Ojála
nramos@theguidon.com

In the years I’ve spent in the Ateneo, I have come to notice a trend when it comes to Sanggunian elections—past the personality politics and non-ideological political formation debates, what seems to be lacking is what I believe to be fundamental: Politicization.

The past three years of the Sanggunian elections have formed a pattern. Candidates usually place politicization inside a box and stow it away, instead focusing on what they believe is important to their constituency: Neutrality. That is not to say that the Sanggunian doesn’t do anything, as most of the student government’s detractors are more wont to do.

I think that instead of making difficult decisions or choosing a side, the Sanggunian engenders a habit of being apolitical. This fear of being related to politics is not something completely baseless, however. Politics, especially in the Philippines, has been smeared with the ugly face of corruption.

It’s easy to assume that the negative image of politics in the Philippines is the reason that candidates running for positions in the Sanggunian distance themselves from the title of politician. More than one candidate has won a position in the Sanggunian by using the term “business” when referring to the Sanggunian and its constituents. In theory, this sort of transactional exchange seems to be the best idea: A student government that is goal and product-oriented.

For one reason or another, people have come to believe that a world without politics is a much simpler one. They’re right. But this simple world is exactly that: Simple, boring, a peacefully dull utopia, devoid of conflict, neutral—like an enlarged version of the Atenean bubble. For one reason or another, people have allowed themselves to believe that politics is irrelevant because there is nothing left to change, and that politics leads to pointless dispute. In that, they are completely wrong.

The beauty of politics lies in its power to disrupt, to make people stop and think. The beauty of politics lies in the conflict that it creates among people, because conflict leads to discourse and discourse leads to understanding and change—even if Filipino politicians seem to be floundering on how to keep things the same.

Politics is so much more than bureaucracy; people see it as excessive red tape, as empty promises and palms greased by peso bills. That doesn’t mean that society’s avoidance of the term “political” is forgivable. The idea of politics as something negative only serves to engender the idea that a world without the conflict that exists in the political arena is a better one. In truth, that world is governed by oppressive neutrality. It perpetuates the idea that when one is a politician, one is always up to something specifically for one’s own advancement.

Having candidates say that politics is irrelevant can be likened to them saying that the status quo will never change. That statement allows us to believe that ignorance is forgivable, that apathy is communal, that having no position when it comes to politics is the best position.