CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This study determines the perspectives of the UP first year political science students on the effectiveness of the Machiavellian philosophy on Marcos Regime. This study will evaluate the awareness and degree of application of the Machiavellian form of leadership on Ferdinand Marcos leadership. In this chapter, studies that are related to the researchers’ study are presented to support and help the researchers gather and interpret data.
According Ranney’s Governing (p.35) a leader is best defined by the status of his subjects or constituents. A good leader can assure the satisfaction of the people involved. On the other hand, a bad leader could cause the failure of downfall of a nation. It all depends on the qualities of the leader leading a nation or group. All leaders employ different styles, tactics and personalities.
Based on Machiavelli’s The Prince (p.12), “The end justifies the means”. This idea states that a leader may do anything in order to maintain or improve the welfare of a state. Nowadays, many adhere to this believing that this path is the best one to take. A dictator like Adolf Hitler of Germany was proof of an application of Machiavelli’s idea. The World War II was the effect of this dictator’s idea of expansion for Germany. Hitler believed that Germany was strong enough to be one of the most powerful countries in the world. Cruelty and ruthlessness were frequently shown against those who opposed Hitler’s campaign. This act definitely expresses Machiavelli’s famous words. Another famous person who had the same concept of leadership was Benito Mussolini. This dictator was famous because of his tyranny and cruelty in Italy. This means that many had suffered and became miserable under his rule. Many leaders instill Machiavelli’s idea in leadership.
Another dictator who drastically changed the shape of a nation was Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. Marcos was born on September 11, 1917 and was seated on December 30, 1965 as the 10th president of the Philippines. Marcos was famous for building great infrastructures in the country. Under his rule, the Philippines grew economically and prospered (Spence, 1979, p. 23). He was known for declaring Martial Law on the Philippines from 1972 until 1981 after serving for two terms as President.
For nine years many people suffered and tried to resist Marcos’s growing reign of brutality and terror (De Quiros, 1997, p. 56). During all those years of Martial Law, Ferdinand Marcos and his wife lived a prosperous life. Rodriguez (1985) said that the Marcos family lived happily like royalty while the nation suffered (p. 97). With Marcos’s tyranny came strict laws and rules regarding society. These laws prohibited and restricted some social gatherings and meetings. Policy of curfew was implemented all throughout the country. From time to time many tried to rebel and fight the tyranny, Marcos’s men rooted these people out and subjected them to torture. Finally a man name Benigno Aquino stepped up and rose against his rule. A senator at that time, he was one of the leaders of the opposition along with some other men. Aquino wanted the Filipino people to be free from their dictator’s strong grasp. President Marcos then ordered the arrest of the leaders of the opposition albeit failed in the attempt. Then Ninoy Aquino was assassinated and the resistance strengthened even more. Aquino’s death enabled the citizens to work together and fight back. Led by Ninoy’s wife, Corazon Aquino, the Filipino people held a revolution that finally removed Ferdinand Marcos’s rule as the President of the Philippines and thus ended his dictatorship and Martial Law.
Ferdinand Marcos believed in Niccolo Machiavelli’s concept of leadership and the maintenance of power as manifested through his kind of leadership and the policies and programs he initiated(how) The idea that the end justifies the means can clearly be seen during Marcos’s regime. Marcos wanted a prosperous nation. Marcos said, “This nation can be great again. This I have said over and over. It is my articles of faith, and Divine Providence has willed that you and I can now translate this faith into deeds” Spence (1979) during his SONA. But for him, in order to achieve it, certain rules of morality had to be broken and trod upon. Indeed many had suffered for many years due to his ruthless and cruel ways, but all was done for the nation according to Marcos. Ferdinand Marcos considered his regime to be the new society. He believed that his rule would improve the Philippines’s state and empower the country more, be it economically or politically. Somewhat like the German dictator, Adolf Hitler, Marcos instilled fear into the hearts of the citizens hoping to achieve a better country for the Filipinos.
Some consider Marcos to be a great man and leader. According to Mcdougald (1987), Ferdinand Marcos was one of the Presidents who were almost able to boost the Philippines to its highest potential (p. 45). Marcos’s ideals for the nation were indeed great, but his means of achieving them were tainted with impossibilty. Indeed Niccolo Machiavelli’s idea influenced this president greatly. Marcos’s cruel and strict means were his guide towards achieving a prosperous and peaceful society. Indeed Marcos’s ways led to a more peaceful society, but through the revolution itself (Spence, 1979, p. 67). Also, Marcos was able to establish better relations with other countries and improved trade of resources among neighboring nations. Economy was greatly boosted in the Philippines for some time.
But towards the end of Marcos’s regime, the state of the nation plunged down again. The nation was in the state of utmost revolution against Ferdinand Marcos’s rule. The famous EDSA Revolution finally exiled President Ferdinand Marcos and elected Corazon Aquino as the succeeding president of the Philippines.
“Ferdinand Marcos was both a great man and a tyrant” (McDougald,1 987). He both helped rise and degraded the state of the country. Though through his regime thousands of people suffered, his dictatorship pushed the Filipino to work together and cooperate to win their freedom. His laws enabled the Filipino People to set aside differences and work hard for the betterment of their lives.
This is the point when what the people perceive really matters. This is somehow a Judgment Day of whether or not the people consider Marcos’ regime as beneficial or detrimental, effective or degrading. As we hover through different social strata, we can witness different reactions regarding this matter.
There are different kinds of people in the world and every single one of them is unique and different. These people have different mindsets, ways of thinking, and thoughts. These mindsets are called perceptions. According to Akins (1996), Perception is defined as how you look at others and the world around you. Being able to select, organize and intercept information starts the perceptual process. Perception affects the way people communicate with others. An individual’s pattern of thinking can affect their perception of others. Most people communicate best with people of similar cultures. Perception is the process of understanding of sensory information (p. 2). Perceptions are based on a number of elements that each individual possesses. What one perceives is a result of interplays between past experiences, including one’s culture, and the interpretation of the perceived. For instance, culture is an important aspect in determining one’s perception on a topic. For example, a person that grew up on Christian culture would have different perceptions on religion than a person from an Islamic culture. Another example of an aspect is the environment or state of surroundings the person grew up in. People who are accustomed to a poor environment would have different perspectives compared to those with rich environments.
Perceptions vary in every individual (Hinton, 1993, p. 124). Also perceptions are greatly affected by biases and prejudices. One could perceive a person he just met as someone entirely different. The idea – “Judging a book by its cover” can be clearly seen. For instance, a guy dressed up in all black and wearing a hood during a dark night would arouse suspicions or thoughts depending on what the one who sees him is thinking. A woman may get scared or would try to avoid the person. Perceptions are ideas on a certain topic that rely on one’s beliefs and customs. Perceptions are based on psychological elements and ideas of the person. This makes perception a really necessary and important part of person’s personality.
Our perceptions on the different things around us tell us what we are and how we think (Rock, 1985, p. 45). Psychologists who are specialist in reading how people think and feel would easily understand the logics of one’s perception on a topic. Perception shows what kind of person we are. Ideas regarding the topic usually involve perceptions on the matter. Our insights and opinions on something vary with others’ insights and opinions and thus put each and every single person apart. Perceptions involve both the mind and emotions and thus are irreplaceable and essential parts of our individuality.
In addition, a number of political philosophers had made varied viewpoints to Machiavellian philosophy – most of which are antagonistic to Machiavelli.
Common folks usually regard Machiavellian philosophy as evil. Machiavellian philosophy stands outside the main tradition of European political thought. He thinks and speaks of society and government differently from the great medieval writers, and differently, too, from the great writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, men like Bodin and Hobbes, Hooker and Locke. The medieval writers were mostly concerned with problems of definition, and with deriving men’s rights and obligations from these definitions. Machiavellian philosophy is nothing of the kind. He cares nothing for traditional arguments because he does not put traditional questions. Machiavellian philosophy does not, as Hobbes and the Utilitarians do, no less than Aquinas, put these two questions: What is man? And what are his rights and duties? Seeking in the answer to the first question a key to the answer to the second. He offers no definitions, and never seeks to explain why, the same sense with Aquinas, Bodin, Hobbes and Locke, a political philosopher. The question which to them seemed the most important, the question of political obligation, does not interest him. He wants to know what makes government strong, what makes freedom possible, how power is mostly easily obtained and preserved.
Yet, these philosophical judgments of Machiavelli could not be considered as the proper way. According to Bennagen (1960), Machiavelli was a political scientist. He was trying to support his conclusions by an appeal to the facts. He is interested in man, not as he ought to be, but as he is. True, he is concerned to do more than explain how governments function; he does not merely describe, he also prescribes; he gives advice about what should be done to create or to restore strong government. But he does not speak to men of their destiny of ends which they, as rational creatures, are obliged to pursue. He takes it for granted that they want strong government, and confines himself to advertising them how they can get it.
Indeed, "The Prince" is a detailed blueprint of Machiavellian philosophy that highlights the nuances of persuasion and power, but the text of this early sixteenth-century document can be transferred into our age. Rulers decide for themselves whether it is best to be loved or feared, and that decision can make a real difference in our lives.
In our day and age, youth participation is important in developing initiative in democracy. When lack of confidence and apathy toward political processes is increasing worldwide, the new generation must be educated about how to build a strong democracy. But active citizenship cannot be expected to happen overnight when a person reaches voting age: it must be learned “by doing” through everyday experiences: opportunities to participate in shared decision-making, listening to different opinions, weighing options and consequences. These are individual skills that help build civil society and young people’s commitment to the democratic process. Encouraging young people to become involved is even more crucial in regions where there is little or no tradition of democratic forms of government. In such cases, it is essential to teach the young about electoral systems and the potential of individuals to create the democratic process. Therefore, political socialization is an important element in the overall political process (Heywood, 2002, p. 56). Political socialization involves a process by which the individual comes to internalize or learn certain politically relevant social patterns, which includes certain norms, attitudes and behaviors, corresponding to his societal position as mediated or transmitted to him through various agencies of the society. 1Children and the youth are exposed to a variety of institutions and agents. Some, like civics courses in schools, deliberately designed for this purpose. Others, like play and work groups, are likely to affect political socialization in general. The family, school, religious institutions, peer groups, occupation, class, status, the mass media, the interest groups, and the political parties. Though these institutions and agents, the children and the youth are influenced and possess particular information and belief about their government (Parel, 1972, p. 63)
We can categorize the agents of socialization under two general classifications: the Human sources, and the media sources. In the literature on political socialization, the family looms large as one of the most prominent, if not the most important, human agents in the transmission of political orientation to young children. Other human sources would be school, teachers, friends and other people. The media sources would be books, newspapers and magazines, radio and television and maybe in cinema.
Our first political ideas were shaped within the family. Parents seldom “talk politics” with their young children directly, but casual remarks made around the dinner table or while helping with homework can have an impact. Family tradition is particularly a factor in party identification as indicated by the phrases “Lifelong Republican” and “Lifelong Democrat” (Heywood, 2002, p. 120). The family may be losing its power as an agent of socialization; however, as institutions take over more of child care and parents perform less of it. Next, children are introduced to elections and voting when they choose class officers and the more sophisticated elections in high school and college teach the rudiments of campaigning. Political facts are learned through the courses in American history and government, we have become so accustomed to using the world science lightly – to describe the most commonplace activities – that a newcomer to the science of politics could easily mistake it for just another newfangled course of studies with a pompous name. In reality, political science is one of the oldest scientific disciplines of the Western world and one of the central concerns in the life of man and society.
No comments:
Post a Comment