The Revolution of Politics

Introduction (Thea): The Power Transfer of Politics

Politics, in its dynamics, works around how power is shared, distributed, and utilized

by state entities for the fulfillment of the common goals determined by the state. Power, as

defined, is the ability to compel people to a certain action as mandated by the power-holder to

its subjects. Theoretically, power is granted to the government promulgated by its citizens to

lead in their stead and is distributed to individuals in designated offices for the advancement

of common good and public interest. Its purpose is to provide state authorities the ability to

enact laws, execute orders, implement initiatives, and take other actions that endeavor to meet

common good as its end according to what the law prescribes, along with the participation of

the citizens to which consent comes from – this is the essence of politics. When politics is

terminated, despotism comes in. In its causal premises, the termination of politics takes place

when there are attempts of a despot to predetermine politics for an agenda with no regard for

common good and public interest. This could be seen in its valuational quality as when

looking into a predictive perspective, a government with terminated politics would yield

results that are inimical to social justice, public welfare, liberty, rights, and all that is

contained in a democratic society; thus, it must be evaded at all costs.

Location of the Theory (Theorein): Deactivation of Politics

Basic knowledge has been established that a democratic government adheres to the

principle that it is promulgated by the people, operated through the people, and works for the

people. With the grounds laid, one could contemplate that all powers existing in the state are

emanating from the will of its citizens and are objectified in its laws. The politics in a state is
ideally designed to accommodate the people in all its vital affairs as its focal point is in its

nature of plurality. It shall not be centered upon a certain individuals or a minority groups as

politics, in its essence, is a framework of the many. The government exists in the democratic

technicalities of politics and its existence must meet its very essence. Otherwise, it would be

dysfunctional and could considerably be founded upon rogue agenda that defies its prime

purpose. A system that does not meet the purpose it was made for is a failed system. A

dictatorial system marks the redefining point of politics when it turns away from its innate

goal of inclusion and integration with the populace. As a support, the English philosopher

John Locke posited that the government is bound by the duty to protect the freedom, rights,

and welfare of the people and to punish those who violate it. In its interpretation, the people

hands over the power to the government with the expectation that in exchange, the

government shall safeguard their rights, common good, and public interest. In this system

called by John Locke as the social contract, it is the citizens that promulgate the government

and in return, the government shall serve the interest, security, rights, and welfare of the

citizens. There exists a reciprocation between the two components of a functional system of

power within the state. The said system would prevalently be exhibited in a democratic state

where it is the people that holds the right to govern themselves and this system must be

maintained to assure that democracy, in its essence, shall prevail. In relation to John Locke’s

Social Contract Theory, Jean Jacques Rousseau also has his own version of the concept in his

own Social Contract. He varied in proposition as he viewed the government as an institution

promulgated by the people, wherein citizens surrender their rights to the general will. In this

general will, the citizens shall abandon their individual claims to natural rights for the

common good and in this act, the citizens preserve themselves and remain free in a collective

view. For the two theories, what can be noteworthy is the common idea that power in

governance or particularly in politics, come from the operation of the people as a whole

citizenry according to their will. It has shown that the people, as the inherent source of power,
is the determinant of where power shall be concentrated. There can be no power when there

are no people where it originates from.

A disturbing yet true premise meanwhile, was conceptualized by Baron de

Montesquieu on his written warnings that defined “despotism” as an individual mandating

everything to his arbitrary will and consequently, the political system must have a separation

of powers that would protect the state from the dangers of it. To elucidate, a government must

be divided into branches that are distinct from one another and enjoys its independence from

each other. Specifically, the popularly known example of this is the separation of the

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch of the government. Each offices from these

branches are provided by the people with powers with different limitations and purposes so

that it would not be within the control of one or few. In dictatorial regimes, the power is

consolidated and concentrated only to certain minorities through manipulation of vested

power to hinder the rights of other political entities and the citizens in participating to

political affairs that are crucial for the stability of the state. A despot is an individual in a

ruling position who disrupts the practice of politics and makes power exclusive to his control

while others are curtailed from using it. By fact and in effect, politics is terminated when

power-holders in other positions and the citizens are deprived of their power to be included in

policy-making and other affairs of the state. It can be considered that in despotism, the

absence of inclusion is indicative of the absence of politics, as its said essence is not met. In

layman’s terms, dictatorship deactivates politics when a despot takes away the power of the

other rightful power-holders and withholds peripheral political participation to centralize

politics to just one. The question would then pertain to how politics can be restored without

active politics as the means in itself.

Problem (Theoria): The Dilemma of the Prohibition of Politics

comprehend how politics is prohibited under despotic regimes. Certain political events could

pointed out as elucidating examples, particularly, the overall background of the declaration of

Martial Law in 1972 that have dawned the Marcos dictatorship. The declaration was said to

be an immediate response to the Plaza Miranda bombings which the Executive has cited as a

compelling circumstance to precede the declaration. The alarming increase of Communist

insurgencies and armed rebellions throughout the country was the propaganda disseminated

by the regime as a justification for the declaration of the rule and the impending expansion of

powers, which indeed extended for more than a decade. At that point in time, the state was

under the rule of an authoritarian government as the President have ruled by decree. It can be

said that in the dictatorship, there were little to no separation of powers as legislative

functions have been taken over by the President by decree as replacement and the judiciary

was marred by corruption that favored the guilty influential people. The people had no voice

because the existent system accommodates only mandates from the select ruling few. The

detrimental situation in the dictatorship is the prohibition of politics which can be seen in the

overly dominant executive power, breaches in checks and balances, disallowing dissent,

censoring press freedom, and rampant political persecutions. A government that lacks

political participation, in effect, has no politics at all as the termination disrupts its essence

which is active engagement. Looking into its causal premises, the termination of politics is a

pre-requisite of a dysfunctional and imbalanced society that has no recognition of its plurality

– its primary quality. Rather, it is driven by the vested interest of the despot who holds power,

either transferred by the people or taken from other holders, for the satisfaction of his own

utility that is predetermined only by the few while disregarding the original purpose of

collective good that it was intended to uphold. One idea to note in an autocracy is that it

thrives with the aid of propaganda that breeds deception to the people into a line of thinking

that the ruling entity is aligned with what the people deem as good for them. As a result, the
politics of the population is terminated without full consciousness and the despot maintains

sustenance of popular power. In context, the dictator breeds disinformation among the people

while silencing those who oppose the conducts of the government to disable democratic

actions that may threaten the proliferation of despotism. As for legitimate power-holders

whose powers have been taken by the despot, their role in politics are as well terminated by

means of manipulating the legal system to disallow their legitimate place in political

engagement and prevent contending actions from political entities. It could also be through

fear wherein the despot creates an idea that nothing else can be done and that the optimal

choice left is to give in to the rule, which could happen by threat or actual harm. Apparently,

there are also instances when legitimate power-holders willfully surrender their power to the

despot when the power-holders believe that surrendering their power best fits their own

utility or interest by making alliance with the despots for shared benefits – it is generally

called cronyism which is prevalent in Philippine politics. Regardless of the grounds, it can be

seen in its valuational premises that the most terrifying yet prevalent reality in a dictatorship

is that it runs in a system where subjects, who are the actual power-holders, believe that

sustaining excessive power of the despot is either the last or only choice. Despotism is a

system that runs in the exploitation of a terminated politics that is perpetuated by both

deception and desperation as the despot predetermines the whole situation with no regards to

the nature of politics. Technically speaking, a state ruled by a despot is a failed state as the

government has the failure in preserving the freedom, rights, and welfare due to the citizens

which the government is bound to uphold. It would mean that a dictatorial state is in a

detrimental condition where politics loses its essence of plurality that effectively relinquishes

the concept itself and is resultantly indicated by benefits being afforded exclusively to a

ruling minority, while its implications to the citizens and the territory are not being

considered. The absorbers of its greatest impact would automatically be the citizens,

particularly the underprivileged mass, who are technically more dependent to the state as they
do not possess their own ability to secure liberty, rights, and welfare by themselves. The rich

is provided by its own defenses and is in less need of government protection, whereas the

suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of

the State (Pope Leo XI, 1931). With a government of suspended politics that serves the

interest of the few, the majority of the citizens relying on the government shall have none to

serve what is due to them. Hence, a dysfunctional society. To add to that, what is much more

alarming is the fact that citizens of such society in a state of dystopia are victims of a constant

cycle of abuse. It is not only that their politics are terminated; liberties, rights, welfare, and

other guarantees are curtailed; but also their ability to discern the real situation and recognize

their jeopardized status is constrained or to a certain degree, taken away from them. By

manipulation through propaganda, the citizens are deprived of the knowledge concerning the

questions on legitimacy of the existing ruler and the failure to serve their interest; ergo, no

democratic response to the violation. The state cannot then be saved merely by political

interventions since politics, by fact, is prohibited.

The New Framing (Theorema): Radical Restoration of Politics

When ideals are linked with the reality, it can still be hoped that the dilemma of a

state with terminated politics can be addressed through its re-conception by means of a

radical change initiated by the people. The Irish statesman Edmund Burke would agree that

the longer a pre-determined ruling prevails, the chances of a gradual lawful revolt would

most likely diminish. Deriving from this theory, it can be said that a regime that terminates

politics and fixing the concentration of power to one entity without regard to other power-

holders and the people in the state is an uninhabitable ground for a participative governance

by the people as the de facto authority is not the rule of law, but instead, the despot that

maneuvers the legal system. Thereupon, a revolt by gradual reform through laws operating in

the same dictatorial system that is designed to sustain its despotism is bound to its doom not
unless the despot fails to manipulate the system to his favor or voluntary steps down – which

occupies a tiny, though still existent space of probability. In a broader sense and general

understanding, such gradual intervention would likely face its fate as a predestined failure.

The American activist Thomas Paine would also favor that swiftly redefining the system

would work best in the context of the prohibition and termination of politics. In factual sense,

this theory was proven and tested when EDSA I People Power Revolution was ignited by the

incidence of the assassination of opposition leader Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. and the

compulsion of Marcos to enact the 1986 Snap Elections against his rival Corazon Aquino to

which he declared his fraudulent victory that led to a drastic bloodless uprising that has

overthrown him. A significant detail in the situation was the incidence of a two-decade-long

regime that effectively terminated politics in its tyranny-breeding system, being crumbled in

just a single turning event that was done in radical means. A re-conception of politics has

taken place where the system is redefined. In a causal perspective, re-conception is the

endpoint of an old conception and beginning of a new conception of politics. This new

concept of politics regards the importance of the engagement of the people in the operations

of the government (de Tocqueville, 1994). Politics can be said to be positively reconceived

when there is a proactive engagement of the people in policy-making, when there is a

recognition of the rights and liberties of the people in enacting laws, and when the

government as a whole, conducts itself in a manner that is consistent with the common good

and social justice. It is substantiated in the impartial adherence of the government to its

constitution, which transcribes the will and ideals of the people. An ideally functional

government is one that practices politics that exhibits openness to all diversity and treats their

people with equity in its service. Politics is reconceived when the people finally exercises

their power and reclaims the rights they are initially entitled to – which was withheld by the

despot. There can only be one unifying rule within a state and it is always the people that gets

to decide it, being the arsenal of all political powers in the state. For these to work effectively,
democratic action must be done swiftly and radically in a way that the system is redefined so

as not to allow the effects it was designed to perpetrate. In a valuational perspective, the

restoration of politics is consisted by the leading of social justice, decentralization of power,

and proper representation. The rule of social justice safeguards the people from violation of

their rights and assuring that governance shall have its checks and balance to assure that

policy-making and its implementation are guided by plurality and not for the benefit of the

few. It is also expected that a reconceived politics would foster a decentralized approach in

governance, keeping it certain that no places or people lag behind in progress through its

inclusive and unselective ways of distributing government interventions for different

communities within the state. On top of it all, a reconceived politics is meant to be formed in

setups that cater proper representation of the people and different sectors, so as not to leave

anyone voiceless and neglected in a state where all has their own respective share of

contributions in its development. These act of redefining politics can best be done in

transformative and radical means so as not to allow the old system to maintain or revive the

despotism it was made to maintain.

The Conclusion (Theorema): Democracy as Determinants of Politics

With all the necessary premises cited, conclusions could be derived that the revolution

of politics is a matter of shifting power by maneuvering the system of politics to the certain

purposes that the powerholders set to fulfill. The people is the reservoir of all the powers

existing in the state, but citizens, in pursuit of their personal utility delegate these powers to

the government they promulgate, which is then distributed to the ones they authorized to

represent their common good and public interest by their lawful governance. Despotism takes

place when a power-holder terminates acts of politics to take the power of the other due

holders by prohibition. It happens when the despot takes advantage of the power to maneuver
the system and use it for the advancement of certain agenda with no regard to the people

which it is supposed to serve. This results to a failed state as there is supposed to be a

government promulgated by the people to protect their rights, welfare, and liberties of its

citizens. When anything else is put by the government above the citizens, its very purpose is

neglected and leads to a dysfunctional society. To address these, politics must be restored so

as to assure that governance shall be in its plurality. However, in the absence of active

politics that could amend the system, the people as the source of power must redefine it by

drastic force of revolution that would transfer the power of the despot to another holder

perceived to represent the common interest. Overthrowing a despotic regime requires re-

conception of politics where the system is entirely transformed so that there would be no

chance for the despotic system to revive itself as it was designed to. In addition to that, the

revolutionary action must be drastic so as not to allow the despotic government to maintain

itself in response to threats. At the end, the revolution of politics is a transfer of power

maneuvered by the people upon conviction to a common cause and naturally, only one ideal

shall prevail.