AS ALWAYS, post-election offers an interesting area for study. The current one tendered the end of dynasties of massive political stalwarts like the Eusebios in Pasig, Ejercitos in San Juan, Hagedorns in Palawan and the Floirendos in Davao del Norte.

But what this midterm exercise offered is how recent narratives parlayed the role of the traditional media against social media and showing that popularity in the latter does not really translate into actual votes. There are greater forces at work than Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey and that would still be traditional media, the trifecta of television, newspapers and radio.

A case I would like to highlight are the actors who appeared in “Ang Probinsyano”. Before he even filed his nth candidacy for nth his position, Lito Lapid was the aging “pinuno” or Romulo of a leftist group fighting exploitation in some mountainous range. Eventually, his character teamed up with Cardo Dalisay in fighting corruption in the government.

But Romulo had to die so Lito Lapid could come out as a real candidate.

“Ang Probinsyano” gave Romulo a Hollywood Western classic death scene reserved only for heroes - charging solo the horde of antagonists on his steed, armed with a single armalite to save his ladylove and eventually, taking his last breath while looking at her. From then on it can be said that Lito Lapid, who has shunned media interviews and would answer only in the dialect in all his terms as a public servant, resurrected as possible real life hero with the death of Romulo. So now Lito Lapid is number 7 in the senate list, number 1 in Palawan, beating Cynthia Villar and number 3 in Quezon Province. Lapid is not even an active netizen.

Other “Ang Probisyano” characters have lost their bid but if one analyzes the characters they portrayed, none was as heroic as Romulo’s.

After leaving public service, the notorious Mocha Uson decided to run for public office through a party-list that calls itself “AA Kasosyo” whose aim is said to be “to help Filipinos particularly overseas workers become successful entrepreneurs”. In recent past, Uson boasted of millions of social media followers whose “likes” obviously did not translate into votes as her party ranks way below - no. 72. The top spot is held by ACT-CIS, a group to be represented by one of the Tulfo brothers who are (traditional) media heavyweights.

But what would probably be the most telling influence of traditional media on voting behavior is that a party called “Ang Probinsyano” is in the 5th place in the race and quite a feat for a group that joined the elections for the first time with practically unknown nominees.

Coco Martin (aka Cardo Dalisay) and Kris Aquino will make a formidable team next time.

THE King is dead, long live the King! This was last proclaimed in England upon the death of King George 6th in 1952; except that a Queen succeeded him, his eldest daughter Elizabeth. Originally in French, Le roi est mort, vive le roi! In 1422, King Charles 6th of France died and his son Charles 7th acceded to the throne. The first part of the statement refers to the monarch’s death, the second to the instantaneous transfer of sovereignty to the heir, or the continuity of the concept, as discussed in this article.

Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE), the Greek philosopher said it succinctly, “One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day.” Both phrases came to mind the night of the recent elections when several TV talking heads monitoring the results were unabashedly gloating over a happy trend presenting itself when Erap trailed Isko Moreno, his erstwhile ally, in the Manila mayoralty contest. The early hours of the next day would see members of the Estrada family rejected by voters — for mayor and councilor of San Juan, governor of Laguna and more importantly, two siblings from different mothers, Jinggoy and JV, losing Senate candidacies.

In Davao del Norte, the del Rosario political family was eradicated from the scene: Rodney, the governorship, Anthony, the first district congressional seat and a cousin, Tony Boy Floirendo, the billionaire banana magnate humiliated as he lost his reelection bid for second district representative. All crushed by archenemy, former speaker Bebot Alvarez and his henchmen.

In Makati, the Binay patriarch, ex-vice president Jejomar lost miserably in his bid for a House seat. His fall from grace was terminal, from his high perch as an erstwhile leading presidential contender, until a flurry of corruption accusations did him in. His ineptitude in disciplining his children could make their internecine political fight permanent. Abigail was reelected as Makati mayor, brother Junjun was obliterated while eldest sister Nancy barely held on to her Senate seat. To complicate matters, Abigail’s husband, Luis Campos, won as congressman of Makati’s second district, further splintering the already dysfunctional family.

Others who have been lording it over local government posts for decades fell in ignominy; the Eusebios in Pasig giving up both the mayoralty and congressional seats; the Tings of Tuguegarao, losing similarly; the religious cult of the Ecleos in Dinagat, trounced; the Osmeñas of Cebu booted out of the mayor’s office and a cousin’s senatorial comeback stopped.

Political dynasticism is dead. Or dying. Or at least fraying at the edges. Until one begins to see that other political dynasties were born in this election. For one, the Deegong’s daughter Sara, and male siblings, Polong and Baste, ran practically unopposed to capture the mayoralty, the first district congressional seat and the vice mayoralty in Davao City. In Davao del Sur, in a political merry-go-round, four traditional politicians surnamed Cagas captured for the father, Dodo, the governorship, congressional seat for the mother, Didit, the vice governorship for the son, Marc, and a board membership for a relative.

Politics in the Philippines as a family business is thriving. And even the party-list system has been so perverted that they have sprouted all over as adjuncts to political dynasties.

But the total wipe-out of the senatorial opposition slate could be a game changer if the Deegong will settle down and put his mind to it. In upending the concept of “checks and balance,” the Deegong has drawn a tabula rasa. And in the next three years he can write into it whatever he wants, before becoming a lameduck president. Paradoxically, he has the support of a great majority of Filipinos. This election has elevated the Deegong to another dimension: to his sycophants, a political demigod; to his detractors, the devil incarnate.

Today his almost total dominance over our political lives has erased the need for a revolutionary government. This election was in a way a coup d’état without the bloodshed and the prospect of a civil war — as the Liberals and some democrats have been imagining.

The installation of two new Mindanawnons to the Senate, joining Koko, Migz and the Pacman, is unprecedented in the country’s history. Two of these are Duterte surrogates: Bong Go and Bato dela Rosa. The former is his political android and avatar rolled into one. He will be his unquestioning voice in the Senate. There will no longer be a serious hindrance to his agenda, if he still wishes to pursue them. The war against illegal drugs and the accusations of violations of human rights and the EJKs will be reduced to a background noise or sterilized by the elevation of his original point man, General Bato to the Senate. As to the third Mindanawnon, Koko, the former Senate president, the son of the party founder and the most knowledgeable Mindanawnon in the Senate, has been consigned (together with the Pacman) to be the tutors of the two others. Koko, independent-minded but loyal to DU30, has been eliminated as a potential “presidentiable” with his showing in the polls, clearing the way for heir-apparent Sara. Perhaps, this gives credence to reports of Koko’s ‘junking’ by Hugpong leaders in the grassroots.

But the main agenda foremost in the minds of foes, friends and allies alike are the systemic changes, temporarily suspended, awaiting the restructuring of the Senate. The key to all this is the abrogation of the Cory 1987 Constitution and its revisions towards the establishment of the parliamentary-ederal System and the liberalization of the economy. This has been partly the cry since the Pirma of President FVR, the Concord of President Erap and the 2005 ConCom of President GMA and even the original PDP Laban position. A complication was recently injected into this mix through the proposals of the 25-man Puno Constitutional Committee calling for the retention of the perverted presidential system towards a nebulous concept of federalism. Surely, the debate can be reshaped by the Deegong towards the presidential-unitary versus the parliamentary-federal (Fed-Parl). On this note, I reintroduce vignettes of the Centrist proposals. Some of these need only the imprimatur of the House and Senate but others needing the revision of the Constitution. To wit:

1. Pass the political party reform bill pending in the Senate these past several administrations, prohibiting ‘turncoats’ and granting subsidy to real ideologically based political parties for education and campaign;

2. Pass the universal freedom of information bill, insuring transparency and good governance;

3. Initiate electoral reforms, regulating campaign spending, vote buying and the election process; and

4. Make the ban on political dynasties executory in the Constitution.

I wrote this in my Times columns back in Jan.18 and Feb. 1, 2018:

“This roadmap to federalism is thus designed to mitigate the shock to the body politic arising from the purging of traditional political practices, first, through the immediate passage of reform laws, now pending in Congress. Furthermore, the critical process of transition to a parliamentary-federal republic has to be in place in the revised constitution so the assurance of its continuity is safeguarded by the constitution itself even beyond the term of the current president.”

The terminal constitutional revision game is afoot. May the odds be ever in our favor.

I am writing this column the day after the May 13 mid-term elections. While the initial results have already come out, I think that a deeper analysis of the results should be done after an interval of at least one week. This will allow a more logical and dispassionate analysis.

There are, however, a few observations I would like to make based on the initial results. The first is that the public is talking about the fall of several political dynasties. However, it should be noted that most of the new winners are also scions of political dynasties. Those few who are not, I predict will start their own family dynasties in the next election.

I am not in favor of political dynasties. I wish there was a law, without loopholes, banning political dynasties. At the same time, I am not surprised about the dominance of families in politics. In the Philippines, and most of Asia, family dynasties are an integral part of society; and, they dominate all sectors – politics, business, education, media and even religion. This is because the family is the basic unit in Asian society, unlike in the West where the basic unit is the individual. I often point out to my friends in business that they condemn family dynasties in politics; but, this is also a dominant feature of the business landscape. All the major Filipino businesses are controlled by families.

There are certain characteristics common to family dynasties in both business and politics. They normally go through three main life stages. Each stage lasts for one generation. Less than 5% of family dynasties survive beyond the third generation. These three main stages are:

The First Generation Stage is where one individual – the founder – exercises total management control of the business or the political group. The Second Generation Stage is in which two or more siblings of the founder have more or less equal management or political control. Here, conflict is inevitable; and, the family can only stay together if they have a conflict management mechanism. This generation can also survive if one sibling is able to get recognition as the head of the family and becomes the accepted heir to the founder. The Third Generation Stage is the Cousin Consortium in which cousins (the children of the siblings) exercise management or political control of the business or politics.

In business, it is a rare family business that survives beyond the third generation. Two examples are the Ayala and Aboitiz family businesses. The same phenomenon applies to political families. Let me cite an example. If each generation is approximately 30 years, then two generations would be equivalent to 60 years. The 1953 elections was approximately 66 years ago. Even then, Philippine politics was dominated by political dynasties. Here is a list of the candidates for president, vice-president and senators. When you read the names you will realize that most of these family dynasties have not survived to the third generation.

There were two major parties in that election. For the Liberal Party, their candidates were Elpidio Quirino for President and Jose Yulo for Vice-President. Their candidates for the Senate were Jose Avelino (Samar); Camilo Osias ( La Union); Geronima Pecson (Pangasinan); Pablo Angeles David (Pampanga); Jacinto Borja (Bohol); Vicente Madrigal (Albay); Salipada Pendatun (Cotobato); and, Jose Figueras (Manila).

For the Nacionalista Party, their candidates were Ramon Magsaysay for President and Carlos Garcia for Vice-President. Their Senate candidates included Fernando Lopez (Iloilo); Eulogio Rodriguez (Rizal); Lorenzo Tañada (Quezon); Edmundo Cea (Camarines Sur) Mariano Jesus Cuenco (Cebu); Alejo Mabanag (Pangasinan); Ruperto Kangleon (Leyte); and, Emmanuel Pelaez (Mindanao).

If we review these family names, how many are still known in present day politics? The only name I can identify is that of Tañada.

The most common mistake committed by families, in business or politics, is that they focus only on managing the business or winning elections. They do not realize that in order to do this successfully it is just as important that they learn to manage family issues which often encroach on the business or the political organization causing confusion, disorder and, in some cases, even collapse. If the family is the entity that will govern the business or political organization, it is very critical that they must have a governing structure just like any other organization.

The common problem is that during the First Generation Stage there was no need for rules or structure because the “word of the Founder was Law.” However, as the siblings grow up and have their own families, this need for rules and structure becomes more urgent. For example, in most successful family businesses, one rule is that in-laws should not be allowed to join the business. Many political families do not follow this rule; and, the result is conflict among siblings.

However, it is very clear that when one family dynasty gives up, the replacement is another family dynasty. When the Soriano family left San Miguel Corp., it was taken over by Danding Cojuangco. The Estrada family has been replaced by the Zamora family in San Juan. Quezon City used to be the domain of the Amoranto family, then the Mathay family and now the Belmonte family.

The result of the dominance of family dynasties in both business and politics is that it stifles competition. It also limits the choices for the consumers and the electorate. The only remedy is to find ways to control the behavior of these family dynasties; especially politicians who have turned Philippine politics into a family business.

IN my youth, circa the mid-1960s, while working with Raul Manglapus in the Christian Social Movement (CSM), the precursor of PDP Laban, CDP and the Centrist Movements, I had the privilege of meeting some of the prominent names of the labor movement, the peasants and the fisherfolk — Juan (Johnny) Tan of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Jeremias (Jerry) Montemayor of the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF). These founders were driven by their desire to better the lives of their members — workers and farmers. With Manglapus, they articulated the Centrist (Christian) democratic principles. These were men inspired by the papal encyclicals of Pope Leo 13th (1891), Rerum Novarum, Graves de Communi Re; Pope Pius 11th (1931), Quadragesimo Anno; Pope John 23rd (1961) Mater et Magistra; and Pope John Paul 2nd (1991), Centesimus Annus. For a hundred years, these encyclicals promoted concepts of social justice, preferential option for the poor, and the value of human dignity, which is the core of Centrist (Christian) Democracy. (This columnist’s The Fellowship of the 300, a book on Centrist Democracy, came out in 2014.)

These were the guiding principles that propelled labor into the mainstream of the national political conversation and championed the growth of organized labor during those decades.

But previous to this was also the rebirth of the truly leftist militant labor that later transformed the movement differently from that envisioned by the moderate groups of FFW and CSM — the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) founded by the breakaway group of Felixberto ‘Ka Bert” Olalia Sr. from the TUCP. Whereas the moderates deemed capital to be the full partner of labor towards the development of man and society, the militants viewed this relationship as confrontational in the classic dictum of Karl Marx, “…you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

The labor force was divided along ideological lines with the militants suspicious and accusing the moderates of having a more than cushy relationship with capitalists and the government. The state with its axiomatic concern for keeping industrial peace heightened its suppression of labor’s method of organizing — along the lines of the European and American tradition. This approach did not wash with the state, particularly during the martial law years of the Marcos regime.

The Industrial Peace Act of 1953 (Republic Act 875), which promoted the collective bargaining agreement, was the initial instrument to regulate workers’ resistance against the inevitable onslaught of capitalism and also as a response to the incipient communist labor movement in the 1950s. This was later amended during the Marcos regime through the enactment of the Philippine Labor Code under PD 442 in 1974. It aimed to streamline and guarantee the right of labor to organize unions, on a one-union-one industry system, but enforced mediation and conciliation as methods of dispute settlements. The intention of the regime was to strengthen the dictator’s hand by entangling the workers’ class actions in a web of legal restrictions; in effect also redefining the workers’ right to strike as a first option, making it an “illegal act.”

The unexpected consequence was the predominance of union bureaucracies and intense rivalries between union federations in organizing CBA rights with private companies, resulting in an ideologically polarized working class. Thus, the more the unions were organized under the lucrative CBA, the more the workers were fragmented. Rolando “Ka Lando” Olalia, the son of KMU founder “Ka Bert,” declared before he was murdered in 1986 that “about 85 percent of today’s supposed leaders of the working class are engaged in racketeering.”

This is the current state of organized labor. The ideologically divided workers through their organized unions are easy prey for the political exigencies of traditional politics. A lucrative partnership has evolved between the powerful union bosses manipulating and using their members to extend their influence into the political arena — or at the very least a promise of a seat at the table with the winning senatorial or presidential hopeful.

At the turn of this century, there was still a strong and noisy labor vote that propelled political survivors like “Ka Blas” Ople, who parlayed his 19 years as secretary/minister of labor and employment under Marcos and later Cory, into a Senate seat and the Senate presidency.

The same labor political clout at the polls thrust Ernesto “Boy” Herrera, general secretary of the Trade Unions of the Philippines (TUCP/KMP) to the Senate despite the accusations of the not-so-hidden strings of American funding of the trade union through the CIA front National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

No more. This past election cycle sadly saw the castration of the once vaunted labor vote. This simply reflected the observation of columnists Marlen Ronquillo of the Manila Times that during the “Labor Day of 2019, we saw none of the potency and power of the labor protests of the past,” and harkening back to the glory days: “During those dangerous times, one thing stood out. Organized labor, probably because of its pure, unselfish dedication to the causes of the working man, was respected. The leaders of the major labor centers and federations were nationally recognized names.”

This columnist’s nostalgic reckoning could be construed as the silencing of the labor voice, exposing the myth of a labor vote (much like that of a Catholic vote), and cruelly by inference, the dying throes of organized labor.

I watched carefully the monochromatic campaign of labor candidates lawyer Sonny Matula, president of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and the second senatorial run of his confederate, labor lawyer Allan Montaño, erstwhile FFW president. The dismal election results belie the assumptions of pro-labor candidates that their interests are in consonance with the perception of the voters or even this government’s agenda; unless of course these nonentities and wannabees are not exactly the personalities that represent and inspire organized labor.

On another level, one can’t help conclude also that the messaging didn’t resonate with the voters in general and labor votes in particular; or worse, it simply insinuates that labor’s general welfare is subordinate and may not disturb the mutual interests of this tripartite collusion — the union bosses, the oligarchy which owns and controls the means of production, and an irresolute state. Thus, even during the first half of the reign of the Deegong, his campaign promise to end contractualization and regularization of “endo” never did happen.

The militant labor on the other hand under the united leftist front seems to have held their own through the various permutations brought about by the proliferation of the “party-lists.” These perverted vehicles through which these fringe groups have managed to insert themselves, together with the influx of traditional and newly minted political dynasts, will continue to pervert the body politic or what is left of the remnants of our democracy.

And a corollary. Will the Deegong, with this recent political cosmetics still pursue his advocacies that in the first place propelled him to the presidency — real systemic changes through constitutional revisions? Or will he succumb to his inner traditional political demons, protect his skin and insure the perpetuation of his political seed.

THE Holy Week allowed people some time to reflect on coming events that will indelibly shape our country for the next several decades, the national midterm elections on May 13. For such serious contemplation, my spouse Sylvia and I decided to fly to Macau to a favorite hotel which we have lodged in on several occasions, for its strategic location and also because it is one that will not strain too much a senior couple’s budget for a four-day/four-night discounted package. This time, just the two of us, without an entourage of grandchildren with several tons of impedimenta that must include different sizes of diapers, assorted toys, milk and in this day and age, separate IPads and video games. We did the equivalent of “bisita iglesia”combined with the station of the cross from the Hotel Sintra along Avenida de D. Joao IV. Just around the corner from the “Senado” is a calvary-like climb to the ruins of the Cathedral of St. Paul’s. To complete seven visitations as Filipino tradition dictates, we did Grand Lisboa and Emperor Hotel which were walking distance from our hotel and by shuttle bus to the Venetian, City of Dreams, Studio City, Sands, Wynn and for good measure, MGM in the Cotai and Coloane districts.

One can’t help comparing the amenities of Macau with Manila, or for that matter any place foreign or local, with the Philippines. Such is the raison d’etre for travel. It broadens the mind, expands one’s horizons, helps one acquire culture and accumulate bragging rights, and sharpens critical comparative perspectives with our home country, in the hope of improving the same. Also, it’s pleasurable.

Macau has four dozen casinos. This old city is practically a gambler’s paradise, depending of course on which side of the winning baccarat table you sit. With gambling revenues adding more than 50 percent to government coffers, their employment rate is almost approaching full, although dangerously connected to a single industry — gaming. The government therefore, in partnership with the casinos, makes sure that all government services are directed towards the gambler comfortably, but not necessarily happily, parting with his capital.

Shuttle buses to these casinos from hotels, airports and ferries are free. The casino hotels have lavish decor, replete with restaurants, some with exquisite cuisine inexpensively priced — all done to entice gamblers to stay put. If you should lose your money, lose them in your casino hotel than in the competitor’s.

But this is not a treatise on casino gambling, but a discourse about gambling our future on the people we elect on May 13. My focus is on the senatorial race as the coming Senate chamber will decide whether systemic changes can push through. I refer to the Centrist advocacy whose political growth was cut short by the Marcos martial law years, and later stunted by the oligarchic rule post-1986 EDSA through the enactment of the 1987 Constitution. I need not present a dissertation on why we need to shift from the unitary-presidential system we currently suffer from, to the parliamentary-federal system, with a liberalized economy. This has been widely discussed and disseminated in current political literature and social media. Serious attempts at constitutional revisions have been made by FVR’S 1997 Pirma, Erap’s 2000 Concord and GMA’s 2005 ConCom. All failed.

PRRD, who won on this advocacy seems to have his passion for systemic changes through constitutional revisions waning and falling victim to pragmatic politics and traditional compromises. Even his daughter Sara, has publicly contradicted him on federalism, further adding confusion to the main issues at hand. The parliamentary-federalists have begun to question whether the father-daughter politicians are playing a “good cop-bad cop game;” or simply have their messages convoluted and incoherent.

Both are pushing for similar candidates although the daughter is incongruously pushing for 13 candidates for 12 slots. In my Manila Times column last March 13, 2019 on “Dynastic kleptocracy,” I presented a “negatives list” of those who should not be elected. In the forefront are the three accused“plunderer-senators” seeking a fresh term. The second category are those members of political dynasties. I reiterate my position: “True, there are decent individual members of dynasties, but our beef is with the collective malevolence of the concept, the structure and system itself. The biggest myth is the singular proposition that there are good and moral Philippine political dynasties. There are none!”

I am therefore left with a shortlist of those I think have the intellectual fortitude, professionalism and track record for public service that merits these people a seat at the table. I count among them, Sen. Koko Pimentel and former interior secretary Raffy Alunan. These two deserve the trust of the Filipino people to do good by them. I have followed their careers over the years and Koko’s father has been my mentor since I had the privilege of being his undersecretary and joined him in the founding of the PDP Laban almost four decades ago. Koko has just the right amount of arrogance that a bar topnotcher must naturally possess giving him the confidence that he can make a difference. Paradoxically, he also exudes some amount of humility which is borne out of personal disappointments, but I guess instilled in him by his mother.

Raffy, on the other hand, had his teeth cut in the government bureaucracy culminating in his stint as interior and local governments secretary during the time of President Ramos. His expertise in foreign affairs is surpassed perhaps by only a few Filipino diplomats and his grasp of international relations and defense would be an asset to the Senate. No doubt, this has been polished by his training at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

The Otso Diretso has prominent people, with excellent political pedigrees, Diokno and Tañada are venerable political names but could their offspring measure up to the originals? And their Liberal Party have been so degraded and tarnished by the scandals and corruption of the past administration and incompetence of President PNoy himself. And their unwavering defense of the dysfunctional 1987 Constitution and unitary presidential system and the status quo is anathema to the Centrist positions — which call for systemic changes starting with constitutional revisions.

The DU30 regime is not itself exempt from scandals, corruption and ineptitude but the Deegong is far better at projecting himself as an effective macho leader that the unthinking voters want, compared to the clueless PNoy. The current clash between PNoy’s Liberal and the Deegong’s PDP Laban is a classic case of Satan demonizing the devil.

So, this election, judging by the trending polls, we may again have the tired old branded names, scions of thieves and dynasts and assorted entertainers, legislative nonperformers and sycophants of the ruling class. But hope springs eternal that some good ones will filter through. And if not, then perhaps we may again be condemned by the unthinking Filipino voters to Thomas Jefferson’s dictum: “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

Then we may be forced to welcome the alternative: a coup from within or that much taunted RevGov. In both scenarios, only God can help us.

ONCE again, the Deegong has threatened a revolutionary government. This could be the latest harangue of an infuriated president. But this time, he didn’t mince words on using this power to get rid of his critics, whom he now calls “enemies of the state,” lumping them with common criminals, drug lords, corrupt bureaucrats, greedy politicians, communist rebels and terrorists, and of course his bête noire — the princes of the Catholic Church hierarchy.

The Deegong has once again upped the ante with these latest antics, which to the student of presidential politics, by now reading him so well, expect him simply to do the expected. Such predictability! And the President, true to form, indeed played to his audience, particularly his base. He seems unable to remain presidential for long and must intermittently revert to the uncouth and foul-mouthed persona which his sycophants love. Watching him rant on TV, switching from topic to topic off the cuff, ranging from the detested illegal drug proliferation to corruption within his government to the size of his penis, is an awkward experience by itself. It reflects simply his total mastery over a cowed captive audience pretending to lap up his every word with the males reluctantly emitting mortified chuckles while the ladies nonplussed, merely exhibiting sheepish smiles. Methinks this is a helluva frightened audience but can’t do anything about it.

And on the eve of the Holy Week in a speech in a campaign sortie in Cagayan, he was again on TV cursing the crucified Christ, disparaging the “idiots who attended the last supper”; yet in the same breath he professes to believe in God and fears karma. Can the President at least moderate his political virulence during this much-revered solemn Filipino observance of Lenten traditions? Perhaps not! These ramblings of late have been accelerating and getting into his nerves, conceivably precipitated by attacks on his immediate family by a certain “Bikoy” appearing anonymously on video clips going viral in social media. Today this incident has morphed into a full-blown conspiracy to unseat the President, seeing print in broadsheets and scattered in social media complete with pictographs and Power Point presentations. Yet, the dandyish Malacañang spokesman admits no evidence has been found, thus, no cases filed.

Days before the national elections, the President’s campaigning sorties have taken an ominous turn. He has been going around with his PDP Laban senatorial slate taunting the opposition and singing the praises of each of his senatorial candidates; going through the motions of following the tenets of democracy yet insulting the very spirit of that same democratic process by threatening to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if things don’t go his way.

If I were a betting man, which I am, with several formerly imprisoned senator-plunderers either out on bail or simply let loose but not completely exonerate, but allowed a legal aperture back to the Senate, where once again they will line their pockets with the people treasures, I’d probably bet this time on more people supporting the Deegong’s initiatives out of disgust.

But does he still have the balls to push through a RevGov? And more importantly, is he the right leader we need for this wild adventure? Even his DDS and the fist pumpers no longer show the kind of enthusiastic response expected of sycophants. He is beginning to sound like “the boy who cried wolf.” If his intentions are really clear to him and has the courage of his convictions — just DoH it! As Sec Javier’s once said, Don’t telegraph your punches, don’t advertise.

But DU30 has been erratic in his messaging and actions. I myself would give the Deegong an A+ for vetoing the billions in pork barrel in the new budget, chastising in the process the congressional tradpols allied to him. For this, I would excuse him his indelicate public insertion of his peripatetic erectile organ. As I wrote in this column several months back, RevGov can only succeed if four ingredients are present: He must have the support of the military, the political elite; the people’s support; and he must have the balls (roughly translated to political will) to carry it out. Any one of the four absent, it won’t succeed, or if it succeeds, it is not sustainable and will cause a bigger problem than what originally it intends to solve. He has done well, pre-positioning ex-generals and admirals in odd jobs in his bureaucracy. But when push comes to shove, these men are extraneous to the chain of command. The police and the armed forces become the main instruments of the Deegong in his RevGov declaration and by inference, instruments of the state.

I will quote my Manila Times article of Aug. 24, 2017: “The state by right has the ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force’ (Max Weber, political scientist). This has been the core concept of a democratic state’s right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force on its citizens; along with it is the concept of a ‘police force’ and the concomitant system of justice within the defined territory of that state.

But will this legitimate instrument of physical force, sworn to defend the Constitution have the same appreciation of the situation as the President and follow his lead?

Secondly, the newly elected political elite and their backers and allies in the oligarchy may not be induced to support the Deegong in this destabilizing undertaking. Hindi pa nakakabawi sa gastos sa election. They need a little more time to once again refill their coffers by sucking the marrow off the people who put them back to office.

And despite his high approval ratings, paradoxically DU30 has been a polarizing leader, who, as he himself intimated doesn’t give a hoot about traditional institutions — the Church, political parties, international protocols and even conventional family values. So, people’s support for his RevGov may not be widespread and deep. But what the heck — does he really care?

But the most important element is the Deegong’s demeanor. He burst into the country’s political consciousness as a fresh outsider with nary a personal interest to protect – except perhaps his desire to run the country the way he ran his city. But now having established his own political dynasty, extending their political and possibly economic influence, protecting the same and guaranteeing his safety when he steps down from power — if ever — these perquisites could be a compelling disincentive to go all-in. One cannot equate political will for puffery; not in bullying Catholic bishops, not in the use of unpresidential vulgar speeches for shocking effect. Not even projecting an image of an alpha male, the ultimate macho with his turgid appendage!

But if the President acts to declare a RevGov, heading a military junta, replacing the 1987 Constitution with a truly centrist one — parliamentary-federal government with a liberalizing economy, perhaps, just perhaps, I may volunteer to be his adjutant. There are many of us who will deal with the devil today for a guaranteed bright future for our people. But, then again — does he still have what it takes?

 

Last of 2 parts

IN part one of this series, we examined the split and the eventual victory of St. Paul’s faction over that of the Jerusalem Church of Christ’s brother James, giving rise to the current Christian set of beliefs. In essence, the divinity of Christ, as promoted by St. Paul, is the central doctrine of Christianity. It was therefore imperative that Christ’s divinity be established and sustained from birth. How can one reconcile the human Jesus to being the son of God? Jesus cannot be born of a man through the natural operation of sex between Joseph and Mary. Therefore, Mary the mother must remain a virgin “impregnated by the spirit,” as announced by the angel Gabriel (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38). Matthew’s Gospel, which was written by either a compendium of unknown writers or one named Matthew, 50 years after Jesus’ death, had to carve out a story that would fit the virgin birth. The gospel has to make sure that Jesus’ birth be seen as foretold by prophecy from the Old Testament. Matthew found the answer in Isaac’s prophecy: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a child and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee. But when the time came for Jesus to be born, the family traveled to Bethlehem, a 7-to-10-day trip on a donkey purportedly to take part in a Roman census. Bethlehem was where King David came from and was crowned King of Israel. Jesus too had to be born in Bethlehem to establish a symbolic descendancy from King David. Historical facts revealed there was no Roman census around Jesus’ time. Jesus most probably was born in Nazareth.

Matthew’s other exotic ingredients in the birth story — a star appearing in the heavens and the three wise men were no doubt conjured to establish Jesus’ credentials as a man of the masses yet shrouded with a mystique attributable to the divine. The alternative biography, stripped of the aura, would simply define Jesus as an ordinary, minimally educated Jew living a mundane life as a carpenter’s son until infected by the revolutionary fervor of John the Baptist, one believed to be his mentor.

As painted by the Gospels, life in Nazareth was pastoral, peopled by itinerant preachers and healers. But contrary to the bucolic images, Nazareth and Galilee and the whole of Judea in Palestine were in fact under the cruel grip of Roman occupiers. Around 60 BC, Palestine was invaded by the Roman Legions and over the following decades, Jewish uprisings were suppressed and mercilessly crushed. Thousands in the rebellion were executed through the Roman-preferred death by crucifixion.

Jesus could not have been blind to the economic injustice perpetrated by the Roman puppets. Galilee’s economy was booming but the disparity between the Jewish elites and the peasants were glaring — a decidedly revolutionary atmosphere.

After the beheading of his cousin John the Baptist, and with the suffering of the Jews under the Roman boot, Jesus’ trajectory was to follow John’s revolutionary path. Thus, he began to recruit his own coterie of converts, friends and believers from the masses. One of them became his favorite, Mary Magdalene. Jesus’ divinity too required that the Gospels present him as pure and celibate. Thus, his relationship to Mary Magdalene was understated in the New Testament. It is highly unlikely that Jesus was single among his male disciples. Further inference of Mary Magdalene as his wife was in the circumstances of his burial. In the Jewish and Roman traditions, only spouses of the crucified could claim the remains of the crucified for burial; and only after an interval of a few days leaving the body for scavenging dogs and crows as a gory warning.

Given the humanity of Christ, his role as a Jewish patriot and a leader and more importantly his belief that he is to establish God’s Kingdom on earth, the most plausible earthly scenario is for the revolutionary patriot to make a bid for power and restore the throne of David.

In 34 AD, amid the turmoil in Palestine, particularly in the seat of power, Jesus entered Jerusalem. His timing and the drama could not have been more perfect as the Jewish feast of the Passover was being celebrated commemorating the liberation of the Jewish nation from Egypt. There was an estimated half a million pilgrims. Jewish tradition envisaged the appearance of a messiah at Passover. This was a volatile situation the Roman governor Pontius Pilate was facing.

To ram the Pauline Church narrative against the old Jewish religion, the Gospels have to paint Jewish priests as the enemies of Christ and depict Pilate as a merciful Roman tolerant of Jesus. The Gospels therefore presented a Jewish leaders’ plot to execute Jesus. Christ unwittingly helped this fabrication when he cleared the Jewish temple of moneychangers and scalawags. But it was the intent of Christ to rid the house of prayer, the symbol of the religious and political establishment. It was not an attack against the Jewish priests and leaders as these were merely Roman puppets. The temple was no longer the seat of God but controlled by the Romans.

Titus Flavius Josephus (circa 1st century AD), a Jewish-Roman historian, painted Pontius Pilate as a “ruthless, vicious and a rapacious butcher.” And he would not tolerate a Christ that would challenge the primacy of Rome over Palestine. Rome abolished the Jewish monarchy and Jesus was a rebel. Rome was to apprehend and try him for political subversion, and crucify him — the Roman punishment of choice. And indeed, Christ died a revolutionary death in Palestine.

But the Gospels have to play around this straight narrative, blaming the Jews on several turns. The Gospels have to present Judas as a betrayer. This was not even necessary as the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem was public and dramatic. Later biblical scholars advanced the argument that Judas’ betrayal was a “… mythological necessity. In most great legends, someone has to function as one who betrays. Without betrayal, the great protagonist of the story does not become a martyred hero.”

And in the endgame, “For Paul, Jesus death was the whole point of his life…Paul was not interested at all in the historical Jesus. He never met the man. For Paul, history begins the night before his death and finished three days later with his resurrection. And the real Jesus was ignored by Paul. All he wants to know was Christ was crucified.”

Yes, he may have been resurrected from death as Lazarus was from a miracle or Jesus resurrected himself. But after 2,000 years the Pauline Church through the New Testament prevailed. Christians believe that it was the will of God for a new religion to evolve from the Old Testament of the Jews.

But just consider, there would have been no Christianity now had James’ version of Christ’s biography prevailed. And James, the brother of Christ, knew him best.

First of 2 parts
THIS week, this column digresses from the usual menu of parsing behind the headlines, mining the same for their political content. Instead I will do some reflections myself during this Holy Week on the beliefs, traditions and rites that defined Christendom for a good part of 2,000 years. Most Christians take this week as a given: the passion of Jesus Christ the Son of God made flesh, came down to this world to sacrifice his life as redemption for its sins. Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection is the bedrock of Christian faith.

There is, however, another dimension to this narrative which Christianity, principally the Roman Catholic Church, has relegated to oblivion, save perhaps for serious students of religious history, biblical scholars and vexatious ex-seminarians like this columnist.

This other version of the historical Christ was promoted by witnesses to his life in Palestine, spawning a Jesus Movement in Jerusalem. To them Christ was a devout Jew who was born of natural parents, Joseph and Mary, and was a charismatic preacher, a healer and a revolutionary who saw religion and politics as one. After his death, his older brother James headed the movement known as the Jerusalem Church in contrast with that of the Pauline Church headed by Saul of Tarsus who converted to the faith on his way to Damascus and much later was canonized as St. Paul the Apostle.

These two factions of the Jesus Movement were inspired by the life and death of Christ. Paul never did meet personally the living Christ but preached the new religion to the Roman Empire and beyond — principally to the non-Jews. James’ Jerusalem Church preached mainly to the Jews, himself adhering to the strict Jewish precepts. These two church leaders were a study in contrast. Paul was a man of letters, master of Greek rhetoric, sophisticated and urbane. James, on the other hand, was poor and illiterate, but being the elder brother of Jesus, must perforce be familiar with his teachings and humanity.

The split came 25 years after Christ died. The power struggle between the two factions centered on who best to interpret the life of Jesus Christ, his vision and message. Paul wanted to tell this magnificent story to the world, which includes non-Jews, on the divinity of Christ. James, on the other hand, was bent on freeing Palestine from the clutches of Rome through the story of an earthly revolutionary messiah. The fundamental conflict therefore was whether or not Jesus was divine.

As in any great conflict, it started with a seemingly mundane dispute, with James insisting that new members of the Jesus Movement must eat kosher food and be circumcised like Christ himself and must observe Jewish laws. Paul’s perspective was beyond the Jewish character of the Jesus Movement, detaching himself from the Jewish political aim and thus was not bound by the Torah. This was anathema. And the added revelation that Paul was in fact a Roman citizen further exacerbated the already impossible state of affairs. The split between the Jerusalem and the Pauline churches of the Jesus Movement became final around 58 A.D.

In 66 A.D., less than a decade after the split, the Jews in Palestine rebelled against Rome. The rebellion was crushed in 70 A.D., ending with the suicide of 900 Jews in the fortress of Masada. As the Jews were being slaughtered, the Pauline Church dissociated any loyalty to the Jewish patriotism and declared itself not one with the rebellious Jews. James’ Jerusalem Church was wiped out. The Pauline Church emerged the victor of this religious internecine conflict and the custodianship of the biography of Christ. Now known as Christians, they went on to capture the narrative through the writing of the New Testament, decades after the crucifixion, through the four canonical gospels of Mark (66-70 A.D.), Matthew/Luke (circa 85-90 A.D.) and John (90-110 A.D.). These writers were anonymous and did not meet Christ. These names were simply added in the 2nd century. What we have today in the Christian Catholic and Protestant traditions reflect Paul’s perspective, not the James Jewish-influenced Jesus Movement.

The Gospels, the Good News, were considered the 2nd century’s version of propaganda with heavy theology and political undertones. Biblical scholars have identified Paul’s hand in the messaging although he died circa 67 A.D., just when the New Testament was being written. The irony of it all was that those who were witnesses to the actual life of the historical Jesus, and closest to him, his family and disciples — mainly James and his Jesus Movement — had no hand in the propagation of Christianity. They had no direct surviving records and Paul’s mainstream Christian Church made their version heretical, eventually evolving into a fringe group called Ebionites.

Latter biblical scholars who have been scrutinizing the Letters of St. Paul, the authorship of the Gospels and the evolution of Christianity from the great split have begun to re-examine the Ebionites. James’ Jewish-Christian movement who knew the living Christ accepted as central to their beliefs Christ nature as Man. He was a Jewish revolutionary tutored by John the Baptist, Jesus’ precursor, and martyred by the Roman puppet Herod Antipas. Jesus inspired a secular movement to foment a revolution against the Romans and free the Jews from oppression ushering in a new age of Jewish ascendency over Palestine. This was the original interpretation of a “Messiah establishing God’s Kingdom on earth.” He was not divine, not of a virgin birth but was crucified by the Romans, died but was resurrected as Lazarus was by a miracle.

Several inconsistencies in the New Testament came to the fore, accusing Paul of being an interloper and hijacking the Jesus movement. Paul, the Roman citizen with no love lost for the Jewish patriots, contemplated a Jesus narrative using the Old Testament’s prophecy of Isaiah on the coming Messiah, born of a Virgin. To Paul, messiah meant son of God come down to earth, died on the cross and promising eternal life to mankind. This and other prophecies were meant to support Paul’s contention of Christ’s divinity. The gospels therefore came up with stories which could only be attributed to divine intervention or patently false narratives.

If James’ faction won the split in the early century of the Jesus movement, we wouldn’t have the Christian tradition as practiced today. His version of the life of Jesus witnessed by his family, father Joseph, mother Mary, his brothers and wife Mary Magdalene would have shown him to be a Jewish revolutionary at a time of the Roman occupation.

In second of this two-part column, the alternative biography of Jesus Christ reveals some of the implausible accounts in the New Testament which biblical scholars suspected were inserted in the Gospels to prove and sustain his divinity.

I HAVE been under the impression that Brunei, ranked by Forbes as the fifth richest out of 182 countries in the world, would be one of those liberal and progressive developed Muslim countries practicing a benevolent and tolerant kind of Islam. Just last week, the government of Brunei imposed a law against LGBTQ with harsh punishments of stoning and public whipping. Thus, Brunei becomes the first country in Southeast Asia to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. To quote its potentate Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah: “The decision to implement the [penal code] is not for fun but is to obey Allah’s command as written in the Quran.”

The country is Islamic, majority of whom are followers of Sunni Islam, the same as those of Muslims in Mindanao. In fact, before the Spanish presence, areas in southern Mindanao, the Sulu-Jolo archipelago extending up to parts of Luzon, were believed to be integrated with the Brunei sultanate.

The declaration of the Sultan Bolkiah has far-reaching implications as sharia law is applied to both Muslim and non-Muslims alike. The minority Christians and members of other religions are therefore subject to this set of laws. It will be recalled that in 2014, the Brunei Sultan implemented the first phase; that of declaring couples producing children out of wedlock and missing Friday prayers as crimes under the jurisdiction of Islamic courts. A new penal code, enacted also in 2014 but whose application was suspended, may take effect soon prescribing punishments adhering closely to sharia law, like severing of limbs for property crimes.

Brunei and Manila have had an intriguing relationship. Sultan Bolkiah’s brother Prince Jefri, who owned a mansion in the posh Forbes Park in Manila, was once involved in recruiting top well-known Filipino actresses to entertain the Sultan’s guests at the 1,788-room Istana Palace. It was alleged that these highly paid women’s thespian talents may have been exploited for other ‘services’ at the pleasure palace owned personally by Prince Jefri. A leading Islamic religious scholar Resa Asian was quoted in the New York Post referring to the Sultan’s pronouncements: “This is obviously not coming from a place of religious devotion, since the Sultan himself is in violation of every single rule of sharia law you could possibly imagine. Indeed, the Sultan and his equally decadent brother, Prince Jefri, were dubbed ‘constant companions in hedonism’.” The sybaritic life of the rulers are totally incompatible with the teachings of the Quran.

Across the Malacca Strait in Malaysia’s Terengganu state, in a first of its kind, sharia authorities whipped two women in public for a lesbian relationship. This could be the start of an anti-homosexual clampdown based on the strict interpretation of the Quran. The state was once a Malay sultanate that was highly influenced by Hindu-Buddhist culture and was part of the trade routes from ancient times. Terengganu was the first among the Malay lands to receive Islam from whence it spread to adjoining territories.

In the neighboring autonomous province of Aceh in Indonesia, gay men and women are whipped publicly under a newly enforced sharia law. Of Indonesia’s 34 provinces, sharia law is officially sanctioned only in oil-rich and conservatively religious Aceh. Islam spread to Southeast Asia in the 12th century from the Sultanate of Aceh, before the latter became part of modern Indonesia.

In the second of my two-part article on the “Clash of civilizations,” this conflict between civilizations, particularly between the Christian West and Islam, was debunked. Initial empirical data showing that Western, Christian, Hindu or other civilizations are at war with each other is likewise balanced by data showing that clashes of Muslims against Muslims particularly in the countries in the Middle East have been erupting since the end of the cold war. Sunni and Shiite Muslims have of late imposed a stricter interpretation of the sharia law on its own citizens. But the world’s backlash condemning the acts as violations of human rights may yet precipitate a real clash of civilizations, proving Huntington correct.

The Western concept of homosexuality as being a natural consequence of birth is not an Islamic creed and sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex are proscribed by the Quran as haram. On the other hand, infringement of this private arrangement in the liberal Western jurisprudence could be considered as a violation of human rights. This is clearly a sample of a clash of Western and Islamic values. The technicality of whether Islamic states are signatory to UN agreements on human rights or have not ratified the same is really of no consequence.

This is also the same enigma facing the Philippines today, as the country embarks on an experiment in an innovative type of governance: the unitary presidential system practiced in the country as a whole and that of the “parliamentary” system or a version thereof to be practiced in parts of Mindanao through the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) that is supposed to govern the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM).

In the Philippines’ 1987 Constitution, Church and State are separate, following traditional western influence and values. In Islamic tradition, religion and governance are intertwined; which could be a major irritant in the BARMM though technically, it operates under the sufferance of central government.

True, sharia law in BARMM will cover and apply only to Muslims and only on matters affecting personal status and family. Although still based on the Quran and the Hadith other scriptural sources and interpreted by independent Islamic jurists, it is a modernized (not Westernized) set of legal jurisprudence compatible with Philippine laws, with harsh and medieval punishments done away with. Still, the ultimate arbiter is the country’s Supreme Court. But cynics abound gleaning from what is happening in Brunei, Aceh and Malaysia, where interpretations are reversed, and protocols are altered; bearing in mind too, the premise and the underlying extrapolation of Huntington’s that the Philippines is a “cleft country” containing two major religious roots and by inference, two civilizations, Islamic and Christian.

What has been happening post-Cold War in the global arena thus far has been hewing close to Huntington’s thesis; although as pointed out in my past two articles, the jury is still out on Huntington’s prediction, particularly on the Muslim versus Muslim conflicts.

Although this is cherry-picking, homosexuality, the LGBTQ community and sharia law are just some samples of similar issues rearing their ugly heads that could be precursors of conflicts. The BARMM is the country’s petri dish for federalism and harmonizing seemingly conflicting values of differing religious beliefs. But favoring both sides is the underlying deep-rooted bond as Filipinos. And this could be an effective prophylactic against initiatives by the likes of Brunei, Aceh and Terengganu against an Islamic revival agitating for full implementation of sharia law, including the reinstatement of hudhud, the dreaded and medieval corporal punishments.

Islam is a religion of peace. Let’s all pray to our respective Allah and Diyos that recent events in our neighboring Muslim countries will not spill over to our shores splitting us “piece by piece.”

IN the Philippines, March marks the end of the school year and the start of summer break. For the college graduates, this interim is the last fling before getting on with the serious business of landing a job. For some, those who have not decided what to do with their lives, they continue with schooling. Postgraduate is an option; law, a master’s course or a shift to other courses, prolonging a juvenile life they can’t leave behind.

A diploma is a precious key to open doors of opportunities. Particularly for the poor, it is the culmination of parental sacrifice to escape to a better life through their children, but for many, only vicariously. Peculiar to a Filipino family, it is a filial duty.

March is also the time for commencement exercises where speakers regale the graduates with worn-out anecdotes and dispensing advice for the graduates’ transition to real life from the safe confines of a classroom.

I have never been invited by any notable university to be a commencement speaker. So, this article will be my standard commencement speech to the graduating class of 2019.

Dear graduating class of 2019: First my credentials. I am what is known in literature as the Allegorical Everyman. I am an ordinary person. I finished high school at a seminary where tuition was free in a class of a dozen, ‘sine laude’ (without honors), although I excelled in Latin and could orate segments of Marcus Tullius Cicero’s perorations against Catiline’s conspiracy “Quo usqui tandem abutere Catilina patientia nostra?” (When, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience?) But that was half a century ago.

My college baccalaureate was geared towards teaching which I did not pursue. I did public service instead and after some years, I was fortunate to be accepted at Harvard, for my postgraduate MC/MPA at the Kennedy School. I was voted upon graduation as the top Mason Fellow by my classmates. It was a leadership award, not academic.

Three other Filipinos were in my class: Alejandro ‘Babes’ Flores (PC-INP), Dr. Primo Arambulo, (UN-PAHO) and Christopher Gomez, Central Bank (CB). Yes, it is prudent to cite real witnesses on your having graduated from a prestigious school, unlike some current high government officials’ dubious claims of having finished law and college degrees from UP, Yale or Princeton, or whatever.

Having established my credentials, you graduates will soon establish yours. On May 13, 2019, you get to choose for the first time the ruling elite of this country – senators, congressmen and local government officials. For those of you who are not lazy, concerned or even patriotic enough to register and vote, this is an opportunity for you to practice what you learned in your civics class. As you will begin to realize, our system of government which is nominally a republican democracy allows its citizens to elect leaders mandated to serve the people; who must fashion good laws and hammer out policies to make our lives better. Election day is the only time that your power to alter the course of government rests in your hands. After this one-day exercise, you are powerless.

Many of you are average or above-average students, like I was. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe a good 10 perecent of you are academically part of the crème-de-la-crème, cum laudes, magna and summa cum laudes. Nothing wrong with that too.

In this day and age, your many advantages over the youth of two decades ago and beyond are apparent. You are the children of the information age. The network of networks, the world wide web spawned this period through the development of the internet. Facebook, Google, Apple and internet applications through your cellphone and notebooks are your primary tools. Use them well.

With these devices, data mining is at your fingertips. You have access to quick information. This makes you smarter than a lot of us, but not necessarily wiser. To be the latter, I give you my first advice; you need to apply critical thinking you learned in school, unlike the term papers you sourced out from Wikipedia that you cut and paste. You need to use your brains to separate the chaff from the grain.

You need to discern from among the list of names offered by the political puppet masters, candidates you can trust and depend on to do good by you. Many of them are good candidates; but also, many of them are crooks and corrupt, who should not be given another chance to rule over us. Eliminate the members of political dynasties and name brands who keep being elected every three years yet serve only their personal interest or that of their families instead of your welfare and the greater majority of our people.

Remember the people you are voting to ride herd on you now were once like you; believing in the oft repeated romantic notion that the “…youth is the hope of the fatherland.” Not true, it’s overrated — given their track record over the decades.

And with these tools, communication between and among your peers are instantaneous; Facebook gives you friends, hundreds, thousands even but such relationships although not deep are sufficient enough for information to disseminate. But beware of fake news and rumors.

My second advice is to allow yourselves to get angry. Real anger over our situation of decades of government neglect, of stark poverty and injustice besetting our people. Righteous indignation is required to spur us to condemn and correct the imbalances and deficits of our democracy — in our court system, in our dysfunctional institutions, in the continued institutional thievery in the Senate and Congress through pork barrel allocations, resulting in the general malaise pervading our system of government.

And I want to leave you with these thoughts that define who you really are: You are the mainstream, the world’s movers. History’s great dramas are mostly written by ordinary people. You need to internalize this fact. This is not to disparage the academic achievers among you. They have achieved excellence worth emulating. But you are all now in the real world. You all start on equal footing; and it requires a conscious decision by each one of you to make a difference.

Continue to possess the arrogance of youth, that you are the center of the universe and that you have the capability of changing the world. Because, it is true, you are. And this is a myth you have to perpetuate, as long as you can. It ends when you are no longer the youth.

But this arrogance is preconditioned on your understanding right from wrong and acting accordingly. These are values learned from, or inculcated by, parents, the elders, your peer group and the educational system. The result of this life’s test is simply pass or fail, no ‘cum laudes.’ If you are unable to distinguish the difference, you are a failure.

So, my dear graduates of 2019, we are all ordinary people, capable of extraordinary things.