Through the Eyes of a Foreigner
By Andrew Engel
The Ombudsman of Last Resort
The so-called RH bill debate has become a test of the Government’s will to ensure secular policy remains the sole province of elected representatives. It is a test of the democratic systems legitimate claims to govern the nation and it is one which is yet to be won.
I have been somewhat surprised by the rich vein of academic argument on the key issues contained in the RH Bill. Only somewhat, as academics can produce lengthy dissertations on most subjects.
But, an opinion piece is a different beast, and requires nothing more than the writer’s unsolicited thoughts. So, having reflected on the RH bill debate, here are some of the questions it raised for me (without footnotes).
Let me first deal with the old chestnut of the separation of church and state.
The freedoms sought in Democratic systems are interdependent. You don’t get to cherry-pick the ones you like and dispense with the ones you don’t. It is a take all or nothing deal if it is to work.
The freedom to worship is one and it means that individuals are free to choose any one of history’s 10,000 recorded religions as their faith of choice, or something new or none at all. The freedom of speech is another and with caveats surrounding how your speech can affect others, we get to say pretty much what we want.
To keep the church and state separate guarantees religious freedom. It leaves the governance of a state and the formation of its laws as the province of elected representatives in a purely secular form. That does not mean a church cannot express a view, or be vociferous in doing so, on a secular law it may see as being contrary to its core beliefs, or even more so, contrary to obligations of the faith. That is a right that freedom of speech provides.
It follows that a church, or a religion, is free to object, but it cannot interfere in the governance process.
Clearly, if a religious group had a proxy vote on a new law, or were it seek to exert pressure on a legislator (by, for example, threats or corrupt practices), or were it to bring undue influence to bear, a line would be crossed. The wall of separation that Thomas Jefferson spoke of would be breached.
In summary, the freedom of religions and speech are fundamental parts of the whole. We should defend both equally and forcefully.
*******
There is another freedom that does not require a democratic structure to give it oxygen and indeed is operative under all systems of governance including under the yoke of totalitarian and authoritarian leadership. That is the freedom of thought, the innate ability of human kind to think as individuals.
No matter what people say, what they think is theirs to hold tight, and they almost always do just that.
Democracy is adversarial and disorderly process, but it’s the best we have. Moreover, as in the idea that order exists within chaos (as explored by mathematicians studying fractals and underlying order in random data), we might surmise that people can collect data and make decisions that order the majorities’ preference.
Particularly, when freedom of speech flourishes and all the facts are licenced.
I’m of the view that despite all of the arguments which can confuse and complicate the picture being painted people will listen to discussions, be influenced by some, angered by others, but ultimately will reach conclusions that are visceral, what their gut tells them about the debate.
The beauty of this human quality is that one does not need to write a doctoral thesis to get a good feel for what is being argued. The simplification of what otherwise can be enormously complicated assists greatly in forming opinions. So, with the RH bill in mind let me pose a few simple questions that I thought about and leave them for you to answer.
Do you think rapid population growth is a good thing, or is it likely to exacerbate the problems of the poor and disadvantaged the citizenry? Can the Philippines support a population of near 100 million? How about 120 million or 150 million?
If you are concerned, are there other better prescriptions available than the RH bill and if so will they, or have they worked?
Does the government put forward legislation of this type with ulterior motives, does it seek to hurt its people or is it acting in what it believes is the best interests of its people?
Do the pressures on the redistribution of wealth for; the provision of adequate health care; decent education; services that light homes, build roads and provide clean water; or policies which address food security, get harder as population increases?
Does the government have unlimited funding, is there a money tree in the back garden of the government it can tape at any time, or are funds scarce?
Is the emancipation of woman a good or bad thing? Would we be better off as a society if woman had equality, if they had the right to make decisions on their health, the health of their children or will we be better off to let the affairs of the world continued to be dominated by men?
Do the moral arguments that oppose contraception convince you?
Are there genuine health risks associated with contraception and if so is medical science untrustworthy?
Does the use of a condom seem to be a sensible way to contain the spread of disease (with the vast majority of opinion seeing it as a necessary preventive measure to reduce the spread of aids in Africa where a million people a year die)?
Do you think that a government has a responsibility to educate its people on family planning and to make tax payers money available to increase awareness and understanding?
Do we protect and prepare our children for life by limiting their education or is a full and complete explanation of sexual relationship a better path to follow?
Should people be able to get this information without the threat of some form of retribution?
Does it help the debate to attack the character of the players?
******
Questioning is a wonderful thing and it is the basis upon which all human advances have been made.
The freedom to think for oneself, the ability to plough through the detail, and form opinions, reach conclusions, explain the unexplainable is our real strength as thinking primates. And in democracies, people get the last word sooner or later. In this sense the people are the ombudsman of last resort.
Beware those who doubt it, or seek to manipulate people’s thinking, or do people’s thinking for them. Those that do will find their arrogance is misplaced and as much as they may want it to be so, people are not sheep.
(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment