Madame, my fellow advisers, I’m afraid it is in these moments – where we take for granted the potential of free

political discourse – do we experience the tragedy of politics. Politics should be an exercise of freedom: it should
be an exercise of the liberty we inherit – and are entitled to – as members of the very community in which we
are governed by the laws we allow ourselves to be subjected to. We have to remember that politics is a
contingent of human freedom; it has a key role in sustaining the efficacy of a society through the success of its
individuals. But, it is also the practice of politics that sustains the individuality of a society. Without this
individuality, which constitutes the plurality of politics in general, we necessitate the monopoly of ideas; this is
detrimental to our goal as a society to prosper and alleviate the injustices of the less-endowed. If it is true that
politics is nothing more than a necessary evil for sustaining the life of humanity, then politics has indeed begun
to banish itself from the world and to transform its meaning into meaninglessness (Arendt, 110).

We try to strive for the ideal society, but it is not expedient to give more power to a specific sector – to the top
donors – if we want to achieve one that functions for everybody. A political system should embody the
predilection of all its constituents; it is a great injustice not only to the stakeholders of this society, but also to
the common good by giving prerogative to a minority elite. Although idealistic, a good [and effective] society is
one in which all members can participate, not because they share a single idea of the good, but because they
[can at least] agree on the fair terms for coming to an understanding of what kind of a common world to build
– a world which will allow each among its members to discover a good human life (Rodriguez, 27). Retaining
the individuality of politics – allowing each member to attend in discourse with the other constituents – ensures
the inclusive state of society. The decisions of the state and of the administration should be affected only insofar
as it is attended in open political discourse and is inclusive of the constituents it will impact.

It is true; life is unfair. Those at the top of society are usually endowed with talents and skills which they
monopolize, and this continues in perpetuity. However, the natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor
is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What
is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts. You hold the incredible circumstance of
power in which you can either proliferate the gap between sectors, or you can choose to stand in solidarity not
with the less deserved – for they deserve as much as those at the top – but the less entitled. Perhaps if the
discourse on nationalism were carried out in the vernacular, using ‘damayan’ and [Jacinto’s] ‘pag-ibig’, we
might see drastic change.

Rawls, John. "Chapter 2." A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1971, www.csus.edu/indiv/c/chalmersk/econ184sp09/johnrawls.pdf.