Does UN have power?

Musing over my handouts in GLOBDEV about “People and Power,” I thought of finding out what power looks like using the United Nations (UN) as an example. Based on the “power-over” model, the United Nations doesn't seem to have the power because they don't use violence to impose their will to other people or to other nations. The several interventions that they made
in the past are not considered as “threat or use of force” because their role during those interventions are that of being a peace-keeper. On the other hand, based on the “power-with” model, the United Nations seem to wield power because it has already made several resolutions that were pulled together by different member-states that “achieved a common goal.” Based on Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci's “hegemony”, or “the power as the authority of agents to create and enforce rules,” the United Nations seem to lag power on this one, especially after several failed attempts to implement its resolutions in the past. One example of this is when they passed a resolution prohibiting the United States to invade Iraq, which the US deliberately ignored anyway. Lastly, based on the “power-as-if” model, the United Nations is evidently powerful because it has managed to create “facts on the ground” like the beneficial services that UNESCO, WHO and other agencies under the United Nations has brought to a lot of people across the globe inspite of not really being a state in itself.

Assessing the media

So how do we keep the media from being as unbiased as possible? One way I propose to do that is to state, in clear and specific terms, what an unbiased media information is. In other words, we should create a set of criteria for judging if a media information is biased or not. It’s preety much like a criteria for judging in beauty contests, the only difference is in this case, we are not judging beauty contestants but media entities and the specific media outputs (information) that they are releasing in public. This set of criteria should come from people in every sphere of the society; every social entity should be represented- government, media and communication experts, different members of the civil society, etc. In this way, everyone will have a consensus on a set of criteria that every media information should be assessed upon. This will serve as a guide for the audience to gauge whether what they get from the media is biased or not. While some people intentionally choose to be in the Dominant-Hegemonic position that Stuart Hall (1993) is talking about, I believe that for most people, the reason why they are in the Dominant-Hegemonic position is because they don’t have the necessary “know-how” about media “assessment,” so to speak. So informing them and giving them the right tools to assess the media is the right way to go, and establishing a set of criteria; “ground rules” in doing media will be the first big step towards its realization.

Globalization and self

Just recently, I read a book entitled 7 habits of highly effective people by Stephen Covey. There's a portion of that book that talks about self-determination where Covey says that in order for a person to gain the benefits of interdependence, he/she must first become independent. Self-mastery is the first step towards effective relationships with other people. Putting it in a global scale, in order for a country to reap the rewards of globalization, that country must first focus towards their progress and self-sustainability. The saying “you cannot give what you don't have” is very much true in a global sense. A country can only give or share something that it possesses to other countries, whether that's monetary, natural, cognitive or human resources. It can only compete with other countries' economies to the degree that it has become self-sufficient. That's the reason why we see a lot of developing countries being ran down and eaten up by developed countries in trade and other economic activities. The developing countries simply aren't prepared in engaging these developed countries especially in economic matters. When these developing countries let down their “artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge and people” (as economist Joseph Stiglitz puts it) of developed countries, they are just overwhelmed of it all. So for the developing countries (like the Philippines), the solution would be to strive for economic independence. If we focus first on the internal (local), the external (participating in globalization) will just follow.

Change the culture, save the environment

We’ve already seen the disastrous effects Climate Change has brought into our planet. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye into these terrible things anymore. We need to make a stand. I believe the solution to put an end into the degredation of our biosphere and facilitate its regeneration is not to halt economic growth, as others suggest, but to overhaul the entire economic system from an economy that promotes carboniferous capitalism (Mumford, 1934) to an economy that promotes environment-friendly way of living. So it's not a “stop all your economic activities and go back to the stone age” type of solution. Rather, it's a solution where we ask ourselves “How can we protect our environment while at the same time still sustain our economic productivity?” This is where the “alternatives” come into the picture. Much of our economic activities can be explained by the culture that is present in our society. So it follows that redefining our culture changes our economic activities. And if our economic activities change, the economic system will also change. For example, if we change from a culture where fuel-powered cars are the norm to a culture where water-powered cars are the norm, that will alter how the entire automobile industry do business. Instead of manufacturing fuel-powered cars, they will begin to manufacture water-powered cars.

Personally, I changed my own “personal culture “ from throwing off plastics to keeping plastics and recycling them. The documentary 11th hour (which we watched in class), I like how they've suggested alternative ways of living. The media has a major role in promoting this kind of eco-friendly culture. They are the ones who set the “norms.” They are the ones who tell what's “cool” and “in.” In order to push for an eco-friendly culture, the message that the media conveys to the public should be “being eco-friendly is cool” and “eco-friendly stuff are the stuff of the new generation.”

Change the culture, save the environment.

How can we end poverty?

The solution to end poverty lies in a combination of neoliberal reforms and very minimal government intervention. Yes, I believe in neoliberalism, but I also believe that the government must help the poor to “start up” by introducing social programs such as teaching them about financial literacy, “market 101,” etc. Leaving the poor on their own is like leaving the toddler on his own to sustain himself. The government should be there as “parents” to the poor to guide and facilitate their growth until such a time when they can already be on their own. The market, as we know it, are full of people who are already considered “grown-ups” (rich). Also, by saying that the poor should just be allowed to operate in the market on their own is like throwing a baby out into the swimming pool. The baby definitely doesn't know how to swim yet. He must learn how to swim first. Similarly, the poor must first “learn the ropes” before being immersed into the market, anf this can be done by the government guiding them with the “ins” and “outs” of the market. I think the reason why the “neoliberal” efforts has failed to eradicate poverty in the past is because they just let the poor out into the market without giving them the necessary tools to make their way into the market and make a living for themselves. It's like leading them into the fishpond without giving them a fishing rod and teaching them how to use it to catch fish.

In conclusion, I believe that the best way to make poverty “history” is to adopt a neoliberal policy, with the government guiding the poor into the market at the initial stages.

Inequality should not be an issue

Yes you heard it right. Inequality should not be an issue. The real issue here is whether the poor is being able to meet their needs. In other words, the issue is about how to get the poor out of poverty and raise their standards of living. I think the issue of inequality has been borne out of the real issue of poverty and the reason why inequality has been made an issue is simply because it has been noticed that while the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.

The growth of any entity, whether it's a small business or a large corporation, or the entire economy of the state should not be hampered in any way. Growth is inevitable. As human beings, we all have a God-given desire to grow and expand, whether in terms of our skills and abilities or financially (we want to acquire more so we can enjoy the “finer things of life”). Just because there are some who cannot catch up in terms of growth doesn't justify the need for those who are growing to be stopped or hampered in their growth. That's why I don't believe in communism, or the “social revolution” that Che Guevara is advocating. It is the worst form of “Crab Mentality,” where you discourage the capitalists to produce more wealth just because some are financially lagging. At first their cause for egalitarianism sounds noble, but when you really take a closer look at it, you would find out that it is basically “pulling the rich down so that the poor can be pushed up.” Reminds me of a song by Bamboo entitled “Tatsulok.” A line of the song goes “Totoy kumilos ka, baligtarin ang tatsulok.” It seems to me that what the poor (at least some) really want is not equality, but to pull down those at the top so that they will be the ones at the top.

Lest you say that I am promoting capitalism at all cost, I also believe that the quest of the rich for financial growth should not be at the expense of the poor people. They should not shove the poor people down just for them to go higher and higher. While they are not being hampered in their financial growth by the existence of more liberal markets nowadays, it also entails a responsibility on their part not to do things that will hamper the financial growth of the poor.

So the solution to all this boils down to empowering the poor people to get out of their “state of poverty.” Both the rich and the government has a responsibility for this. The rich should help the poor by paying their taxes well, sharing their knowledge about how to be “financially well-off,” and generously give funds in efforts to educate the poor financially. Just before I write this blog post, I heard about famous motivational speaker Bo Sanchez teaching his maids on how to invest in the stock market. His effort to educate his maids about the stock market is worthy to be emulated. The government, on the other hand, should ensure better tax collection from the rich and be able to channel those funds in programs to teach financial literacy to the poor and help them start-up (microfinancing, etc). This would mean an agenda of “good governance” on the part of the government.

Yes, there would always be some people who are better-off than others. But the question now is, how can we make other people who are not better off to be better off as well? Who cares if the rich are getting richer. Also, who cares if the poor are getting better-off and nearing the rich in terms of wealth (in that case, they are not considered poor anymore). We should sought a “win-win” situation where everybody would be happy and live an incredible quality of life.

Why does politics turn to violence?

Are you familiar with this picture? If not, then you must be living under a rock. This one is an example of politics that turned to violence. People killing each other just to get into positions of power. Gruesome, but nonetheless true. So the question is, why do it always have to end up this way? The simplest reason I could come up with is this word: GREED. Greed for what? Greed for power. Greed for money. Satisfying their own selfish desires that they will do anything and everything in their capacity just to get what they want. Politics is supposed to be the mechanism by which a person can do public service, but some people have other ill motives for entering politics, which in turn lead to violence because these evil people will never give up on power and will fight tooth and nail just to acquire it, nurture it and hold on to it, forever if possible, just what like political dynasties do. They often resort to the infamous 3G's: Guns, Goons and Gold, which explains further why violence is prevalent in politics, especially here in the Philippines. Carl Von Clausewitz was right, war is just an extension of politics through other means. In the case of Philippine Politics, “war” can be considered as “political killings.” What they cannot do through legal means (e.g. filing a court case, having sit-down discussions), they do through extra-judicial means. The solution lies in first, an impartial justice system that will make sure that these greedy people who employs violence will not run away from their crimes scot-free and second, in a truly empowered citizenry who will cast their votes wisely and make sure that these evil leaders will never get into position again.