and anatomy as points of departure. There are "intersex individuals" born with anatomy corresponding neither to the standard biological definitions of male or female — a set of ovaries and a pair of testes. These people straddle the gender divide and over the millennia have been stigmatized by society; and condemned to cruel alterations or normalization toward a sex the doctor assigns them at birth. Accordingly, "...people deemed to be more male than female might have their clitoris removed, for instance, and those deemed to be more female might be injected with hormones.
"In a way, the difficulties faced by people who are transgendered are the opposite of those faced by people who are intersex. Many want to undergo sex-change surgery and take hormones, but access to these resources is often very hard to secure."
Gender assignments at birth
In another interesting book by an anthropologist, "She/He/They/Me" (Robyn Ryle, Sourcebooks, 2022), the "common sense" gender distinction between males who "normally have a penis" and females who "normally have a vagina" may no longer be valid. She advances the idea of societies with only one gender, i.e., the ancient Greeks, where women were seen as inferior versions of men; the Mohave people of North America, with a variant gender category called "alyha," all classified as boys at birth and later could be assigned as girls at age 11, depending on their observed proclivities. Her thesis is that "gender doesn't exist in a vacuum; instead, it intersects with other dimensions of society, such as class and race ... and ... the actual meaning of 'masculine/feminine' and their related terms can drastically change between different cultures, eras, and groups of people within a particular society, such as races and socioeconomic classes."
The birth doctors almost have an autocratic, arbitrary pronouncement on the child's gender following a heterosexual bias toward boys with penis and girls with vagina, declaring them as such. And overall, "The medical establishment remains heteronormative. It continues to control what gender a person does or doesn't get to be. And this presents challenges for both transgendered people as well as intersex people." (Ryle)
With an intersex condition, the family and the birth doctors resort to the "concealment-centered model," where hormones, surgery or other medical interventions are used to "treat" the child's actually harmless condition. Some of these interventions are irreversible. An alternative is the "patient-centered model," where parents and doctors provisionally assign a gender at birth, allowing the child to choose a gender when older. The latter is much preferred, especially if the gender assignment is not at odds with the gender identity the grown-up personally prefers later in life.
Preferred pronouns and backlash
With the emergence and new activism of this community (LGBTQ++), even the English language has been drastically altered, with the community insisting on preferred pronouns for themselves. Proponents of preferred pronouns, mostly to avoid conflicts with the community, kowtowed to these demands — addressing "she" when in truth the addressee is a "he" — simply to be polite and not to cause offense. It reached ludicrous heights when the binary and transgender people were to be addressed as "they/them."
In a relatively young nation populated by waves of migration from all corners of the world, the diversity of cultures forged in the cauldron of its collective history has always been celebrated. An outwardly tolerant society has emerged but has been disturbed of late by demands from these diverse minorities and sub-cultures.
The following quote is slightly redacted from Megyn Kelly's show on YouTube. She was a former adherent.
"Trans madness is sweeping the nation: female inmates raped by male sex offenders declaring themselves trans female right before heading to prison.
"In 2016, the community demanded access for transgender women to ladies' rooms/bathrooms. In 2018, school kids were introduced officially to the concept of trans-kids, encouraging them to own to who they are.
"New York City schools pushing the idea to children that "gender is just a social construct" and malleable, asking if they were still boys and uncomfortable with their bodies; and immediately affirmed as 'trans,' knowing that these kids will normally grow out of their feelings if allowed to upon reaching puberty.
"In Connecticut women's sports, teenage girls were losing in the track and field to competing runners who raced as boys a year before, then simply declared themselves female, dominating the women's races.
"Hospitals bragging about oodles of cash brought on by cross-gender procedures, including on teenagers."
And an ensuing backlash!
Bud Light, America's top-selling beer suffers great losses after being boycotted in the wake of its partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
Target stores lost $10 billion in market value in 10 days amid a boycott on Pride-themed clothing for children as young as 2 years old. It has since downsized its in-store displays.
Where will America and the LGBTQ++ go from here?
Categories
Archives
Comments
-
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've…
Written by Merrill
on Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:35
Incompetence Kills
(LML Polettiques)
Newsletter Subscription
PARTNERS:
Contact Us
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
