THESE are what we have to look for in
choosing our public
officials. Of course, to be realistic, we have to put these qualities
in the context of the candidates’ popularity and electability. But for
Pete’s sake, let’s not make mere popularity the main guide in electing
our officials.
We have to go beyond looks, pr gimmicks, smart sound
bites, spins and vote-getting machineries. Sad to say, we cannot help
but observe how local candidates tend to congregate around national
candidates and political parties with vast and deep war chest. They
are there more for the “fund” of it.
Neither should we go by mere genealogy and pedigree—that
one is the son or daughter of so-and-so, or that his father or mother
died in some dramatic circumstances. This is a dangerous way to elect
officials. It’s like impulse buying that leaves many of us with the
buyer’s remorse.
Neither still should we be guided by some forms of
kinship—blood, political, cultural, social, geographical. While these
factors and conditions have their valid values, they can only play a
secondary role. They should never be the primary criteria. Of course,
a big no-no is choosing candidates on the basis of who give us more
money, dole-outs and other forms of perks. This way can only spell
disaster.
We should not even be guided solely by the candidates’
fame or their mass appeal, though that would already be a big help. We
have to be wary of image-building tactics that do not necessarily show
the true character of the candidates.
We should not be naïve as not to consider the many subtle
forms of propaganda that sway people’s favor unfairly. We have to
discern whether that mass appeal that candidates may have, spring
truly from some divine or humanly legitimate charisma, or it is simply
a product of some witchery.
What we should look into in vetting the candidates is
their track record, their performance in public service, their
achievements and their mistakes and how they handled those.
Integrity and competence should always go together.
Integrity without competence would not give us good governance.
Neither competence without integrity. They are supposed to have a
mutual relationship.
Integrity evokes a sense of completeness and wholeness as
well as order, harmony, consistency, honesty. For us, it is crucial
because it is something to work and live out, protect, defend and even
fight for. It does not come automatically with our DNA.
We have to know its real essence, its firm basis and real
source. We have to know the different elements involved in achieving
it, as well as the techniques and skills to get the act together.
Hopefully we can develop a clear and correct science about it, both in
its theoretical and practical aspects.
Offhand, we have to be clear that the ultimate foundation,
source and goal of our integrity is God, our Creator and Father.
Hence, we have to understand that the pursuit of integrity cannot be
done outside of this original religious context. Any understanding of
integrity outside of this would be compromised right from the start.
Even if our concept of God and of how to relate to him is not yet
clear, we have to hold it as a necessary prerequisite, at least
theoretically, because it would be funny to look for the origin,
meaning and purpose of integrity simply in ourselves or in the world.
That way of pursuing integrity would make it a mere human
invention, and given the way we are, we could not help but be
subjective and therefore prone to have different versions of
integrity.
Competence requires a working knowledge of the common good
and of what it requires. It involves a good understanding and
practical skills to live the social principles of solidarity and
subsidiarity. It demands one to have a clear vision of the goals to
achieve. Otherwise, there would be disorder and chaos.
It requires continuing formation, continuing effort to
know the concrete conditions and circumstances of the relevant issues
and situations of one’s work. Thus constant updating of relevant
knowledge and skills is needed.
It urges the officials to always polish their virtue of
prudence, making due study, consultations as well as timely decisions
and action. It requires the officials to know how to coordinate the
different elements of his office. It also involves a certain
sensitivity to changes taking place and the ability to correspond to
them without getting lost in the essentials.
With what we are seeing in this funny but painful episode
of the “tanim-bala” in NAIA, let’s hope that we can learn the lesson
of how to choose our leaders and public officials.
officials. Of course, to be realistic, we have to put these qualities
in the context of the candidates’ popularity and electability. But for
Pete’s sake, let’s not make mere popularity the main guide in electing
our officials.
We have to go beyond looks, pr gimmicks, smart sound
bites, spins and vote-getting machineries. Sad to say, we cannot help
but observe how local candidates tend to congregate around national
candidates and political parties with vast and deep war chest. They
are there more for the “fund” of it.
Neither should we go by mere genealogy and pedigree—that
one is the son or daughter of so-and-so, or that his father or mother
died in some dramatic circumstances. This is a dangerous way to elect
officials. It’s like impulse buying that leaves many of us with the
buyer’s remorse.
Neither still should we be guided by some forms of
kinship—blood, political, cultural, social, geographical. While these
factors and conditions have their valid values, they can only play a
secondary role. They should never be the primary criteria. Of course,
a big no-no is choosing candidates on the basis of who give us more
money, dole-outs and other forms of perks. This way can only spell
disaster.
We should not even be guided solely by the candidates’
fame or their mass appeal, though that would already be a big help. We
have to be wary of image-building tactics that do not necessarily show
the true character of the candidates.
We should not be naïve as not to consider the many subtle
forms of propaganda that sway people’s favor unfairly. We have to
discern whether that mass appeal that candidates may have, spring
truly from some divine or humanly legitimate charisma, or it is simply
a product of some witchery.
What we should look into in vetting the candidates is
their track record, their performance in public service, their
achievements and their mistakes and how they handled those.
Integrity and competence should always go together.
Integrity without competence would not give us good governance.
Neither competence without integrity. They are supposed to have a
mutual relationship.
Integrity evokes a sense of completeness and wholeness as
well as order, harmony, consistency, honesty. For us, it is crucial
because it is something to work and live out, protect, defend and even
fight for. It does not come automatically with our DNA.
We have to know its real essence, its firm basis and real
source. We have to know the different elements involved in achieving
it, as well as the techniques and skills to get the act together.
Hopefully we can develop a clear and correct science about it, both in
its theoretical and practical aspects.
Offhand, we have to be clear that the ultimate foundation,
source and goal of our integrity is God, our Creator and Father.
Hence, we have to understand that the pursuit of integrity cannot be
done outside of this original religious context. Any understanding of
integrity outside of this would be compromised right from the start.
Even if our concept of God and of how to relate to him is not yet
clear, we have to hold it as a necessary prerequisite, at least
theoretically, because it would be funny to look for the origin,
meaning and purpose of integrity simply in ourselves or in the world.
That way of pursuing integrity would make it a mere human
invention, and given the way we are, we could not help but be
subjective and therefore prone to have different versions of
integrity.
Competence requires a working knowledge of the common good
and of what it requires. It involves a good understanding and
practical skills to live the social principles of solidarity and
subsidiarity. It demands one to have a clear vision of the goals to
achieve. Otherwise, there would be disorder and chaos.
It requires continuing formation, continuing effort to
know the concrete conditions and circumstances of the relevant issues
and situations of one’s work. Thus constant updating of relevant
knowledge and skills is needed.
It urges the officials to always polish their virtue of
prudence, making due study, consultations as well as timely decisions
and action. It requires the officials to know how to coordinate the
different elements of his office. It also involves a certain
sensitivity to changes taking place and the ability to correspond to
them without getting lost in the essentials.
With what we are seeing in this funny but painful episode
of the “tanim-bala” in NAIA, let’s hope that we can learn the lesson
of how to choose our leaders and public officials.
No comments:
Post a Comment