The Explainer and judgments on Philippine history

I very much enjoyed Manuel Quezon’s “The Explainer” this evening, which in reviewing books by Adrian Cristobal and Federico Macaranas subtly probed the political role of the artist in society (Cristobal having been closely associated with the martial law regime). I’m full of admiration, not just for Manolo and his team, but for ANC for scheduling such a thoughtful and intellectual program during prime time.

Still, I found the relativism of Professor Macaranas and some of the younger members of the audience a bit dispiriting, especially as I am coming off the back of a biography of one of the 20th century’s great judgers, Hannah Arendt. I could almost hear her snorting “ach!” as Professor Macaranas tried to slide out of any responsibility to express an opinion on martial law collaborators (at one point he literally said “well, it’s all relative”). As Manolo tried to hint, it may well be that the more honorable collaborators such as prime minister Cesar Virata (a contributor to a recent book edited by Professor Macaranas) do deserve a measure of rehabilitation, but unless Virata’s role is critically assessed, how can we know that?

Arendt’s view, expressed in books such as Eichmann in Jerusalem, is that:

the way in which we say ‘that is right, that is wrong’ is not very different from the way we say ‘this is beautiful, this is ugly’.

In other words, to live is to judge, so we might as well as well be honest about it.

Yet the most cursory survey of recent Philippine history reveals that an absence of judgment is one of its most distinguishing features. Far from being castigated as collaborators, Philippine officials under the Japanese occupation like Frayed’s grand-uncle, Jorge Vargas, are venerated and lend their names to museums rather than, like Norway’s Quisling, to insults.

And of course the bouffant one still swans around town, rather than rotting in jail or in exile where she belongs. Jalosos, Honasan, Lacson … one could go on and on for ever with a list of the beneficiaries of the Philippines’ dawdle to judgment.

The implications of this are huge and include a nonfunctioning judiciary, the most important safeguard of individual human rights. A reluctance to judge also means that self-evaluations of charlatans like Erap are taken on board uncritically, instead of being weighed in the balance and assessed for what they really are.

Some implications of this reluctance to judge are favorable, however. A clumsy rush to condemn Vargas, for example, would have been unjust in my view, since he did his best to ensure that life under the occupation was less brutal than it might otherwise have been.

Too much judgment can easily become prejudice, something the Philippines is relatively free from. A willingness to forgive and forget is often healthy—compare the generous response of Filipinos to the Japanese with that of the Chinese, most of whom appear to still be embittered more than 60 years after the end of the second world war.

Yet, while the consequence of an absence of judgment can sometimes be “tolerance”, it can also be a denial of one of the most fundamental qualities of human individuals and societies: the ability to evaluate two choices and decide which is “best”. If we shirk that responsibility in favor of relativism we are neglecting to use one of our greatest gifts. Or, as Hannah Arendt said:

“If you say to yourself in such matters: who am I to judge?—you are already lost.”

Comments

[amateur misanthrope]

I like how you say the Philippines is relatively free from prejudice. Yep, we might not be stratified racially, however, Filipinos are very class-conscious. There's a high degree of class-bias in our culture.

[skipt]

buy cheap ugg boots for women ugg boots for women for more detail at my estore