Most scholarly works that attempt to describe the state of Philippine politics converge on the idea that country has essentially been under an elite democracy, where personalities rule over programs for government, parties return to the public consciousness during election time, and alliances are temporary, non-ideological, and fluid.
It would not be so much of a stretch to claim that the same can be said about the state of Ateneo student politics for the past few years. Every election season feels like the performance of a ritual: familiar names crop up, the formulaic mantras are being chanted repeatedly, and difference is being limited to methods of policy implementation. Unpredictably, the end of every incumbent administration’s term leaves a sense of entrapment and disenfranchisement for most Ateneans. Campus politicians are intuitive enough to run their campaigns based on what appears to work and what enables them to return to their seats of power.
These are symptoms of what political theorist Chantal Mouffe calls the “post-political” society, where conflict and collective identities are eased out of the public sphere in favor of policy frameworks that hone in on the immediate questions of how to manage life in a closed system, and nothing more.
The past school year, however, signifies a glimmer of hope that great and systemic transformations will come to the Ateneo. Ideology—a notion often avoided and rendered invisible from the transcripts of political life inside the campus—has enjoyed a resurgence in the public sphere. Having witnessed the debates between the Sanggunian candidates conducted by The GUIDON last month, I would even dare say that it has become the focal point of most candidates’ platform for government. The recently-concluded election is not the only “moment” that substantiates this claim. There have been other striking examples that show Ateneans’ efforts to articulate varying collective positions, including the differing opinions regarding SM Blue, the divisive stance about “gadflies” among the student population, the birth of new political formations, the expression of contentions about the annual job fair, and the attempts to exhume the rich history of student movements in Ateneo.
This emerging culture of conflict and politicization has been bemoaned by some quarters, for fear that treating the other as an adversary on leads to the ruin of the community. In The Promise of Politics, Hannah Arendt similarly articulates what seems to be the modern zeitgeist—that there exists a prejudice and fear against politics, that it will lead humanity to its own demise; consequently, people who are in the position to persuade are discouraged from doing so, and questions about ideals of society are supplanted by concerns of the private. Addressing the “social question” or the immediate necessities of life are indeed of great importance, and we need not look further than the contemporary global protest actions against the unsustainability and inequitable consequences of having certain economic and political systems in place to show that the up-in-the-clouds discussions on freedom, participation, and power are intimately tied to the fate of every individual.
The process of conjuring “adversaries” among different collectives serves the purpose of calling into question who really calls the shots in the structures and institutions that we encounter in our everyday lives; at the same time, it restores the value, dignity, and respect for every person in the public space whose speech and concerns are taken as equally significant and legitimate with everyone else’s. In framing the situation as such, we are able to see the other as a potential collaborator rather than an enemy that has to be eliminated from the debate. Moreover, we become more proximate to the possibility of constructing alternatives to unjust systems and processes that continue to prevail, as we are imparted with the privilege of listening to viewpoints that are different from ours and given the opportunity to widen our perspectives into that which accommodates the voice of others.
Understandably, the prospect of constant banggaan in the realm of public opinion may elicit alarm and fear to some. However, deepening democracy in this manner likewise emphasizes the critical moment of decision making, thereby enhancing our systems for transparency and accountability. Leaders stand at a critical juncture where convictions have to be articulated in light of the recent shifts in the political temperament of the student population. The Sanggunian must provide more channels for equitable, just, and substantive participation and representation. Freedom of information is an initial move to foster an enabled student body, but they should also be able to theorize about how history, norms, and institutions intertwine and operate. A community that is empowered by having an understanding of things in the past and a hope for the future and, at the same time, enriched by everyday conversation is in the best position to move things forward and making public life truly meaningful.
In the face of crises in democracy inside and outside the campus, it is easy to fall into a state of paralysis and to turn a blind eye. Politics articulated as difference is an active form of promise keeping: it should simultaneously allow for kineticism of thought and action, and ensuring responsibility for one’s opinions. The act of persuading the adversary through discourse and speech is a radical act of care.
Ross Tugade is the former president of The Assembly, the political science organization of the Ateneo. She graduated with an AB Political Science degree in 2010 and is currently finishing her MA in Global Politics.
