W

hen I look back at the

things that inspired me
to write about glass ceilings,
gender, and politics, I always
look back at a fond memory that I
had constantly kept with me for
the past seven years. I remember
it like it was only yesterday when
my mom took me to the living
room of our house to watch a
speech by Hillary Rodham
Clinton.
The
democratic
primaries of 2008 had just ended
and Senator Clinton had just
become the first woman to come
close to becoming the Democratic
nominee for President of the
United States. The speech my
mother and I watched was a
striking one and it was one that
made me wonder at the marvel of
Philippine democracy. It made
me wonder about how women in
our country have somehow been
able to shatter that highest,
hardest glass ceiling while just
across the pacific, where the socalled home of democracy was,
the said glass ceiling was yet to
be broken. How lucky we are that
we have had women presidents
and how we have generations of

people who made history shaped

this country to be the way it is
today. The Philippines is not just
a nation where the women have
become trailblazers in the field of
politics, it is also a country that
has become a trailblazer and a
record breaker in its own right. I
say this because we cannot forget
that it was the Philippines that
became the first country in Asia
to successfully break the shackles
of colonialism, that it was the
Philippines that became the first
country to establish a Republic in
Asia, and that it was this country
of ours that brought down a
dictator through peaceful means.
Our history is filled with amazing
stories of people defying the
odds, making history, and
breaking those barriers set by
people above us.
The achievements we
have made are great yet the work
and the challenges are far from
over. I am writing this article
because even if women have
already made that meteoric rise
to political prominence in our
country, we still have a long way

to go before we see gender

equality in Philippine politics and
society. It is a given fact that a
great number of people still view
politics and leadership as a mans
job. In fact, some men do not
have to go through the question
as to whether or not theyre
ready to be the commander-inchief of the armed forces. Men do
not have to face the below the
belt attack that they are unfit to
rule
because
of
so-called
hormonal imbalances. Men do
not have to face the question of
whether or not they are equipped
to rule because they seem highstrung or emotional. Politics, no
matter
how
many
accomplishments we have made
in the past has remained very
patriarchal in nature.

This kind of nature is

what keeps women and even
members of the LGBT from
having a shot at being a political
figure. In fact, if women have to
claw their way in politics, the
door has been glued shut for the
LGBT community. A lot of us
know that in the social hierarchy,

members of the LGBT are often

part of the lower echelons and
that society has already assigned
roles to the LGBT as beauticians,
designers, and members of the
showbiz industry. A majority of
us never thought of having
members of the LGBT in
Congress, in the Senate, or even
in Malacaang. A majority of us
have already counted out that a
fabulous gay guy can wage an
intelligent discussion on foreign
policy as much as the secretary of
foreign affairs. In the meantime,
some areas of the world have
even had the audacity to
criminalize people who have
differing sexual orientations from
the norms of society. Some
countries have decided that
homosexuality is a western
sickness that must be expunged
from the world. They believe that
homosexuality is some kind of
disease and that the state has the
moral obligation to save its
citizens from the growing
disease. A great deal of us have
already drawn the lines of society
and have one way or another
made sure that certain people
cannot cross those lines, that
others have to fight so hard to
make a point and to cut across
those lines. Some people have
already gone as far as eliminating
those who are not part of the
ideal society.
For democratic countries
all over the world, sexism in
politics and society threatens the
very fabric of their democracy. It
threatens the idea that all of us
no matter what race, economic
status, or gender we have, we are

still entitled to the same rights as

the next guy. Sexism threatens
the idea that democracy must be
for all and it has to be inclusive.
We have to eliminate the idea
that being gay is a sickness or
that being a woman running for
office means the threat of having
a leader who is emotionally
unstable. We have to ask
ourselves whether the questions
we raise are really going to
question the leadership qualities
of a candidate or are we just
questioning them because they
dont possess the usual traits that
we look for in our candidates for
office. We have to make sure that
there is no double standard for
women and members of the
LGBT
when
they
thrust
themselves into the field of
governance. Yes we have
different cultures, beliefs, and
customs but we all share a
common humanity that entitles
each and every one of us the
same rights and opportunities as
the next.
Thus, in every election we
must always be vigilant. I am not
saying that we elect women and
members of the LGBT into office
for the mere fact that theyre a
woman or a member of the
LGBT. I am saying that we have
to make sure that the field is fair
and that the questions we raise
are not attacking the gender of
anyone else. Lets remove the
prejudice that a woman cannot
be trusted to lead the Armed
Forces of the Philippines. Lets
remove the prejudice that a gay
guy cannot be the representative
of straight people because hes

different. At the end of it all,

what we should do to make sure
that our votes do not go to waste
is that we have to ask the right
questions and listen to the
answers to those questions. We
have to listen to the answers our
candidates give us with an open
mind and without having any
prejudices.
Now, as I reach the final points of
this article, we now look on to
2016 the year of presidential
elections. 2016 will be a year
where the nation will once again
elect a leader who will shape the
future of our country. I hope that
we ask ourselves the rights
questions and listen without any
prejudices. Perhaps, 2016 will be
another year where we shatter
glass ceilings again. Perhaps, it
will be a year where we shatter
glass ceilings and set precedents
for all democratic nations around
the world. Lets start eliminating
gender biases in our political
processes and move towards a
society that looks to plans not the
person presenting those plans.
Lets eliminate gender biases in
politics not because its the
modern thing to do but because
its the right thing to do, because
I think its time to start looking at
the plans and promises rather
than the personalities in an
election. Dont you?
Ivan Paredes is a sophomore
Political Science major at the
Ateneo de Manila University.

n December 19, 2014,

former Health Secretary
Enrique Ona officially resigned
from his post in the Department
of
Health
(DOH),
amidst
controversy surrounding the
purchase of a vaccine known as
PCV-10 as opposed to what some
argue is the more cost-effective
PCV-13. While his resignation
has been written off by Ona and
his supporters as nothing more
than the usual politickingof
Ona being unable to curry favor
with
President
Aquinothe
reality is a lot more disturbing
than that.
Recently, reports have
also surfaced about Onas role in
allowing clinical trials of a bogus
anti-dengue treatment to proceed
in at least six government
hospitals, most notably his
issuance of Department Order
No. 2014-0161, which called for
the implementation of a national
anti-dengue
program
using
ActRXTriAct.
The two-day anti-dengue
treatment known as ActRXTriAct
consists of a single dose of
artemether, sprayed under the
tongue,
combined
with
artesunate and berberine tablets.

Once touted as an anti-dengue

medical breakthrough, it was
later shown to have no legal basis
for clinical trials.
Clinical
trials
for
ActRXTriAct have no approval
from the Food and Drug
Administration
(FDA),
the
Research Institute for Tropical
Medicine, and DOHs National
Center for Disease Prevention
and Control, among others. In
fact, there are no studies on
ActRXTriAct being conducted
anywhere, apart from the
unethical clinical trials in the
Philippines.

ActRXTriAct was actually

first used in a 2012 clinical study
for malaria treatment in Palawan,
but it was discontinued after
being shown to not be in
compliance
with
the
International Conference on
Harmonization Guidelines for
Good Clinical Practice. In 2013, a
second clinical trial, this time for
dengue treatment, was conducted
in San Lazaro Hospital.
Not only did the antidengue trials proceed under
Onas watch; he has also
explicitly defended it. When

Acting Health Secretary Janet

Garinrecently discontinued the
ActRXTriAct clinical trials, Ona
was aghast, arguing that
government should be more
aggressive in its battle against
dengue and should look into
alternative forms of treatment.
While it is true that
government should be aggressive
in its search for effective drugs,
such aggressiveness should not
come at the expense of safety and
should
not
go
against
international standards of good
clinical practice. If aggressiveness
is what we are after, then why
not test every herbal product out
there and hope for a miracle?
In fact, the triple-drug
combination
of
artemether,
artesunate, and berberine is not
without its risks, which have not
even been looked into thoroughly
prior to the clinical trials.
Artemetherand artesunate are
both derivatives of artemisin,
which has been tested and is
currently the most effective
treatment against the deadliest
strain of malaria, but resistance
to artemisin and its derivatives
may occur when it is not used in
combination with lumifantrine

and
primaquine.
The
consequences
of
using
artemether
and
artesunate
without
lumifantrine
and
primaquine
(known
as
artemisinmonotherapy) may be
disastrous in places where both
dengue and malaria are rampant.
In a position statement
released by the Philippine
College of Physicians (PCP),
together with the Philippine
Society for Microbiology and
Infectious Diseases (PSMID), the
PCP and PSMID called for urgent
research on dengue treatments
but
expressed
its
stern
disapproval of the ActRXTriAct
clinical trials, stating that the
only basis for recommending the
triple-drug combination was a
badly designed and poorly
analyzed study on 290 dengue
patients in one hospital.
So how could Ona have
allowed this to happen? The
medical travesty is yet to unravel.
True, Onas resignation is
a case of politickingbut it is not
just that. It may yet prove to be
part of the story of how a
racketeering drug company and
a conniving (or perhaps wellmeaning but sorely misguided)
government
official
are
endangering national health.
Christa Bucao is a senior Applied
Physics / Material
Science
Engineering major at the Ateneo
de Manila University.

References:
https://anc.yahoo.com/news/onaaghast-garin-stopped-antidengue-herbal-treatment045436956.html
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/6457
14/breakthrough-seen-in-denguetreatment
http://www.rappler.com/nation/7
6669-doh-dangers-actrxtriact#cxrecs_s

http://www.rappler.com/nation/7
6373-palace-enrique-ona
http://www.rappler.com/thoughtleaders/76598-anti-dengue-drugmedical-mystery

http://www.rappler.com/thoughtleaders/78054-medical-horrorstory
http://www.rappler.com/thoughtleaders/78685-medical-ethics-doh
http://www.rappler.com/thoughtleaders/80464-sue-ona
http://www.pcp.org.ph/index.php
/announcement/494-positionstatement-on-the-urgent-needfor-good-research-on-newdengue-treatments
http://politics.com.ph/post/onaim-not-a-politician
http://www.gmanetwork.com/ne
ws/story/400692/news/nation/tria
l-sought-for-proponents-ofcontroversial-anti-dengue-drug

polinario Mabini first

came into my life when I
was a kid growing up. My
grandfather
was
fond
of
bombarding me with historical
questions and among his favorite
was the question Sino ang
dakilang lumpo? After soliciting
the desired answer, he would
leave me be. This would prompt
me sometimes to ask my
grandmother why he likes asking
that question. My grandmother
would answer that his first name
is Apolinario, it makes sense why
he likes asking that. I would
innocently reply eh bakit hindi
lumpo si daddy?

Several years later I would

encounter Mabini once again, but
not the Mabini of my lolos
questions, or the Mabini from the
textbooks but rather the Mabini
straight from Mabinis writings
themselves. For a person with
disability, Mabinis fighting spirit
never seemed to have waned. His
principles were intact and his
intellect was acute as ever despite
his exile. This is evident when
one reads his La Revolucion
Filipina.
Here we find a Mabini
who is gloomy, sorrowful, and

nanghihinayang on the failure of

the Revolution. He lists down all
of his grievances and frustrations
in his short tenure in Aguinaldos
government. Among this is
Aguinaldos naive trust over the
Americans who claim will help in
the attainment of independence.
It would seem that Aguinaldo
will simply take their word for it
despite the lack of a written
agreement and the dubiousness
of the promises of an American
consul. Because of this assurance,
independence
was
hastily
declared, something he did not
approve of. In his belief, there
were more pressing matters at
hand like the organization of
government.
Another move that he
opposed was the drafting of a
constitution and the convening of
the Malolos Congress since the
country
was
not
yet
internationally
recognized.
Another point of contention is
how the Tripartite Separation of
Powers was in the Malolos
Constitution. The Calderon Draft
placed the Legislative Branch as
the
supreme
branch
of
government with the exclusive
power of electing the President.
For Mabini, a strong Executive

Branch not under the control of

Congress was needed to fit in the
times hence his opposition to it.
He must have seen also that the
people controlling the Congress
held veiled interests.
Mabinis
advice
and
criticism drew the ire of the
cabinet members who were bent
on furthering their personal
ambitions. This earned him the
nickname La Camara Negra or
the Black Chamber of the
President. His confrontation with
Congress even cost him his
appointment as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court.

Appearing before the

predecessor of the Commission of
Appointments, his competence
for the position was questioned
due to his disability. Mabini
calmly replied Does the position
of Chief Justice require constant
walking? No. He can be a man
without feet, as long as he
possesses the brains and able
hands for the office. The
situation
seems
familiar
nowadays, dont you think? If
there were already rifts in the
principles and the people in
charge of the government, what
more within the Army who

shouldered
fighting?

the

bulk

of

the

True enough, Mabini was

justified in his anguish over this
issue. The army was divided and
heavily factionalized. Lack of
military discipline was a constant
problem. Aguinaldo himself could
not fully be devoted since he was
balancing
his
roles
as
commander-in-chief and head of
the country. As such, Luna was
appointed to fill the role as Chief
of Staff. His strict enforcement of
discipline, intelligence, and his
objection to the autonomy
pushed
by
Paterno
and
Buencamino earned him many
enemies. As Mabini noted,
Aguinaldo became jealous and
saw this as an attempt to
undermine his power and
eventually replace him. This led
to Lunas assassination and
according to Mabini was a great
lost to the cause.
He said that due to
jealousy and personal ambition,
another murder like that of
Bonifacios occurred once again.
Personal ambition, incompetence,
and lack of unity led to the
failure of the Revolution. For
Mabini the only option for
Aguinaldo to redeem himself was
to die in battle. Pretty gloomy
and cynical indeed, Mabini had
become. We cant blame him
when you are working so hard
and the people who you are
counting on are the first to
frustrate you. So what can we do
to make him a little cheerful?
To be honest, even if he
were alive today; I dont think we
can do anything to make him
cheerful. He will be as frustrated
if not angrier and gloomier as he
was back in his day. The
problems that he faced are still

the problems that the nation is

facing. We are still run by the
incompetent who only work to
further their personal ambitions.
If he were to visit the
Commission on Appointments,
he would still find that if
Congress doesnt like you, then
kiss your confirmation goodbye.
If you piss them off, they will
find ways to remove you like
impeachment. And guess what,
the United States still holds a
powerful
sway
over
our
decisions. Mapapakamot na lang
ng ulo yang si Mabini.
To most Mabini would
appear to be prophetic for
foreseeing the problems of today
but no, the problems were simply
never solved. History never
repeated itself because all we did
was continue with the mistakes
we committed in the past.
However it is premature to say
that we are already a doomed
nation.
Heres something to make
Mabini a bit more cheerful. There
is this thing that we call hope.
Not everyone in the government
acts that way. There are still
those who are striving to change
the system, there are those who
still believes that the nation can
be great again (if there was a
point that it was great), and most
of all there is still hope in the
future
through
the
next
generation. Perhaps a hundred
and something years ago, at the
back of his head Mabini knew not
everyone in the revolution was
like that, that there were several
people who still believed in what
was right
I cannot offer any other
grand solutions to make Mabini
smile but I can guarantee him
that we are still looking and the

prospect of giving up is far.

Perhaps that knowledge can keep
him smiling for a while.
Jeremy Clemente is a junior
History major at the Ateneo de
Manila University.

ome believe that

corruption is endemic to
Philippine politics and that,
therefore, it is futile to expect our
next president in 2016 to have a
fully clean slate. An argument
that has gained traction for quite
some time is that we should elect
officials who, despite their
corruption, are still effective in
mobilizing resources and making
bureaucracies move. The more
radical strains of this position
have been used by Marcos
apologists
to
justify
his
dictatorship in the name of
economic progress (even if
almost all statistics point to the
conclusion that the economy was
terribly mishandled at the height
of martial law). While this sort of
justification seems to reflect a
critical understanding of our
political climate, its basic premise
is ultimately flawed for many
reasons.
First, corruption and efficiency
cannot co-exist. Corruption at its
very heart is inefficient because it
wastes resources that would have
otherwise been distributed more
effectively. Consider a situation
where a local municipality
purchases medicines nearing
their expiration dates to turn

savings into kickbacks. The

limited shelf life of these drugs
means that more people will
develop ailments that could have
easily been prevented with more
up-to-date medicine. They will
then flock to the nearest
hospitals, further overcrowding
our public health centers. In the
Dinagat Islands, the Ecleo family
and political dynasty has kept
control of a majority of local
government positions for several
decades. They built a sprawling
medieval-style castle overlooking
the sea as a testament to their
political power. In many ways,
the
familys
network
of
governors,
mayors,
and
councilors is highly effective in
mobilizing development funds to
entrench their wealth. But the
fruit of their ambitions has
resulted in poor infrastructure
everywhere else in the city.
Concentrating money to build
luxurious castles came at the cost
of building stable roads to
transport goods efficiently, which
is vital to a strong economy.
Often what corrupt politicians
tout as effective governance is
patronage in reality. Incumbents
from political dynasties usually
claim legitimacy based on the

landslide victories they achieved

during elections. But the poorest
people in these districts have no
choice if receiving money and
welfare means voting for their
benefactor. For people who
receive these dole-outs, it
becomes harder to conceive of
the
broader
institutional
inefficiencies that their local
leaders create. It is hard to think
of Binay as a crook when he
gives your grandmother a
birthday cake every year. It is
hard to imagine that Erap was
once involved and affiliated with
elaborate networks of gambling
and jueteng as President, when
he now styles himself as a
crusader against petty crime as
the mayor of Manila.
We
must
therefore
acknowledge that anti-corruption
is part and parcel of good
governance. As a reasonable
citizen, I cannot simply accept a
candidates claims to be effective
on face value alone. For all who
may claim that Marcos ran an
effective dictatorship, the fact
remains that his cronies who
managed state-run corporations
bankrupted
their
respective
industries.
International
aid
agencies and donors had to cut

off all our credit lines due to the

insurmountable debt our country
accumulated.
To argue that
every candidate is corrupt
completely misses the point. Yes,
politics might not be about good
vs. evil, but some candidates are
simply preferable to others. It is
wrong to claim that choosing to
vote against a candidate who
demands an entire floor for every
condo built in Makati is a vote
against the poor. A clean record
reflects the most basic form of
accountability all democratic
polities should expect from their
leaders - the ability to keep their
promises.
Bas Claudio is a senior Political
Science major at the Ateneo de
Manila University.

ts been well over a year

since the Euromaidan
protests on the streets of Kiev
brought to a close the thievery of
Ukrainian ex-president Viktor
Yanukovych, and as some of the
more hopeful revolutionaries
would like to believe, the
countrys sorry state of affairs
ever since the fall of the USSR,
owing to the Putin regimes tight
grip over the countrys oligarchs,
elites,
and
government.
Undeniably, Maidan brought
together many different sectors of
Ukrainian society from liberal,
western-minded
university
students (who were there since the
very beginning,) old war veterans
and children from that era,
Orthodox
priests
and,
unsurprisingly,
professional
activists from all across the
political spectrum. It was an
impressive display of unity
against a regime that had every
reason to be despised. The results,
however, were bloody from a
peaceful demonstration by a
handful of students it quickly
became one of the most terrifying
instances of police brutality in
recent years. Riot police routinely
beat isolated activists who, in
retaliation,
hurled
Molotov
cocktails and makeshift grenades

at police. In the last few weeks

leading up to Yanukovychs
escape from Ukraine, both sides
had opened fire at one another,
causing numerous fatalities.
While Maidan was indeed
a victory for the Ukrainian people
against a corrupt government, it
was
not
exclusively
their
revolution. Prominent officials
from both the European Union
and United States were heavily
involved in the demonstrations:
Victoria Nuland of the US State
Department,
and
American
ambassador
Geoffrey
Pyatt
publicly visited the barricades in
support of the protesters, handing
out cookies to both police and
activists alike. Soon after, the
Russian
intelligence
service
(FSB), taking an interest in these
events, managed to leak a phone
call between Nuland and Pyatt
concerning the future of the
Ukrainian government, and the
US preferred successors to
Yanukovychs
government.
Meanwhile, Republican senator
John McCain flew to Kiev and
publicly announced American
support for the protesters,
standing alongside far-right leader
OlehTyahnybok. Tyahnybok, as
well as his party, Svoboda, have

had a history using Nazi imagery

and symbols, and are rightly
viewed with suspicion by
Ukrainian Jews both at home and
abroad. Currently, in its war
against Russian-backed militia
forces in the East, the Ukrainian
army fields several battalions
(Azov, etc.) bearing similar
emblems of Nazi runes and
heraldry. The Ukrainian president
Petro Poroshenko made several
statements hailing members of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (and its
most prominent figure Stepan
Bandera) as heroes despite the
groups
bloody
history
collaborating with Nazi Germany
against the USSR and massacring
ethnic Poles in Ukraine during
WWII.
Following the Russian
invasion of Crimea and Donbass,
there has been an outpouring of
support for Ukraine and an
aggressive
media
campaign
against Putins actions. There is
no doubt that the United States is
now deeply involved in the
Ukrainian government, not only
as an advisor, but directly - with
several
American
citizens
occupying key posts in the
Ukrainian finance ministry and
elsewhere. Yet it remains silent on

matters such as the progovernment Ukrainians massacre

of civilians in Odessa just last
year in a firebombing attack that
claimed 38 lives, or the issue of
openly-fascist servicemen and
even foreign white supremacists
joining the fray against the
peoples republics in the East.
Ukrainian
nationalism
and
revanchist sentiment has reached
its peak, and groups that were
never meant to have power now
command seats in the Ukrainian
parliament. One cannot help but
wonder if there is any substance
to American rhetoric about
promoting democracy and the
values of the free world, when it
itself is complicit in supporting a
regime based upon ideals that are
at the very core undemocratic.Of
course, no political statement or
action is ever meant to be taken at
face value nothing, after all,
ever comes for free. The US
presence in Kiev, analysts argue,
was to strike a blow against Putin
for his timely intervention in Syria
that year when he convinced Syria
to surrender their chemical
weapon stockpiles, thus removing
the pretext for another US
intervention in the civil war.
Others would say it was also to
finally deny Russia access to its
naval base in Crimea, the only
port from which it can send its
ships to the Mediterranean. In
short, its geopolitics as usual.
While theres pretty much
nothing that can be done about
large states wanting to outplay
rivals (such is the way of things),
it becomes problematic when one
hegemon masquerades as a
champion of some higher ideal to
conceal its own greed. When
countries that have had no
experience under a democratic
system have a foreign entity
unsuccessfully try to introduce

such reforms, attitudes will sour

and
people
will
associate
democratic principles such as
freedom of speech, regular and
fair elections, rule of law and so
on as the hallmarks of economic
instability. This was exactly the
case for Russia. Following the
collapse of the USSR, Boris
Yeltsin was elected president of
the newly formed Russian
Federation. Victorious in the Cold
War and eager to absorb the
newly formed country into the
world economy, the United States
played a large role in influencing
Yeltsins policy, most notably the
decision to privatize formerly
state-controlled assets. His term
was characterized by widespread
corruption, the rise of oligarchies
(owing to the botched attempt at
privatization),
hyperinflation
(2,520%), and the continued
deterioration of Russia as a global
power due to unopposed NATO
expansion eastward and a weak, if
not nonexistent Russian response
to NATOs illegal intervention in
Yugoslavia. Yeltsins weakness
was a product of the United
States eagerness to see foreign
countries
absorb
American
democratic values as universal
and independent of culture,
attitudes and prejudices left-over
from the ideological war that went
on for half a century, and existing
structural ills in the new
government
system.
Such
weakness was a source of trauma
for most Russians who lived
through the transition period, and
instead of finally mending
relations between East and West,
distrust of NATO and mutual
animosity festered as Russia felt
cheated and exploited after its
humiliating defeat. The fear of a
return to such troubled times is
also what makes Putin, regardless
of his faults (and not all Russians
are die-hard fans of his), the more

desirable option for most voters.

Political opposition to the
strongman keeping it all together
is tainted, perhaps forever, by the
shame and suffering caused by
their experience under Yeltsin,
and consequently viewed with
suspicion. Elsewhere we may see
similar repercussions: with Iraq
completely destabilized following
the Gulf War and toppling of
Saddam Hussein, Syria in the
middle of a civil war (with the
United States funding and arming
resistance fighters cut from the
same cloth as the ISIS Jihadists,)
compounded by ever-increasing
presence of ISIS in the region and
we have a recipe for disaster that
may not only retard the
democratization
of
these
countries, but give rise to the
caliphate that ISIS is trying to
create, capitalizing on the
peoples mass disillusionment and
hatred towards the American
freedom fighters who invaded
their country, took their oil, and
left them for dead.
Iraq and its aftermath
should have been the wake-up call
that the neocons vision of
American leadership of the free
world
is
misguided
and
destructive. Now in the war
between Ukraine and Russia, once
again we see a reformed country
desperate for change being
exploited to destabilize another.
Western powers that allegedly
espouse liberal democratic values
are
themselves
deliberately
stoking nationalist, xenophobic
(and
pro-Fascist)
sentiment
among Ukrainians, and baseless
paranoia of a resurgent Russia
seeking to invade all of its other
neighbors. Once the Ukrainians
realize that they have been played,
that none of their new allies in the
west are willing to pay their
enormous gas debt to Moscow, or

take all the migrant workers

forced to return home, once more
we might see the masses pour out
into the streets of Kiev. And the
blood spilled on Maidan will all
have been for naught.
Jzan Lo is a senior Political
Science major studying at the
Ateneo de Manila University.

ow might we characterize
campus politics in the
Ateneo? A couple of years ago,
the Ateneo Assembly published
an editorial cartoon depicting the
dead unicorn of Atenean
politics. For the Sanggu apologist,
the accusation would have been a
case of double jeopardy. Campus
politics, like a unicorn, doesnt
exist. Or if it did, its dead.

Several
failures
of
elections later, perhaps theres
some truth to this dead unicorn.
After all, platform and partybased
electoral
competition
remains unconsolidated in our
political culture. Candidates
repeat the same hackneyed (and
inane) platforms every campaign
season. Many Ateneans remain as
uninformed and as apathetic as
ever with regard to on- and offcampus political issues. We know
that the dead unicorn haunts us
when the burning question
during every election is not
whether
this
or
that
person/policy proposition will
win, but whether elections will
reach quota at all. For a
university with a rich history of
political participation and which
consciously trains its students to
be men and women for others

in all senses of this muchvaunted slogan, such a picture is

beyond
disheartening.
Has
Ateneo turned into an elite
breeding ground for clueless,
solipsistic bourgeois citizens?

have been at epistemic fault for

the past years. I offer two
propositions
for
rethinking
Atenean politics, each with a
theoretical
and
empirical
component.

Perhaps its time to

rethink the state of Atenean
politics. Obviously our previous
mental map has failed to produce
meaningful action for the change
we want to see. None of our
efforts
at
politicizing
the
apathetic student body has so
much as made a dent on probably
decades worth of historical
transformation. Judging by our
traditional indicators of political
participation,
things
have
probably gotten worse with all
the failures of elections and the
declining number of political
aspirants.
Bureaucratically,
Sanggu is up and running.
Politically, Sanggu may not be a
unicorn, but its good as dead.

First, we must question

the notion of the apathetic
Atenean. Let us call it for what it
is: a stereotype. The assumption
that an Atenean is only
politicized in a rigid sort of way
(e.g. voting in elections) excludes
other possibilities of political
participation. I am not saying
that Ateneans should not vote in
elections, but I think it is time to
be open to other forms of
political
expression.
To
obstinately
stick
to
our
traditional categories of what the
political means might just
signify that we understand little
of the demos own categories of
meaning. Instead of using the
same old indicators, perhaps a
more fruitful direction would be
to study closely the heuristic lens
through
which
Ateneans
interpret and express their
politics. Can we conscientiously
say that an Atenean who does
not vote in elections but in many
other ways forwards an advocacy
is not being political? Might not

And the imperative to

rethink Atenean politics does not
just stem from pragmatic
concerns. Perhaps we should
check our premises once again
and shift theoretical gears when
engaging this question. There are
many reasons for which we could

the choice to abstain from the

electoral exercise be itself a valid
political statement? Moreover,
the stereotype lumps together a
diverse and dynamic community
into a monolithic abstraction. The
apathetic Atenean is a myth
because there is no such thing as
an Atenean, but rather Ateneans.
The plurality of our community
resists such generalizations. And
it is in plurality that we find
politics, in one form or another.
The question thus should
not be why dont Ateneans care
but rather what do Ateneans
care about? While it is true that
many Ateneans do not express
interest, much less get involved,
in many of the common issues of
national
importance
(e.g.
corruption in government, FOI
bill, STRAW bill, etc.), the fact
that issues still catch the
communitys attention should
indicate that Ateneans, like every
democratic body, care about
certain things. The task is to find
out which issues spark their
interest and incite them to
participate. I find that a number
of concerns have evolved into
political issues of varying degrees
and
scopes
of
discursive
significance. Safety and security
remains a paramount issue with
the recent bomb threat and
kidnapping incident. Imelda
Marcos presence at an alumni
function drew similar attention
(and much more) from the
community, leading to the
Ateneans Never Forget (Martial
Law) campaign. The technical
errors
(not)
divulged
by
COMELEC during the recent
elections sparked an outrage
from concerned students. I also
find that intellectual property
rights seem to be of much
importance to Ateneans, given
the case of some students from
Bulacan
State
University

plagiarizing the works of

Ateneans. The key to Atenean
politics is thus to find out which
things matter enough to be
politicized.
Second, the assumption
that Sanggu is the sole holder of
power in Atenean politics is
misleading. There are many other
centers
of
authority
or
authoritative groups that are
able to exercise power over the
student body. And this may well
be the reason that Sanggu is
vitiated of its power as a student
government. To be sure, Sanggu
is still able to exercise the normal
functions
of
a
student
government such as providing
student services and acting as a
conduit to the administration.
But how much influence does
Sanggu ultimately have over the
things that do matter to
Ateneans? Does Sanggu really
represent student interests? Do
Ateneans actually go to Sanggu
to lobby for their concerns? The
answer is no. They go to other
groups for that. They go to COA
or their home orgs. Sometimes,
they form their own groups. In
this sense, we may characterize
Atenean politics not by referring
to a student government but
rather to student governance.
Many people are baffled
as to why Ateneo org culture is
strong while Sanggu is weak. I
am not. In fact, I think our strong
org culture is one of the
underlying causes for the lack of
political participation. Student
organizations already provide the
avenues for Ateneans to fight for
their advocacies. We have orgs in
several clusters (ADC, SBC, etc.)
for that. Home orgs in particular
already address the students
academic concerns and are able
to bring these up directly to the
concerned departments. Thus

conceptualizing
orgs
as
authoritative groups may allow
us to correctly say that COA is
more powerful than Sanggu.
Moreover, students do not go to
Sanggu
when
they
have
advocacies
not
currently
represented in COA orgs. They
form their own groups. We have
A-FARM for agrarian reform and
GES for gender equality. We even
have Agila for animal rights. I
think Sanggus refusal to exercise
its power in order to fight for
such advocacies has led to the
opening of these other centers of
authority. Thus if we want to
characterize how student politics
operates in Ateneo, we should
not simply refer to our student
government but also to this
constellation of other groups that
participate
in
student
governance.
Of course, I do not mean
to say that we ought to abolish
Sanggu for being so powerless.
Nor do I rejoice over Ateneans
refusal to vote. But the desire for
change necessitates first an
understanding of the current
state of affairs. If Atenean politics
is just like how I described it, the
challenge now is to ask new
questions and try out new
solutions. After all, the dead
unicorn may actually be alive.
And it may seem strange, but its
very real.
Leo Abot is a senior History major
at the Ateneo de Manila
University.