11/10/2021
I read somewhere that Socrates (or Pluto) disliked democracy as the supreme form of government. He believed that only intellectuals should run a state. The compromise with democracy is that it opens the door for the foolish, uneducated, incompetent, and inexperienced.
If what the famed philosopher meant “intellectual” is one to be without character, then I would respectfully disagree. A person who proves to be intelligent may not prove to be compassionate. An erudite may find difficulty with empathy. A man on a pedestal is prone to neglect the lowly. Those that appear as foolish or incompetent may actually be compassionate, wise, and understanding. This is what the framers of Philippine Constitution had in mind. They knew the blessing and curse of the compromise.
Yet many feel we’ve only been battling with the curse, and not laboring under a blessing. The supposed beauty of democracy has not fully flourished because there is constant domination of abusers. It seems that democracy protects the will of the people at the expense of progress. The problem with democracy, then, is not democracy itself but the electorate. This was the fear of Socrates.
As for the spiritually Christian, know that the God of the Bible also did not favor democracy for the supposed monotheistic Israel.
The first elected king of Israel was Saul. The Lord disfavored it. It was also unnecessary since He already installed Prophet Samuel, the miracle baby, as Judge. Yet the Lord allowed it because it was the clamor of the Israelites.
They saw Saul as their messiah, given his stature, perceived strength, and countenance. The considered standards were mainly superficial. Saul initially proved to be a mighty king but ended up a man governed only by ungodly desires. His lust for power knew no bounds except only physical limits. It is clear, then, that the Lord disliked popular election because of their poor choice of leadership.
The recent filing of candidacies has revealed the true character of the electorate. Sadly, some politicians are regarded as faultless saints, benevolent royals, and unmatched visionaries, despite their dirty track records, obvious power-hungry tactics, and undeniable inexperience. Thus, any form of criticism is regarded as an attempt to demolish or tarnish the image of an idolized politician.
Why not shift to electing people based on merits not association, character not charisma? The progress of a nation heavily relies on us, the electorate. The thief, abuser, murderer, liar, and swindler can always run. If they hold office again, then we are partly complicit in our complacency. If you are so certain of a person's track record, then there is no harm in investigating opposing claims.
Truly, God can always bless a nation no matter who holds office. However, God judges a nation according to the choices of the people. We cannot ask God for favor and consciously elect those whom He disfavors.