On Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) The Social Contract, and John Locke’s (1632-1704) The Second Treatise of the Government, they both agreed that the only way to insure the effectivity of the General Will in the Social Contract is by total participation. This means that everyone is obliged to comply with the General Will and if not, they should be compelled to do so. Furthermore, various historical accounts show that some countries used people power revolution when their government went out of the real idea of the General Will. Nonetheless, this paper tries to prove that the notable Second People Power or EDSA Revolution of 2001 is NOT actually an expression of General Will unlike the other revolutions based on the ideas presented by Rousseau and Locke.
First, it is important to establish a succinct definition of General Will. According to Rousseau, man is naturally good and free but he still needs to enter the Social Contract to be a nobler kind of individual and be dependent with others and others with him. As he enters, he acquires a different kind of liberty, the Civil, which is limited by the General Will.
Meanwhile, the General Will is the common interest or the intersection of the interests of all citizens in the community and who enter the Social Contract. It is always for the common good. It demands the complete obedience of every individual; if one disagrees with it, he must then be compelled to obey still. Rousseau further asserts that each person wants to be good and liberal and therefore, would want to obey the General Will since only through it that people could attain these. It is inviolable, infallible and so, ALWAYS right. However, Rousseau also insists in his work that every man is free, equal, and independent; thereby, all should have equal power and influence on the General Will that even the elites can’t claim a greater advantage on it.
In the part of the General Will’s implementation, based on Rousseau’s thoughts on authority by convention, the government is the one responsible for it. It should serve the interests of the whole community and at the same time, can’t do anything for the whole without the consent of all inasmuch as everyone is sovereign towards the state. But to clarify, it’s not only the government but everyone has no right to do anything without the consent of all.
John Locke’s work also ratifies the Right to Rebel (in the Social Contract) when the common interest is being violated. According to him, the government should only do what is for the common good. It should protect its people’s Right to Property (life, liberty, and estate) which is under the Natural Law. It must not allow its people’s life to get miserable or must not put long chains of abuses (not a little mismanagement) on them. Otherwise, the people could provoke a revolution against it and consequently, might lose its legitimacy and be overthrown.
If we can remember, through the EDSA 2, Filipinos peacefully revolt against the reigning authority, Philippine President Joseph Estrada or Erap, from January 17–20, 2001 because of the accusations that he lost the trust of the Sovereign People of the Philippines. The last-minute Supreme Court ruling that "the welfare of the people is the supreme law" is the only way to legitimize this revolution. We can also recall that, on that time, the country was divided into two contrasting positions; meaning to say, not everyone consented it. In fact, during the investigation of the envelope-containing evidences against Estrada, 11 out of 21 senators voted to suppress the examination of it which was apparent proof that this people power wasn’t the commmon interest, NOT a General Will. Some also said that it was just a conspiracy among political and business elites, military top brass and Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin; thus, it was just the particular will of SOME and the “accordingly” General Will was already tainted with the influences and power of these SOME.
In addition, on February 2008 parts of the Catholic Church that played a vital role during EDSA II issued a sort of apology- THEIR apology which only means that they meant the revolution as their interest and view alone. Even the late Former President Cory Aquino apologized to Erap for her decision in supporting his impeachment especially when the proceeding Pres. Gloria Arroyo showed disappointing performances to the public.
Moreover, no one couldn’t even compel the cons to choose otherwise because there’s no pertinent evidence that Erap deviated from the execution of the common good. The allegations against the Former Pres. Estrada didn’t actually affect his responsibility to steer the people towards the common good. To tell the truth, the poverty in Arroyo and Ramos’ terms were worse than Erap’s. As President, he was able to increase the Gross National Product up to 3.6% while raising agricultural growth rate to 6.6% from virtual 0% growth. He was also able to lessen inflation rate, registered at 12% around the time he first occupied Malacanang, by some 3% despite of Ramos’ left problem of ZERO savings in the national treasury and the emerging economic crisis on that time.
Hence, Pres. Estrada only had a little mismanagement and it’s not also guaranteed the he stole the property of the people; he didn’t filch anyone’s life and liberty although some declared that he did with estate but again, this can’t be considered as a long chain of abuse.
Truly, in expressing the general will, we can say that the EDSA 2 activists had no right to rebel here because their reasons and evidences were not enough to be regarded as the mutual convention. It was not significant to the state and not for the common good and interest.
By these proofs, it is then clear that the Filipino participants on EDSA 2 committed a great mistake in ousting Pres. Erap regardless also of the fact that the next president was indeed worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment