CONSENSUS BUILDING: GROUNDWORK
OF A
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY[1]
By: Atty. Mark Gil J. Ramolete, MA Philos
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of what follows is to discuss
that consensus building is the groundwork of a democratic society.
By consensus building, I mean to refer to
the collaborative process of arriving with an agreement or resolution utilized
primarily to adjudicate and to resolve complex, pluralistic and multiparty
discords and concerns. On the other hand, by groundwork, I mean to refer to the
foundation or the cornerstone of a democratic society. While by democratic
society, I have in mind a society that is constitutionally created and
sustained by constitutional precepts and regulations and where the sovereign
power is bestowed to and exercised by a group or a whole body of free and equal
citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
The topic is relevant not just for the body
politic but also to the individual members of that body in terms of safeguarding,
promoting and advocating their social, cultural, moral, economic, political and
spiritual interests through consensus building.
The course of my argument will be as
follows: First, I will discuss what makes a society a democratic society. Second,
will be on the discussion on why consensus building is the groundwork of a
democratic society. These two primary concerns of the paper shall be presented
in the light of Jurgen Habermas’ discourse theory on law and democracy. Views
and concepts of other scholars shall also be incorporated. Having presented the
outline of the course of my discussion of the topic presented above, we can now
begin our discussion.
THE PERSON AND ITS SOCIETY IN A DEMOCRATIC
STATE
The human person is by nature a social
being.[2] It is through this nature
of the human being that serves as the fountain and vessel of every existing
society in the world.
Now, one might be compelled to ask, for
what reason? The human person is a body, that is, a being with a corporeal and
earthly body. This as such, people have different desires. Having different
desires, people have needs that vary from one individual to another.
Nevertheless, these needs cannot be satisfied by the person (he)rself. The
human person’s basic social needs for food, clothing, water and shelter can be
satisfied or best satisfied by the active presence of other individuals. One
may have all the money and riches in the world; however, the person may not be
able to satisfy all these basic needs without establishing a cooperative and
inter-subjective relation with other individuals.
One may argue that s(he) has the financial
capacity to provide all these needs, but then I may argue that the ability or
the capacity to provide is completely different from the ability and capacity
to satisfy. For example, I may have the financial capacity to buy bread but
someone has to plant and harvest wheat or grain to be processes into flour.
Someone has also to raise chickens to produce eggs. Likewise, someone has also
to raise cows or goats to produce milk. Someone has also to plant and harvest
sugar canes to be processed into sugar. Finally, someone has to process the
flour, the eggs, the sugar and the milk to produce bread.
Because of the desire to satisfy these
basic social needs, individuals are compelled to form an organized body or unit
where people come up with specific societal roles and functions to address
these needs. This is what we call the theory of necessity in the formation of
societies vis-a-vis to the nature of the human person as a social being.
Sociation is crucial in providing and satisfying the basic societal needs of
persons. Nevertheless, this is not just true in terms on how these basic
societal needs are provided and satisfied. Sociation is likewise indispensable
in terms of how the full potentiality of the human person is to materialize.
The human person is born like any other
born beings as a biological being, but made human and fully human through sociation.
The fullness of (he)r humanity can be achieved through sociation. Essential
human qualities like the capacity to wonder, to inquire, to search for answers;
the capacity to think, to act, and to behave in the ambit of language; the
capacity to feel certain emotions like fear, pride, anger, pity, etc.;
including the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, etc., can be nurtured and
learned through the immersion and belongingness of the individual person in a
particular socio-cultural context.
An individual person cannot just become
(he)rself in isolation. S(he) has to be a part of a cultural milieu with a
particular social heritage. By social heritage, I mean to refer to the cultural
(he)r-story and cultural identity of a particular group of individuals
characterized by the sum total of transmitted patters of cultural activity
present in a society. By living in a community of beings who are culturally and
linguistically adept and competent, the individual person is shaped to what
s(he) is and for who s(he) is. Here comes now another point worth again
reverberating on how sociation is significant not just in harnessing the social
nature of the human person and in satisfying (he)r needs, but also in terms on
how personality or individual alterity is shaped and reshaped in a particular
cultural milieu. Psychology and other related discipline would consider
personality as the sum total quality of a person’s behaviour, which is only
developed in human society. Personality is always created from something.
Personality does not arise from a vacuum. Personality arises due to the inter-subjective
and cooperative relation of the individual person with other persons existing
in a particular cultural milieu. Dwelling in a particular cultural milieu as
one’s cultural abode presupposes the presence of a social heritage. Through
this social heritage, it serves as the cornerstone of the personality of the
individual person.
From what was presented above, I have made
a short discussion as to how a society may come to be as a result of the nature
of the human person as a social being. The relationship involved between the
individual and the society is both complimentary and supplementary. Both the
individual and the society are interrelated and interdependent. As it was
previously pointed out, the individual person cannot just exist and live in
isolation. S(he) must have a social heritage where s(he) can be socially and
culturally identified and differentiated apart from other biological beings. As
for the society itself, it needs individuals who are functionally related with
each other for the continuous maintenance and sustenance of the social
heritage.
Maintaining and sustaining the social
heritage requires a mechanism that creates and forges a social bond between and
among the members of the society. This mechanism takes the form of a social
contract that establishes a contractual bond between and among the individual
members of the society. In some cases, this social contractual bond may appear
in the form of a written law serving as the fundamental law of the society.
This written law is called the constitution. In Jurgen Habermas’ word, he calls
the constitution as the grundgesetsz.[3] In Filipino, we call it as
the pangunahing batas (saligang batas).
In Ilocano, we call it as the kangrunaan
nga paglintegan.
The grundgesetsz being the basic law of the land provides the necessary ground
and foundation of a democratic society that strives to maintain and to sustain
its existence under the power and persuasion of the rule of law. This ground
provides the open space upon which all other laws of the land must emanate,
bow and succumb into. All other laws of the land must be in parallel and must
echo whatever the political sentiments and aspirations enshrined in the
provisions of the constitution as the grund.
To give further emphasis about this assertion,
let us try to examine further the German word grundgesetsz, first, in our own
linguistic currency as Filipinos, and second, in my linguistic jargon as
Ilocano. In Filipino, we call the grundgesetsz
as the pangunahing batas. “Bilang pangunahing
batas, kailangan na manguna
at mangibabaw ang atas nito sa lipunan at sa ating pamayanan. Kinakailangan din
na manguna
ang atas
nito sa kung ano mang batas na mabubuo”
for the greater scheme of things in the body politic. In a society under a rule
of law, “ang unang atas ng pangunahing batas sa lipunan ay kailangan
mapanatili” to ensure societal and communal order. Furthermore, in Ilocano, we call the grundgesetsz as the kangrunaan nga paglintegan. “Kas kangrunaan
nga paglintegan,” we could see
how the word ground(una) is again reverberated. Linteg in Ilocano means
law. From the word “paglintegan,” it echoes not only the law (linteg) but also the
need to straighten up things according to the rule of law. Hence, the word aglinteg
in Ilocano. “Ang pamamalagi at pakikibahagi sa isang lipunan (Ti panagnaed,
pannakikadua ken pankimaysa iti gimong)ay nangangailangan ng isang tuwid na
pagsunod sa saligang batas na siyang sandigan ng isang demokratikong pamayanan.”
As the matrix upon which all other laws of
the land emanates, it must secure the necessary legal space through which
supplementary and subsidiary laws are to be created, to be enforced and to be
implemented. It must ensure that rights, privileges, powers, duties and
obligations are not curtailed but may be regulated for public order, public
safety, public health, public morals and for the sake of national security and
interests. The constitution serving as the fundamental law of the land provides
the necessary guiding principles and precepts on how the individual members and
the institutions of the society relates to each other in a functional,
cooperative and inter-subjective manner.
Previously, we have stated that the society
may come to be as a result of the nature of the human person as a social being.
Exploring further this claim, I would like to argue that society is but a result
of the deliberate association of persons, who are socially inclined to constitute
an organized body or unit in a cooperative, functional and inter-subjective
manner, and where such unit and its members are bound by a contractual bond in
the form of laws both written and unwritten to regulate the conduct of the
individual members of that body. At this point, let us now proceed to the main
concern of this part of the paper, what makes a society a democratic society?
Not all existing societies in the world are
democratic societies. Some of these societies are democratic while some are
not. The reason could be attributed to the dominant and operative political
ideology in a particular society. By democratic society, I mean to refer to a
society that is constitutionally created and sustained by constitutional
precepts and regulations and where the sovereign power is bestowed to and
exercised by a group or a whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly
through a system of representation. On the other hand, by political ideology, I
mean to refer to a belief system on how political power operates by
rationalizing and legitimizing the favoured economic and governmental order of
the society; likewise, by presenting approaches and policies for its realization
and preservation to ensure that public events, public personalities and public
policies are given political significance for the welfare of the body politic
and the individual members of that body. Having given a working definition of
what a political ideology is, at this juncture, let us discuss some of the
essential features of a democratic society. For a society to be a democratic
society, it must have the following features:
1. Rule of law
The
rule of law is a key feature of a democratic society. It is the first feature
presented because all other features presuppose a law, a fundamental law, a
basic law, the grundgesetsz, pangunahing
batas, kangrunaan nga paglintegan to govern the body politic. The rule of
law would make it possible for private and public rights to be created and to
be guaranteed and where governmental and administrative powers are clearly
outlined, exercised and enforced. Laws form the foundation for
individual legal claims; these result from the application of legal statutes to
individual cases, be these self-executing laws or laws implemented along
administrative paths, (Between Facts and Norms, p.172). Furthermore, from the
actionability of these claims follow the guarantee of legal remedies and the
principle of guaranteeing comprehensive legal protection for each individual,
(Between Facts and Norms, p.172). Nevertheless, the rule of law must not just
be utilized as a mere instrument of the government. As Jurgen Habermas
reverberates:
Binding law and political power form a complex
in which each fulfills a function for the other. At the same time, this complex
opens up the possibility that law will be instrumentalized for the strategic
deployment of power. To counter such instrumentalization, the idea of
government by law requires the state apparatus to be organized in such a way
that any use of publicly authorized power must be legitimated in terms of
legitimately enacted law. Certainly the codes of law and power must always work
for each other if each is to fulfil its own function. But these exchange
relationships feed on a legitimate lawmaking that, as we have seen, goes hand
in hand with the formation of communicative power, (Between Facts and Norms,
p.168-169).
The
rule of law, including the need to fortify it, in a constitutional state,
demands that it must not just simply be approached in a manner that would
concentrate only in terms of how norms and procedures are crafted, prescribed
and enforced. The rule of law, first and
foremost, ought to be the cannon and the directive upon which the entire
society is bound in pursuing a communal interest. Obedience to the rule of law
forms the bedrock of our system of justice.[4] People may not be equal in
terms of biology and physicality, but people may be equal in terms of how their
rights and their correlative obligations should be guaranteed and secured by the
prevailing justice system of the society. The rule of law is crucial and
indispensable in advancing the principles and ideals of democracy like justice,
fairness and equality. Under a rule of law, magistrates serve as legal and
constitutional guardians of the basic law of the land. Unlike that of the other two political branches
whose mandates are regularly renewed through direct election, the Court’s
legitimacy must be painstakingly earned with every decision that puts voice to
the cherished value judgments of the sovereign.[5] The voice of the sovereign
must be reflected in all governmental actions, decisions, and policies in order
to give validity and enforceability to these actions, decisions and policies
affecting the body politic. This is in conformity to “the principle of popular
sovereignty, according to which all governmental authority derives from the
people, the individual's right to an equal opportunity to participate in
democratic will-formation is combined with a legally institutionalized practice
of civic self-determination, (Between Facts and Norms, p.169).” Hence, the need
for citizens’ participation in the decision-making process involving decisions,
policies and actions that affects them. Under its 1987 Constitution, the
Philippines expressly calls itself as “democratic and republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them.”[6] This provision in the 1987
Constitution provides the necessary ground through which magistrates should
accord their judicial duties “to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”[7] A Democratic society like
the Philippines requires not only an executive branch that holds the power of
the sword and a legislative branch that holds the power of the purse, but more
importantly a judicial branch that holds the power of legal hermeneutics by
ensuring that the “pangunahing atas ng saligang batas ay
nasusunod, nabibigyang buhay at kabuluhan sa isang demokratikong pamayanan.”
2. Right to suffrage
The
next feature of a democratic society is the right to suffrage. The right to
suffrage is in accordance to the principle of popular sovereignty. According to
this principle, “all governmental authority derives from the people; the
individual's right to an equal opportunity to participate in democratic will formation
is combined with a legally institutionalized practice of civic
self-determination, (Between Facts and Norms, p.169).” People in the body
politic must have a say on how to conduct the affairs of the government. They
must have a say on how it must be run. They must have a say on how should be
managed.
In
the case of the Philippines, “suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years
of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and
in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding the election.”[8] In a society like the
Philippines where sovereignty resides on the people and all government
authority emanates from them by virtue of the principle of popular sovereignty,
the right to suffrage is a fundamental human right. It is a basic human right
because voting can be one of the most decisive, essential and crucial ways that
individuals in the body politic can pressure, affect, and shape
government-decision making. As upholded and safeguarded under the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections
which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote
or by equivalent free voting procedures.”[9]
Furthermore,
in the same constitutional provision of the 1987 constitution, it clearly
spells out that “no literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall
be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.”[10] This is to ensure that all
qualified members of the body politic may have the chance to directly and to
actively participate on matters affecting not just their individual lives but
also their communal and social life. However, while the right to vote is a
right, it is also a privilege. It is a right since the right to vote is
basically a human right, guaranteed and upholded by the basic law of the land
in a constitutional state, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Nevertheless, it is also a privilege because one must possess the necessary
legal and procedural requirements like age, residency, soundness of mind, prior
registration, etc. Likewise, it must not also be forgotten that the right to
vote carries with it the right not to vote.
A
democratic society must have an effective electoral system. Such system must
provide transparent means both for registration, casting of votes and in the
counting of votes. To provide the validity and enforceability of governmental
actions policies and regulations, the conduct of election must not be rigged by
any irregularity. Hence, “it is the interest of the state to insure honest,
credible and peaceful elections, where the sanctity of the votes and the
secrecy of the ballots are safeguarded, where the will of the electorate is not
frustrated or undermined.”[11] This is the idea of
electoral justice where the principle of popular sovereignty provides the
mechanisms through which civil, social and political rights are created,
guaranteed and upholded with an effective and transparent electoral system.
This electoral system should guarantee the holding of a free, fair, and genuine
elections, and makes readily available legal remedies to file election related
complaint, get a fair trial from an impartial and independent court or a
constitutional body or an administrative agency, and receive an adjudication
and eventually judgement within a reasonable length of time.
3. Representative government
In a society where direct democracy is not
possibly workable, representative government may just be the answer. In a
direct democracy, the size of the population of the body politic including
territorial jurisdiction of that body are important considerations. Direct
governance is initiated and founded on the individual votes of the members of
the body politic. Absence in this form of democracy is the presence of
representatives that make a vote in behalf of their constituents. Political
decisions, actions and policies of the body politic are dependent on the result
of the votes cast by the voters and their collective decisions, not the resolution
or choice of a representative body.
On the other hand, in a society where the
population is considerably big including its territorial jurisdiction, direct
democracy may not just be the answer. Representative government may take the
functional societal structure for the body politic to operate. In this kind of
set up, political decisions, actions and policies of the body politic are
dependent on the resolution or decision of a representative body who vote in
behalf of their constituents. The citizens’ control of their government is
carried out through their representatives who could either be elected directly
or indirectly.
In the Philippines, representative
governance is manifested on how the president, vice-president, senators,
members of the House of Representatives including local government officials
are elected by the people through a direct vote or elected at large. To see
this whole process of representative governance, let us consider three
provisions under its 1987 Constitution. First, “the President and the Vice-President
shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which
shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the
election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter.”[12] This provision of the
constitution clearly spells out the constitutional standard that the President
as the head of state and the Vice-President should be elected by the people through
a popular vote, that is, by direct balloting. This is opposed to a
parliamentary kind of government where the head of state is chosen by the members
of the parliament. Second, “the Senate shall be composed of twenty-four
Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law.”[13] In the case of the members
of the upper house, Senators are elected nationwide. They are elected at large
by the people through a direct and popular balloting similar with the election
of the President and the Vice-President. Third, “the House of Representatives
shall be composed of not more two hundred and fifty member, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among
the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.” In the case of the members of the House of Representatives,
they are elected by in their respective legislative districts. Members of the
lower house are still chosen by their constituents in their respective
legislative districts through direct and popular balloting. At this juncture,
it must again be pointed out that a clean, transparent and honest election must
be ensured to effectuate electoral justice and to make a democratic society
like the Philippines truly a representative government.
4. Accountability of Public Officers
In
a society where representative government is at work and where the rule of law
ought to prevail, there must be institutional mechanisms through which public
officers and employees must be held accountable. There must be ways and means
where the members of the body politic can check, evaluate, critique and decide
the actions of those who represent and work for them in the government. It is
through the principle of accountability that the continued trust and confidence
of the sovereign is secured and sustained.
Any
government in place must have this goal if such government is indeed sincere in
its desire to serve the common good in an honest, transparent and effective
manner, most especially in a democratic society where the principle of popular
sovereignty is an indispensable and necessary guiding principle. In the
Philippines, we have specific constitutional provisions that set in place the
need to make public official and employees accountable to the sovereign people.
First, “the President, Vice-President, the members of the Supreme Court, the
members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed
from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust.”[14] These specific persons in
these particular positions assume key positions in the government that make
them especially accountable to the sovereign people. The common feature of
their respective offices is to serve as the sentinel and defender of the
interest of the public, most especially the fundamental law of the land. A
verified complaint for impeachment should be initiated by the House of
Representatives and its members to act as prosecutors. That is the case since
the individual vote of the individual members of the House of Representatives
are deemed to be the collective-representative votes of their constituents in
their respective legislative districts or the collective-representative votes
of the less empowered sectors of the society that they represent. The Senate,
on the other hand, acts as the impeachment court who could eventually decide
either to remove or not the official subject of the impeachment complaint after
a fair trial. However, while the impeachment court may have some features like
a regular court, such court is more political rather than judicial. It is more
political rather than judicial since it is only through impeachment that the
five specific officials can be made directly and primarily accountable to the
sovereign people. Furthermore, members of the Senate are specifically chosen by
law to be the impeachment court because they represent national interest unlike
members of the House of Representatives who represent regional, localized or
sectoral interests. Second, “the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of
the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporation, and shall, in appropriate cases notify the complainants of the
action taken and the result thereof.”[15] The Ombudsman, on the
other hand, takes cognizance of cases not covered by impeachment either to be
filed in a regular court or the Sandiganbayan.
Institutional
mechanisms must be set in place like what has been mentioned above in order to
continuously keep and uphold public office as public trust, making public
officers and employees serve the people “with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.”[16]
5. Citizens’ participation in the decision-making
process involving decisions and actions that affect them
In
order for government of representation to be truly a representative democracy
under a rule of law, “parliamentary opinion and will-formation must remain
anchored in the informal streams of communication emerging from public spheres that
are open to all political parties, associations, and citizens, (Between Facts
and Norms, p.171).” Governmental decisions, more particularly legislative
undertakings, should be reflective of the streams of informal yet critical and
informed communication originating from the grass root level of the society. A
society is not just simply a homogeneous entity. It is an entity with
sub-entities. It is an entity with a diversified and plurivocal interests,
sentiments and motivations. This assertion can be traced to the rich and
dynamic social heritage found in every gimong
of a democratic society. The word gimong is
an Ilocano word that refers to a voluntary association of individuals who are
equal and free to be themselves and choose to engage and to associate
themselves in a community of other individuals either because they are socially
and culturally bound or simply because they want better bargaining power in
pursuing communal or individual interests.
A
truly representative government must be reflective of the diversified voices,
sentiments and aspirations of the people that constitute the body politic. Every
citizen must take active participation on policy-decision making process that
affects them. This is the idea of public consultation in representative
democracy where plurivocal interests and sentiments are heard and aired in
public fora before acting on an intended governmental policy or decision. It is
in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be
maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the
people’s will.[17] The
valid and legitimate existence of a government is a grounded on how it
balances, guarantees and promotes the plurivocal, diverse and competing
interests and sentiments in a democratic society. Consequently, the civil
society must always be on guard on how the government seeks to attain this
goal.
Though
both the State and the civil society are prescriptive agencies, a civil society
does not have much coercive and enforceability powers as compared to the State.
When it comes to the application of norms and mores in a democratic society, be
these norms and mores are merely customary in nature or they are prescribed
legally in the form of positive laws, the State can always flex it political
muscles. The State has always in its political disposal the use of the power of
the sword which is supported either by the power of the purse and the power of
legal hermeneutics to command obedience, discipline and regulation. The
presence of different administrative agencies under the control and supervision
of the State which deal on specialized societal concerns like water, health,
agriculture, environment, public infrastructure, public budget, weather, land
reform and distribution, electricity, telecommunications, and other social
concerns in the body politic, makes governmental power and authority in terms
of prescribing and enforcing these norms and mores more pervading and
permeating.
The
feature of a democratic society requiring every citizen to take active
participation on policy-decision making process that affects them presupposes a
democratized public sphere where there is a free exchange, evaluation and
interplay of ideas and information. The basic law of the land should provide
provisions that would guarantee and safeguard both the right to information and
the right to disclose such information of public interest. In the Philippines,
the interplay involved between these two rights can be gleaned on how they were
enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
The Right to Information: “the right of people on matters of
public concern shall be recognized, access to official records and to documents
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”[18]
The Right to Disclosure: “subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, that state adopts and implements a policy of full public
disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.”[19]
Providing
institutional mechanisms through which the public can acquire information on
matters of public significance would ensure that people are informed of the
pressing issues that affect their society. This is how genuine feedback
mechanisms can be maintained and sustained in the body politic. Envisioned to
be corollary to the twin rights to information and disclosure is the design for
feedback mechanisms.[20] The concept of feedback
mechanisms is a democratic requirement that there be public consultation first
on matters of public significance and interest, and the reason for this? When
certain governmental action or parliamentary agenda is pursued, people will
have no qualms making themselves subjected to such governmental action or
parliamentary agenda since it has gone through the public arena of discourse,
that is, the agenda has been disclosed to the public to inform the public
themselves; the agenda has been carefully evaluated with the presentation of
propositions and counter-propositions; conclusion has been arrived at by
synthesizing all possible valid, reasonable and justifiable claims; and providing
the reasons why there has to be a need for such action or agenda. This is what
we now call the fundamental and basic requirement of a democratic society,
consensus building on matters of public significance.
From
the discussion made above, a democratic society is a society that is
constitutionally created and sustained by constitutional precepts and
regulations and where the sovereign power is bestowed to and exercised by a
group or a whole body of free and equal citizens directly or indirectly through
a system of representation. Democratic societies to be worthy to be called as
such must have the following essential features: (1.) the rule of law, (2.)
right to suffrage, (3.) representative governance, (4.) accountability of
public officers, and (5.) citizens’
participation in the decision-making process involving decisions and actions
that affect them. It is also imperative to note at this juncture that the idea
of a democratic society must not be trapped simply by the concept of “the
people’s will,” why the assertion? One has to consider that despite the
existence of a democratic-constitutional state, there exists also a civil
society constituted by the voluntary association of individuals who are equal
and free to be themselves and choose to engage and to associate themselves in a
community of other individuals either because they are socially and culturally
bound or simply because they want better bargaining power in pursuing communal
or individual interests. Real convergence and confluence of the plurivocal,
diverse and competing interests and sentiments in a democratic society must
resonate from every governmental action or in every parliamentary agenda.
CONSENSUS BUILDING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
In a democratic society, consensus building
is imperative. As previously mentioned, real convergence and confluence of the
plurivocal, diverse and competing interests and sentiments in a democratic
society must resonate from every governmental action or in every parliamentary
agenda. However, consensus building must not just take place within the halls
of congress or within the four corners of legislative or governmental buildings
but more importantly in the public arena of the public sphere. Consensus
building should and must have to be exhausted to fully democratize the public
sphere. By consensus building, it is the collaborative process of arriving with
an agreement or resolution utilized primarily to adjudicate and to resolve
complex, pluralistic and multiparty discords and concerns. A democratic society
must have consensus building as its groundwork. By groundwork, it signifies the
foundation or the cornerstone of a democratic society.
Despite arguing the indispensable role
played by consensus building in a democratic society as the groundwork of a
democratic society, consensus building nonetheless necessitates the presence of
functional and unifying language. There must have to be a language that is not
merely borrowed but a language that is native to the tongue of the
member-participants themselves. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s project on “language
games” plays a crucial role in consensus building. Consensus building requires
some guiding rules and principles, one of which is the necessity to use a
language that never limits nor restricts consensus but a language that is
inclusive and a language that encourages participation from member
participants. Likewise, Martin Heidegger’s “project of throwness” in a
spatio-temporal context presupposes the presence of “language games” that truly
reflects the socio-cultural heritage of a society. Furthermore, Jurgen Habermas
project on “communicative action,” on the one hand, is also premised on the
need to have a functional language that does not only lay down validity claims but
a language that serves as vessel for mutual understanding providing the
mechanism of action coordination and thereby providing validity claims to
consensus building actions and agendas.
Political reality as the source of meaning
in consensus building process is always pillared through language as embedded
in a people’s social heritage. People leave in and through the ambit of
language as political and communicative beings. It is Communicative action is
premised upon this assertion. Language serves as the matrix through which political
reality is constituted, pictured and interpreted. Political reality then
becomes sensible, logical and intelligible because of language.
However, the view above is not sufficient
enough to say that necessary political meaning is necessarily sensible. There is a need to expand the said view by
saying that meaning is sensible, logical and intelligible because of language
as something social, contextual, practical and rule-governed. Claiming language as such shall lead us to
the existential character of the “dasein” as “thrown” in the cosmos serving as
the provenance of light where being comes to be. Citizens of any country like
the Philippines must struggle to find a common ground on how to settle issues
dividing the society like for example in the case of the Philippines on whether
or not the Reproductive Health Law and the Cybercrime Law should be enforced
and implemented by the State. Citizens must provide the necessary provenance of
light and legitimizing cause on whether or not governmental actions or agendas
should be pursued.
Social convergence can only take place once
people are given the necessary linguistic medium to articulate their goals,
sentiments and aspirations. The People in the body politic must have the
necessary linguistic currency in consensus building process. The articulation of
goals, sentiments and aspirations of the people in the body politic must be
made in a language that is developed and embedded in their own spatio-temporal context.
Sociologist Randy David echoing Friedrich
Nietzsche on the development of consciousness avers that the development of language and the development of consciousness go hand in hand.[21]
Real social convergence, social fusion or social integration for a truly
inclusive consensus building process in the form of communicative action may
only take place through the existing language-games used by member-participants
in the socio-cultural context where they belong.
In a multi-lingual and
multi-cultural society like the Philippines where the political quest for
recognition is unwavering, consensus building must be imbued in the social
consciousness of the public. This must be the case if the Philippines want to
create a unified Filipino nation with many languages and many cultures. The
public must be fully convinced on why there is a need to come up with a unified
linguistic currency that would bridge and create the necessary social-cultural
convergence of the entire nation. The 1987 Philippine Constitution posits:
The national language of the
Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and
enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. Subject to
provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government
shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as
a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the
educational system.[22]
The presence of a unifying medium to
achieve mutual understanding and thereby achieve coordinated action is what is
truly needed in a country like the Philippines with a high tendency for
regionalism, a character reflective of the divide and conquer rule of the
colonizers. Despite the apprehensions of some of having Filipino as the
national language because of its close connection with the Tagalog language of
“Imperial Manila,” there is already a growing public consciousness on how
crucial it is to speak and articulate in language that is not just simply
borrowed from the Indo-European languages of the colonizers, but a language which
has its root and origin from the Austroneasian languages. The use of Filipino
as a unified linguistic medium could be seen on how Filipinos from different
regions of the Philippines, from Basco, Batanes to Jolo, Sulu, articulate common
issues and pressing concerns affecting the Philippine nation like the most
pressing issue affecting Philippine society today, the misuse of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund by some “pork-tician” officers in the government
and their cohorts in the private sector. The growth of a national consciousness
is dependent on a people’s need to communicate their distress and their
aspirations to one another, (Randy David). Consensus building must be made in a
language close to the heart and mind of the member-participants. This is how
Gadamer’s project on “fusion of horizons” can truly materialize if people in
the public sphere could communicate their distress and aspirations to one
another in a language embedded in their own social heritage. As Randy David
again reverberates:
But, we give up something else when we rely
on the resources of a borrowed language to be able to communicate with one
another. We give up the chance to develop a national consciousness—that is to
say, a view of the world that reflects our shared experience and aspirations as
a people. This consciousness is what cognitively unites us and compels us to
develop a language. It is what permits us not only to imagine a common past but
also to agree on common purposes.
All members of the Philippine society like
any other society having their own nationalist concerns and sentiments must be
empowered to grasp and to understand the present concerns affecting the body
politic in order to find a common ground on how to address these concerns and
sentiments. As what has been repetitively argued, language acts as vessels not
just of socio-cultural meanings but political meanings as well. To further
argue on this point; let us try to further engage Wittgenstein’s view on
“language games” vis-a-vis on Jurgen Habermas’ “discourse theory and
communicative action.”
The existence of various and diversified
modalities of life in a given specified milieu ensures the dynamic instead of a
static constitution of meaning, thus, Wittgenstein writes:
So you are saying that human agreement
decides what is true and what is false?”___It is what human beings say is true
and false; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in
form of life.[23]
If language is to be a means of
communication there must be agreement not only in definitions but also (queer
as this may sound) in judgments, (PI 242, p. 88).
The creation of meaning through a
cooperative and communal enterprise asserts the fact that language is by nature
social or communal. The meaning of a word or an action is agreed upon by a
group of people or a culture in a particular spatio-temporal context where
constellation of meaning is embedded.
Furthermore, the cosmos is a composite of diversified cultures and
races, and as long as this character of the cosmos remains unchanged, every
political reality is and will always be a constellation of diversified and
plurivocal meanings. In order that there will be a unity in diversity in the
cosmos arising from these diversified cultures and races as the womb of constellated
meaning, the meaning of a word or an act must be agreed upon through convention
for the sensibility and comprehensibility of such meaning. Wittgenstein, in
this case, emphasizes the point that there is no such thing as a private language
but public language. This public character of language opens up possibilities
for a fruitful dialogue and consensus building process not just with the self,
but also within the whole range of the others in the body politic. Language can
never be extracted from a socio-cultural context whenever people want to legitimate
and validate the meaning of a word. Like for example in the interpretation of a
legal text, judicial interpretation must always take into consideration
legislative intent of the framers and the socio-historical background involved in
the constitution of that law. Likewise, judicial interpretation must also
resonate the existing and the prevailing needs do the society. Consensus
building in judicial hermeneutics must always consider these factors most especially
High Courts of democratic societies who act as a collegial body in the
safeguarding and interpreting the laws of those societies. Doing this would
ensure that a genuine interplay between the lexical meaning and the spirit of
the law to be enforced and implemented by the State. Language never ceases
itself to be with a background because it is through with a background that
language makes a meaning sensible, comprehensible and intelligible. In order to
maintain the integrity of a meaning arising from a context, it must be
maintained and preserved through its union with the same contextual background.
Furthermore, aside from being social and
communal, “language is an instrument. Its concepts are instruments,” (PI 569,
p. 151). Through certain concepts provided for by language, it is made possible
for people to engage themselves in a sort of hermeneutical contact with the
political reality they are into. Through the use of concepts, the prevailing political
reality in the body politic is communicated to the people in the form of linguistic
phenomenon. Take for example the issue on the widespread misuse of public funds
in the Philippines through the PDAF-Priority Development Assistance Fund, also
known as pork barrel fund. The term pork
barrel fund has evolved into different concepts from Congressional Initiative
Allocation (CIA) to Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) to Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) which refer to pork or the funds earmarked for the local
pet projects of legislators.[24] Filipino citizens at
present have come to understand lately pork barrel funds not as an instrument
of societal and communal development but as an instrument through which some
pork hungry politicians tend to run for public office for their personal gain and
consumption.
Concepts are indeed indispensable content
of people’s linguistic currency because “concepts lead us to make
investigations; are the expressions of our interest and direct our interest,”
(PI 570, p. 151). Thus, language is the people’s medium to their reality. Language
gives people a glimpse of their reality. Language bridges citizens to the
political reality of their State. How is it possible then for language to
create such a bridge? Wittgenstein
posits:
A proposition is a picture of reality. A
proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it.[25]
Through the mirroring power of language,
the possibility of creating a bridge between citizens and the political reality
in their State is made to materialize.
As a sign of respect to Wittgenstein, it is quite significant to give a
cautious and sensitive notice on the word “model” that he used in his argument.
Speaking of model, Wittgenstein is not trying to pursue here the claim that language
leads us to see reality as it is. Using the word model should give us a hint
that language provides us a portrait, a sketch or a paradigm to comprehend and
visualize reality as it appears to us. Thus, Wittgenstein reiterates that “we
must do away with all explanations, and description alone must take its place,”
(PI 109, p. 47).
The view of picturing reality through
language must not be misconstrued as an attempt to define but to demonstrate
reality as portrayable. Any attempt to define reality shall only hinder and
suppress the dynamic unfolding and evolution of meaning from various modes and
modalities of human linguistic currency. To drive the discussion further,
speaking now of language as an instrument, language and the meaning it
generates should not be simply limited from its mere surrounding. Considering
language as an instrument necessitates also the need to consider the
practicality of a word vis-à-vis to its contextual background. Wittgenstein reiterates then that “the
meaning of a word is its use in the language,” (PI 43, p. 20).
To discern and comprehend the meaning of a
word, there is a need for people to free their thoughts from the illusionary
belief that the object through which a word stands for is the sole matrix and
fountain of meaning for that word. In unveiling and disclosing the real meaning
of a used word, it requires a certain degree of sensitivity on the practical
use of a word from its contextual background.
Different variety of meaning arises because
of the presence of different variety of language. There are different varieties
of language in our linguistic economy because there are different forms and
modalities of life that serves as the matrix of a variety of different “language-games.”
Speaking of language-game, Wittgenstein avers:
I shall call the whole, consisting language
and the actions into which it is woven, the “language-game,” (PI 7, p. 5).
To engaging oneself with language
presupposes a kind of activity, that is, a rule governed activity that can create
intimate connections in the society. With the creation of intimate connections,
citizens are enabled to perceive and to recognize certain degree of similitude
and interconnectedness in their belongingness in the State where a system of
rights, actions and obligations are present. It is through these stately
connections in the body politic that people call themselves citizens of a
certain State. These connections can be seen on how Wittgenstein presents his
view on how language establishes and enables connections:
Instead of producing something common to
all that we call language, I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing
in common which makes us use the same word for all,___but they are related to
one another in many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or
these relationships, that we call them all “language,” (PI 65, p. 31).
Language is like those games that people
play that once they are consummated or mesmerized by the game, they continue
playing the game harmoniously with the other players. Having experienced once
to play the game could give people a first hand and immediate encounter on the
basic rules of the game. The second time around that the game is played, people
would already have in mind a meaningful view on how to start and eventually
inter-subjectively immersed the self in the game. In consensus building
process, rules must be set into place if it is really intended that a common
ground is to be explored. However, the possibility for tension and discord to
arise is still inevitable despite the nature of language as a rule governed
activity similar to consensus building process. There is always a possibility
for spoilers to come out if some interest groups are not engaged in the
consensus building process. Any breach in linguistic currency could be the
possible result of an inadequate response to the established rules of the game
or it can also be that the rules have already become insufficient to represent
the modality of life existing through the progress of time. Thus, the need for linguistic
and conceptual refinement in order to achieve mutual understanding in order to
achieve coordinated action. Despite the nature of language as the product of
agreement to ensure meaningful communication, language never remains to be
static as reality would always be in a Heraclitarian “state of flux.” Wittgenstein posits:
We are struggling with language. We are engaged in a struggle
with language.[26]
Citizens’ language-games should always be
receptive to the possibility of change for a meaningful encounter with their
political reality. Despite the recognition given to language as a contextual
rule-governed activity, rules on the use of language need not be that absolute,
universal and necessary nor even be arbitrary to allow the dynamism of reality
to unfold. The dynamism of reality should not be constrained to unfold through
the use of certain logical or mathematical formulas or even through the use of
strict judicial interpretation of laws to prove the validity of certain facts
in reality. In order to fully resonate to the public sphere the real intent of
the law, a balance must be made between the lexical and literal meaning of the
law and the spirit of the law. Hence, legal hermeneutics must always be guided
by the legal maxim: “interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the
spirit that giveth life.”[27]
At this juncture, it is imperative to point
out that language assumes a crucial role under the principle of discourse to
achieve mutual understanding and communicative action in a democratic society. Under
this principle of discourse, “practical reason no longer resides in universal
human rights, or in the ethical substance of a specific community, but in the
rules of discourse and forms of argumentation that borrow their normative
content from the validity basis of action oriented to reaching understanding,
(Between Facts and Norms, p.296-297). Discourse theory reckons with the
higher-level inter-subjectivity of processes of reaching understanding that
take place through democratic procedures or in the communicative network of
public spheres, (Between Facts and Norms, p. 299). Under Habermas’ procedural
concept of democracy, every democratic society which aims to anchor and ground
its existence in a deliberative mode of politics should and must take into
consideration the following presuppositions: (1.) no one capable of making a
relevant contribution has been excluded, (2.) participants have equal voice,
(3.) they are internally free to speak their honest opinion without deception
or self-deception, and (4.) there are no sources of coercion built into the
process and procedures of discourse. Consensus building process, whether in the
halls of Congress or in Parliamentary bodies, or simply in the life-world of
localized gimongs, or in judicial
halls where magistrates act as collegial body, should and ought to be inclusive
taking into account the four Habermasian presupposions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
From what has been discussed, it has been
pointed out how the person as a social being may come to the full realization
of (he)r nature as such by becoming a member of the body politic. The
individual and the society have a complimentary and supplementary relationship.
The individual and the society are interrelated and interdependent. To exist
and to live in isolation is not possible for the individual person. There has
to be a social heritage where the individual person can be socially and
culturally identified and differentiated apart from other biological beings. In
the case of the society, it needs individuals who are functionally related with
each other for the continuous maintenance and sustenance of the social heritage
and the body politic as well.
The body politic as pointed out here is a
state under a democratic society. A society that claims itself to be democratic
like the Republic of the Philippines and all other states that claim to be
democratic must at least have the following essential features: (1.) the rule
of law, (2.) right to suffrage, (3.) representative governance, (4.)
accountability of public officers, and (5.) citizens’ participation in the
decision-making process involving decisions and actions that affect them.
The idea of a democratic society, however,
must not be limited only to the idea of “the people’s will.” In all democratic
societies, there are localized associations or interest groups called as civil
society groups that are constituted by the voluntary association of individuals
who are equal and free to be themselves and choose to engage and to associate
themselves in a community of other individuals either because they are socially
and culturally bound or simply because they want better bargaining power in
pursuing communal or individual interests. Real convergence and confluence of
the plurivocal, diverse and competing interests and sentiments in a democratic
society must resonate from every governmental action or in every parliamentary
agenda. This can take place through consensus building process as the
groundwork of a democratic society. Consensus building process being the
cornerstone of a deliberative politics where citizens’ actively participate in
the decision-making process involving decisions and actions that affect them.
Deliberative politics can be seen lately at
work in the Philippines on how the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of
national circulation in the country, exposed the ten billion pesos pork barrel
scam. Because of the said expose, Filipinos from all walks of life with the
help of some social networking sites came up with a consensus that the pork
barrel system should be scrapped. Filipinos have seen that the pork barrel
system is merely a source of corruption in the Philippines. It is also widely
believed by the Filipino public that the pork barrel system has only become the
driving force for some politicians turned into “pork-ticians” to run for public
office. Some groups are even saying that the issue on political dynasty is
deeply connected in the existence of the pork barrel system in the Philippines.
Recently, I had a discussion with some students of the School of Humanities of
Saint Louis University, I asked them this question: If you will scrap from the
national budget the Priority Development Assistance Fund, then what do you
intend to do with this fund? Some students gave these suggestions to channel
the fund to the following: health services, education, socialized housing,
payment of national debt, defense.
The process of consensus building as
groundwork of a democratic society demands that rules must be set into place if
a common ground is to be explored. But tension and discord may still occur in
the process despite the nature of language as a rule governed activity. If some
interest groups are not engaged in the consensus building process, then there
is always a possibility for spoilers to come out. Any contravention in the
linguistic discourse could be the possible result of an inadequate response to
the established rules of the game. Hence, the need to have a functional
language that does not only lay down validity claims but a language that serves
as vessel for mutual understanding providing the mechanism of coordinated
action and thereby providing validity claims to consensus building actions and
agendas.
[1] A paper submitted by the author before the
Graduate School of Law of San Beda, Mendiola last August 27, 2013 as a
requirement for the course in Master of Laws.
[2] Aristotle, Politics: “Man is
by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not
accidentally is either beneath our notice or more human. Society is something
that precedes the individual. Anyone who is either cannot lead the common life
or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of
society, is either beast or a god.”
[3] Jurgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norm
(Contributions to a Discourse Theory on Law and Democracy), trans. William
Rehg, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996), p. 390. [Hereinafter
shall be referred to as Between Facts and Norms]
[4] People vs. Veneracion, G. R. No. 119987-88,
12 October 1995, 319 Phil. 364.
[5] As enunciated in the dissenting opinion of
then Associate Justice MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, G.R. No. 176951 – (LEAGUE OF
CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.); G.R. No.
177499 –(LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.); G.R. No. 178056 –(LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET
AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.), Promulgated: June 28, 2011.
[6] Article II, Section 1 on the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies.
[7] Article VIII, Section 1 on Judicial
Department.
[8] Article V, Section 1 on Suffrage.
[9] Article 21 of The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
[10] Article V, Section 1 on Suffrage.
[11] Roque et al vs. Commission on Election, G.R.
No. 188456, 10 September 2009.
[12] Article VII, Section 4 on the Executive
Department.
[13] Article VI, Section 2 on the Legislative
Department.
[14] Article XI, Section 2 on Accountability of
Public Officers.
[15] Article XI, Section 12 on Accountability of
Public Officers.
[16] Article XI, Section 1 on Accountability of
Public Officers.
[17] Valmonte vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, 13
February 1989.
[18] Article III, Section 7 on the Bill of
Rights.
[19] Article II, Section 8 on the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies.
[20] Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP, G.R. No.
183591, 14 October 2008.
[21] “Nietzsche’s
conclusion is as simple as it is powerful: “The development of language
and the development of consciousness go hand in hand.” But Nietzsche was
such a staunch critic of national identity that he would have regarded national
consciousness as an example of herd mentality. He thought of himself not
as a German but as a European. Still, I would extend his idea and argue
that the growth of a national language goes hand in hand with the growth of a
national consciousness. In turn, the growth of a national consciousness
is dependent on a people’s need to communicate their distress and their
aspirations to one another. If this view is correct, we might begin to
understand our failure to develop a national language, and our persistent
longing to have one. For as long as Filipinos needed only to communicate
their fear and their loyalty to their colonial masters, they saw no need for a
common national language. It was when they had to communicate with one
another for the purpose of uniting against a common oppressor that their
consciousness as a nation began to flourish, and they felt the need for a
common language. Therefore, I would surmise that the period of the anti-colonial
revolution was also the highest moment in the development of our national
language,” (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 August 2013). [Hereinafter shall be
referred to as Randy David]
[22] Article XIV, Section 6 on Education, Science
and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports.
[23] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations,
trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974), PI 241, p. 88. [Hereinafter shall be referred to as PI.]
[24] Nograles, Prospero C. and Edcel C. Lagman, Understanding
the Pork Barrel, House of Representatives. Coronel, Sheila S. (ed),
et al. Pork and Other Perks: Corruption and Governance in the Philippines,
Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, 1998.
[25] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicos,
trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (London: Routledge and Keagan Paul,
1961), TLP 4.01, p. 37.
[26] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value,
trans. Peter Winch, ed. G. H. Von Wright (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1980), p. 11.
[27] The legal maxim used the High Court of the
Philippines in deciding the case of Cayetano vs Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 3
September 1991.
