|
The “Indolence” of the Filipino
The Enemy
from Within
by Rosalinda N.
Olsen Indolence is defined as the disposition to be idle or, put another way, the lack of inclination to work. More than a hundred years ago, Jose Rizal wrote a brilliant essay in defence of the Indio, whose Spanish colonial master had called indolent. With flawless logic and irrefutable examples, Rizal demonstrated that the supposed indolence was an effect of the dehumanising conditions in which the Indio was forced to live. Still following the logic of cause-and-effect Rizal, in fact, twisted the knife back to the accuser and showed that the Spanish colonizers were the indolent ones. Thus, Rizal added one more definition of “indolence”: the inclination to live off the labor of others. The Spanish colonizers were the indolent ones, not the Indio, because the Peninsulares and the Filipinos preferred the good life without working for it. It was justifiably easy to enrich themselves because they could always say, “What are we in power for?” Let the Indio work for the honor of Spain and for us who labor to see that Spain and Mother Church is obeyed at all times and without question. The
hapless Indio had to secure a permit in order to work their farms. Quoting Morga, Rizal wrote,
“The natives
were not allowed to go to their labors, that is, their farms, without
permission of the governor, or of his agents and officers, and even of the
priests. Rizal also quoted Gaspar de
San Agustin who wrote that in 1690, the people of Bacolor had fewer people
because of the uprising during Don Sabinianano Manrique de Lara’s time,
and because of continual labor of cutting timber for his Majesty’s
shipyards, which hindered them from cultivating the very fertile plains
they have These two
quotes show clearly that 1) the Indio was totally controlled by the
Spanish which included forced labor but, 2) the Indio was capable of rising in
armed rebellion against their colonial master. It is strangely curious that when the
natives succeeded in breaking the chains of slavery, they were no longer
the “Indio” and took the name of their colonizer, the Filipino or the
Spanish who were born in the Philippine islands. One would think that the enslaved
would take a name farthest from the memory of the hated master. Instead, the Indio became the new
Filipino and one wonders if the Indio inherited not only the name but its
master’s cultural characteristics too, particularly indolence. Shakespeare wrote that a rose is a rose
by whatever name it is called.
Even so, the Peninsulares who came direct from Spain held the
Filipinos in lower esteem because they were born in the colony and
therefore “less Spanish”.
They had the same Spanish blood flowing in their veins but the
accident of birth made the Peninsulares feel more superior. The ilustrado class—the Indio with
wealth and education—personified by Emilio Aguinaldo, took over the
revolution from that poor Indio named Andres Bonifacio whom they believed
should not have aspired to be other than cannon fodder. Well, the ilustrado class won the
revolution and, therefore, it is to the ilustrado class that present-day
Filipinos owe that dubious honor of being named after the colonial
masters. The descendants of
that ilustrado class and of the original Filipinos continue to be the
ruling class in the Philippines; sharing what power they will with the
Catholic hierarchy.
What about the descendants of those below the ilustrado class, are
they still Indio? No,
of course not, they are Filipino citizens. However, since the socio-political
structure has not changed except for the takeover of the ilustrado class
from the colonizer, the Indio is still an Indio by whatever name he is
called. The present-day Indio
comprises about 80% of the population. No matter, there is no loss of
face in that, for as Rizal had proven, the Indio is not indolent. In fact, the Indio shall redeem
the Philippines from the enemy within—the affluent and the politicians who
make a mockery of democracy and justice. As it was then, so is it now. Separated from the rest of the
population by an insurmountable wall of wealth and political power, the
Filipino ruling class easily make a great show of benevolent paternalism
under the guise of democracy in order to hide the indolence they have
inherited. They wrote a
Philippine Constitution by and for themselves, which, of course, they
invoke or subvert according to how it serves their interest. Obedient and trusting as
always, the masses continue to believe that they actually elected a
democratic government despite the chronic cheating in the
polls. It was easier then to identify the
enemy because it was foreign.
First came the Spanish colonizers and then came the Americans. With the declaration of Philippine
Independence in 1946 the Filipinos were finally free to determine how the
country shall be governed. It
also removed the excuse of blaming a foreign power for the idiocies and
the greed of the new political cliques. In the early 1950s, the
Philippines was considered the richest nation in SouthEast Asia with the
highest GNP per capita.
Today, the Philippines is second only to Bangladesh that is at the
bottom of the list of the ten most impoverished countries. What has happened, or what did not
happen? Who made this happen,
or who did not make it happen? Scapegoats are necessary where nobody
wants to face the truth of their own failure. It is ridiculous that the Marxist
groups in the Philippines blame everything on the USA, as if everything
that is wrong or evil in government is due to American machinations,
blithely ignoring the direct hand and the initiative of the corrupt
politicians. Ang
Bayan, both the print and the online editions, continue to mouth
the “party line” of revolution and the overthrow of the American
stranglehold on the Philippines.
The sad fact is there is no stranglehold except that made by the
government officials, from the President down to the mayor of the smallest
town. This essay does not at all mean to be
an apologist for the late President Ferdinand Marcos, but he was really
the only president who had a vision for the country. He was brilliant. Marcos had an iron will that could
turn to ruthlessness, and his enemies were powerless against his wit and
charm. One morning in
September 1972, Filipinos woke up to find that there was no radio and no
newspapers. Martial law has been declared. Everyone was in the grip of fear,
and because they were afraid, they obeyed. Marcos called for discipline and
he believed that “this nation can be great again”. At first, corrupt officials
curbed their greed, for fear of being arrested. Then they became what was called
the “backsliders” and then more and more went back to their old bad
habits, until the usual cycle of graft and corruption was back in
place. In 1986, the Filipinos
went to the streets and ousted the 20-year dictator through what has been
called “People Power.”
For the first time since the Philippine
Revolution in 1896, the masses rallied to the call of the leaders and
again put their lives in the hands of those in power. Once again the people were
betrayed. No sooner were the
Marcoses out of the country than the old politicians and the oligarchy
came crawling like worms out of the woodwork. As the masses went to the streets
and created what could have been a real revolution called EDSA People
Power, the disenfranchised politicians appeared on television and gave
speeches by radio, clearly meaning to take over the vacuum. They did. Today, it seems that the people no
longer care or perhaps they are now in the depths of hopelessness and
helplessness. So, the
question arises, is the Filipino indolent now at the time when they could
least afford to be so?
Clearly the Filipino masses have lost faith in politicians and they clearly indicated this by voting an actor as President of the Republic, Joseph “Erap” Estrada. According to an exclusive article written in October 30, 2002 by the Daily Tribune editor and publisher, Ninez Cacho Olivares, a group that calls itself “Omerta”, “composed of representatives of business groups and Catholic Church leaders as well as representatives of celebrated personalities, came together and met formally early this month to fine tune the plan to "constitutionally" oust President Estrada under "Oplan Excelsis." They succeeded. Gloria Arroyo, who was herself also under impeachment charges at the time, now occupies Malacañan. Now, the Philippines is worse off than under Estrada and everybody believes that the solution is in having a new and incorruptible president. Nobody seems to realize that it is far more difficult to eradicate corruption in the government institutions like the BIR and the DPWH, than it is to oust a duly elected President. Apparently, most Filipinos believe that the Philippine President should be no less than a superman and a miracle worker who will put everything to right. Nobody seems to ask himself what he should do as an individual and as a citizen of that country. Governance is every citizen’s business, particularly in a democracy. It’s like everybody is to blame except himself. A corrupt system will not continue unless the people knowingly or unknowingly support it. The corruption is so ingrained that if one were to give all civil service employees a test on corruption, very few will it. This only means that the citizenry tolerate this corruption in one way or the other. Here is an anecdote to illustrate this. A young man was driving his mother to her appointment when a traffic policeman stopped them. The young man was sure he had not violated a traffic law but he stopped and, before the policeman came to the car, he took out a one-hundred pesos bill from his wallet. Aghast, the mother asked him if he were thinking of bribing the policeman. Calmly, the son said, “I have no choice. You know, I know, and that policeman knows that I did not violate any traffic rule. But if I let him give me a ticket, they will simply make it harder for me and I won’t be able to drive through this area again without being victimized by that same policeman or his colleagues.” The young man then folded the money and inserted it in the plastic holder of his driving license. The policeman came, wrote something on a little notebook, told the young man to be more observant of traffic rules, and left. The young man then showed the plastic holder to his mother; the money was gone. It would not be a distant analogy to compare this incident to what an Indio farmer would have done if confronted with similar circumstances. The feeling of helplessness against prevalent corruption has gone from bad to worse that, really, nobody quite knows where to begin. The Indio of today is not powerless like the Indio during the Spanish colonial period, but the same feeling of helplessness prevails. According to statistics, the Philippines has an 83% literacy rate, but how much of this is functional literacy? Each year, schools and colleges graduate thousands of young people, but how many of them can and actually use what they have learned? Today’s Indio is not helpless. He has, in fact, more education and access to modern and traditional technologies that would give him a fighting chance to battle against the socio-political evils that has dragged the Philippines deep into the muck. The problem is that individual and group efforts have not been coordinated into one united front. In Part 3 of his long essay, “The Indolence of the Filipinos”, Rizal wrote, Man works for an
object. Remove the object and you reduce him to inaction. The
most active man in the world will fold his arms from the instant he
understands that it is madness to bestir himself, that this work will be
the cause of his trouble, that for him it will be the cause of vexations
at home and of the pirate's greed abroad Filipinos are not lazy, nor are they
indolent by whatever definition.
Even so, it is apparent that they work only for themselves and
their family, not because they are indifferent to the fate of their
country. It is because they
see no object worth their labor.
The present socio-political structure has robbed the Filipino in
the same way that the Spanish colonizer had robbed the Indio of an object
to work for. There are no
scapegoats available, except those in the fantasy of Ang
Bayan; there is no bogeyman either as the Church would have the
Filipinos believe. There is
only the Filipino individual who should work together with his
countrymen. There is no lack
of Filipino individuals and groups working for the betterment of the
Philippines, but they must organize.
In short, they must put their act together. Only then can we truly
say with Rizal that the Filipino is not indolent.
|