For Polsci 71 Under Professor Maria Editha B. Enumerabellon
Introduction
Political systems are always in evolution just as the tides and the sand they are ever shifting
transforming from one thing to another undistinguishable object. Such is the nature of political
systems it enables swift adjustments for the prevailing good of the citizenry and most of all the
state. But what brings forth the origins if the state how did it come to being from the chaotic
pecking order of the great apes to the sophisticated systems that are in place. Human nature is
practically governed by three primordial components, Necessity, Reason and lastly Belief. It is
these core components which govern human reason and best embody what a man must carry
in order to succeed in this politically chaotic world. But firstly let us first look into the origin of
such thoughts and their implicatons and processes in the vicious uncontrollable cycle called life.
Let us begin with the first and most powerful mouthpiece of life “Necessity” while the three
may have only few differences between each other, the yoke of necessity is significant due to
its primacy in our daily life. “Necessity” is the raw rational process which provides the thoughts
and aspirations of survivalism, thoughts like i am hungry, i have to drink, i need shelter and so
on. Whereas the process in which one satiates one’s needs through the life and blood of others
is the principle of “Greed”. The principle of Greed dictates that to act upon necessity one must
deprive others of resources, mates and fulfillment of their own basic needs. While the
permissive thoughts of such beliefs are wrong based on the established cultural indoctrination
necessarily Greed is never evil it is only an output of necessity.
Reason on the other hand deals with the most advanced development of the human mind
wherein man is seperated from any living being for his ability to differentiate the plausible and the improbable hence being able to determine what is logically right from what is illogical. With
this faculty of thought man stepped from the shadows and into the light of enlightenwent
which under the influence of necessity led to the birth of clans, nations, weapons and so on.
With reason he can discern tha favorability of his conditions and those attached to him as a
whole, for it is with reason that he distinguishes his family from another family and his friend
from foe.
Belief unlike the two arises is codependent upon the two prior components it is either the
byproduct of higher logical reasoning of the mind or the byproduct of the lesser illogical
thoughts, conversely it could be a product of the minimal side of necessity whereas it could also
be the hedonistic side of the necessity taken to the extremes. Hence Belief is the most
complicated of the three components it dances and sways with the various thoughts of those
who weild it and encapsulates the various unyielding thoughts of humanity despite it being
an immaterial resource. Belief becomes a immaterial resource for belief can be manipulated in
order to further the ambitions and moves of a cause. By instilling the seeds of warped reason
and feeding it with illogical necessity that breeds irrational action, Belief can equip peaceful
people into a warlike mob bent on bloodshed.
With these three components Mankind developed from the uneducated and uncivilized savage
that he was to the highly sophisticated creature he came to be. But it begs the question, of the
three which was first in the development of humanity? Was it the doctrine of Necessity? The
Rationality and logic of Reason? Or the prevalent and unrelenting force that is Belief?
Nevertheless Humanity developed due to these three major components and these three still take center stage even today. Let us then open our minds to the sound of reason, necessity and
belief. In order to better understand the treaty of Greed.
Necessity
Long before the rise of nations and states the world was a bestial and simple place ruled by the
law of necessity and greed. Humankind was still animalistic defined by her core nature of take
and take, wherein the primordial form of man acted upon the greed wrought about by his
necessity in an indiscriminate uncalculated manner without seeing into the possible outcomes
of his actions. In this stage man due to him being a social animal existed as small singular family
units bent on proactive defense against the forces of nature, wherein he was exposed to
predation, natural disasters and change in habitat.
The Rise of civilization
Civilization as we all know was never a byproduct of higher reasoning and the development of
belief. But prior to that what was life like? If one were to study prehistory the most ancient
component of nature would be Necessity long before the rise of reason and belief it has
dominated the lives of all living beings to the first ancestral bacterium to the highly evolved
great ape. Life before the rise of reason was governed by Greed, due to almost all creatures
competing against each other and doing what they see is necessary in order to keep themselves
fully functional. This greed also corresponds not only to resources but also privelages like
mates, territory and power. Due to this rampant survivalism only the fittest, smartest and most
advanced creature were able to mate and survive hence setting the stage for humanity. Due to the dangers that the ancestral human faced he eventually formed family groups as opposed to
the solitary life.
As knowledge was transmitted from one generation to another man slowly acquired the
component that became later known as reason. With this new found reason man was able to
form more highly organized groups, craft weapons as a means of self defense, and enable
themselves to be more highly efficient in food gathering. While reason enabled the specific
necessities of man to be satisfied, some individuals because of the state of lawlessness started
to engage in behaviour that was against the collective Greed of the group. These behaviors
were regarded with displeasure and hence were frowned upon by the collective community
hence the establishment of Belief.
Now these specific beliefs would eventually later on evolve into a more stratified form of beliefs
called Norms. These so called Norms enabled the community to repress these unwanted
behaviors and as such establish a rigid system of control over their individuals. This control
limited the violence that always coincided with every individuals greed, hence needless
violence was resolved through the faculty of reason. As violence was displaced in the personage
of man a structure later on evolved, these structures evolved from the ancient natural behavior
of seniority wherein individuals through force or experience led the collective group. Ancient
natural behavior later evolved into a more complicated system wherein Leaders were created
in order to better decide for the collective good for the community. These leaders had to be
individuals who were the smartest, strongest and the most prestigous amongst the group.
These leaders eventually through their deeds established a new form of belief that was to
called a Cult. These Cults were later further developed to give heirachal authority to the leader and to
extand his powers beyond leadership to command over life and death. Some of these leaders
then created supernatural beings as to placate the fears of their collective group towars
unexplained phenomena hence the birth of the belief system called Gods. Through these Gods
the leaders became the prime medium or they chose to appoint certain people tasked with
appeasing these so called Gods. Implications of rule may vary but one thing was certain the
leaders who made use of Gods formalized their construct through religion. And religion
dictated that these respective leaders where appointed or given by the Gods to rule over their
fellow men in their stead hence becoming irremovable and utterly beyond the control of the
original collective group. These leaders who were established through their divine right became
knows as the first kings of the world.
These kings later on made use of the established norms and religion modifying them into a set
of strict rational and definitive constructs that limited the rights of fellow beings hence the birth
of Laws. Laws as were defined by aristotle is “Reason, devoid of passion” in a sense he was
right laws indeed had no passion but laws also were devoid of morality. They embodying their
creators designs and machinations. With the existence of laws the previously unowned
resources became substatcually possesed by others. As laws enabled concepts of ownership
and of the belief in idividuality while being rendered codependent on the hierarchal society set
by the kings. The once equally distributed forces were later split up in an uneven ratio between
those who were favoured by the king his nobles and those who were unlucky to be of no
acquaintance to him. This system produced a highly opressive society which entailed that those with lesser standing with the king would be dependent on him and his nobles rule and
protection.
This state of rule was highly volatile as commoner could rise to nobility and royalty was
deposed in favor of more outstanding leaders. The rise of deposition paved the way for a more
rational society as more and more people became aware of the massive controlling attempts of
religion and the king. These individuals more often than not, were members of the nobility,
some of them however were of the peasant class, idividuals with an overdeveloped sense of
reason these people came to be the philosophers. The philosophers were not always looked
upon with merit by rulers as they brought with them ideas that challenged the established
belief and reason. Being the rabblerousers of their time many of the were persecuted while
others were heard by their rulers. Due to the discontentment of many towards the opressive
system set by the monarchs, the populace enlightened by the philosophers regressed to an
advanced form of that collective group leadership that was ever so prevalent in the past. Hence
the birth of the system of Democracy.
Democracy dictated the rule of the many wherein even the poorest farmer could voice his
concerns amongst the thoughts of the nobility. But even this system had its very own flaws that
canceled out its merits. Due to the democratic “rule of the majority” chaos ensued as the
majority made up of the poor and opressed were also consequently made up mostly of
illiterates. As these people grabbed power and shifted it around, their decisions come to
endanger the collective group which had known evolved to a state of advancement called
Society. Society was dominated by desire as opposed to reason hence the collective greed of
individuals was never realzied and what occured was the consistent clash of the individual greeds of all those in society. This phenomena ruptured the class system until constitutional
government was enacted to supress the faults of the democratic mistake.
The constitutional government was based on a military government wherein the flaws of
democracy were supressed by a code of strict laws which limited the individual greeds of the
citizenry once more. With these rational and legal based government everyone got their fair
share of the wealth that poured out from their state. Law enabled man to become better and
rise above his station under the pretext of equity man thrived in the constituional government.
However irregardless of the favourability of such a system elements of the old still existed and
wanted their own chance at power. Hence the previous nobility with all their wealth and power
eventually deposed and established their own set of rule where they felt that they the most
educated class should rule, hence the rise of aristocracy.
Aristocracy being made up of the select at first was pleasant as it contained the finest minds of
the society. The system they set up which favours other nobles was not as oppressive as those
of the monarchy. But as with everything that is under the grasp of human nature the individual
greeds of the nobiity eventually won over. Transforming the once decently just aristocracy to a
highly opressive and unliberating oligarchy. With their collective rule the populace was strained
by the burdens of their extravagance, the wealthy enriching themselves and the poor only
getting worse. In such a system the masses once again with the establishment of their collective
reasoning as in their past experience with king Deposed the oligarchs thus ensuring the
repetition of the vicious cycle of Monarchy, Democracy, Aristocracy. With the cycle complete
many societies had formed significant identities that enabled them the oppurtunity to consider
all those in their land as kin hence the birth of States and the rise of the early social contract. The early social contract differs from the one John Locke proposed as it was far more crude and
simplistic in its ventures. Focusing far more on the adressing of the due rewards of those who
were in the position of workers as opposed to the wellbeing of the social spectrum of Locke’s
theory. The early social contract was plain and simple those who ruled regardless of monarchy,
Aristocracy or a democracy must sustain the needs of the people. Should the ruler or system
fail to do so the populace could go into two choices, either withdraw support and pledge theirs
to another ruler or system, or simply take power into their own hands and lead a rebellion of
massive scale thus shifting power back into the hands of the populace. This simplistic social
contract ensured that states had to meet the demands of the public lest they are ousted out of
power. This social contract would later on go hand in hand with the acquisition of knowledge by
the populace, and would serve to further the development of states.
With the establishment of knowledge of the systems that all human beings had undergone the
collective identity of human beings decided what ever system would suit their specific states.
These so called states arose in cities hence the birth of city states wherein the city controlled a
significant amount of territory and firmly defended it from enterlopers lest it lose its power.
States were composed of 4 components, sovereignity, territory, a population and government.
All city states had each of those respectively city’s who did not have their own sovereignity
eventually became protectorates of those established city states with these cities becoming
eventually part of the territory of the state and its people initially being absorbed into the
collective identity of the state which became known as culture.
Culture defined the identity of the nation, it had strict measure of beliefs that overstretched the
reason of law. For these cultural beliefs while beyond the demands of reason were certainly were the main centerpiece that held this specific people despite their own personal belief. As
cultural beliefs are indoctrinated mass, pumped and conditioned into a young mind, Due to the
prevalence of such belief child in question rationalizes that what is practiced by many is
necessarily the right form of belief. Hence with these cultural and cognitive bias that their
culture is superior to others and their outlandish preference for it, the rise of nationalism was
evident. With which states would be able to exercise control over their own specific ppopulace
and mobilize it in defense of the ideals and goals of the state.
Nationalism was the cornerstone of power for the fledgling states with no form of professional
army, it was the primary means of defense against conquest by other states and their attempt
to undermine the states defenses. A nationalistic state would entail the loyalty of its citizenry
thus ensuring that all support is always afforded by the state, and should the state which to levy
troops it would have a constant supply of eager volunteers willing to protect the states
interests. This Nationalistic fervor also made sure that agents who were educated would be less
likely to defect, as abandonment of the state would result in grave dishonour for the traitor and
his relatives in question. Nationalism also brought forth a considerably more powerful
diplomatic position, since as opposed to the appealing to numerous cultural leaders states were
dealing specifically with the representatives of all those people. Nationalism thus is the arm
strength of the state, forged from the faculty of her respective bodies.
And with these advancements fledgling states became nations, and these respective nations or
kingdoms slowly transformed into empires. As with the passage of time countless forms of
statemanship rose up to fit the needs of the particular state, whether culturally, spiritually,
militarily and so on. As time and time again has proven states who were unwilling to change were eventually swallowed up by those more flexible states. Hence all states and political
systems are in constant motion always developing and establishing better ways of government,
National defense, Public health, Equal rights and the list just goes on. Therefore all states have
to be flexible enough to adjust to political climate of their respective era, while also respecting
and learning from the past mistakes of other states. States should also be centered on the
construct of a form of government wherein the populace and the needs of the state go hand in
hand in the form of a social contract. As such no ideal system of government exists as each
system’s effectivity depends on the people in power. Hence with these fulfillments civilization
arose and led into the states we have today.
The Philippine State
The Philippines as a state is special as with all states but what makes it all so extraordinary is its
sytem of rule. The philippines was colonized by the spanish and the americans. And naturally
this created a government and a culture that is firmly entrenched in colonialism. Wherein the
common Pilipino does not grasp the efforts of his countrymen and by selective bias always opt
towards foreign goods believing in their superiority through years of indoctrination. This proves
to be our nations downfall as the belief in our own arms is severely underestimated and
degraded thus lowering our own productivity. Colonialism has all brought with it a barrage of
rational views on running the country this naturally creates a divide wherein east clashes with
west and those in the middle clash with the other powers as well, effectively canceling their
influences out. The root problem however is that almost all business men in the country
operate in a state of unecessary greed wherein they take more than what is deemed necessary
for their subsistence. Because of this imbalance in greed, majority of the country lies below the
middle class and must earn out a living in a highly competitive world. When the people are
beyond the means of a good education his reason is underdeveloped and severely biased,
which in the long run causes problems in alleviating the social position of man in the country.
And repeating the brutal cycle which obstructs the development of the country as a highly
developed and powerful state.
Hence the Philippine state can be considered a fledgling state due to its over reliance on foreign
influence and its highly marginalized economy. With its string of unrelenting opressive policies
in regards to land reform, little progress is being made. While the country has a highly capable
work force this work force is negatated due to the prevalent system which in job competition is tampered in by corruption and a patronage system. Hence rendering the most competent
workforce useless with most aiming for greener pastures abroad. Divisions in culture and
idealogy also becomes an obstacle for progress as disunity is apparent due slights by previous
administration towards certain groups hence fueling a heated clash of beliefs and biases that go
against the necessary unity for nationalism. With a oppressive economic system , cultural
conflict and the lacking of nationalism the philippines is prone to be a non progressive state
should the right measures not be taken on at the right time.
The Traits of an Exemplary Statesman
Every state must have a fitting ruler in order for its needs and interests to be put forth into
motion. Each state needs a specific ruler in mind, what necessarily works for one will not
necessarily work for another. But in general the head of state should be first and for most an
Exemplary statesman. A farmer put into the place of head of state will simply have no idea
regarding the comings and goings of trade, politics, warfare and even his knowledge in
agriculture will most likely be limited to what he understands from his own experiences. Hence
to give the state to those who are not fit to rule them will lead to chaos, as a sheep who rules
over wolves will soon find it self being devoured by his subjects. A ruler hence should be one of
fitting station, one who must be educated in most manner quite akin to plato’s the philosopher
king. While not necessarily as grand and intelligent as the philosopher king any statesman who
best embodies the general knowledge of all the affairs of his country is gifted with an enormous
advantage as opposed to those who simply specialize only in some. Statesmanship after all
comes with knowledge , awareness and a solid sense of reason. For more often than not many
unreasonable, unknowledgable and unaware leaders had plunged their own countries and kingdoms into ruin through their pathetic leadership. And any leader who does not embody
such traits should easily be discarded as a candidate.
A leader must all so be popular with the masses, in history many kings and statesmen have
often fallen into such unfavourable conditions but due to the loyalty of the populace they
managed to stay a float. A leader therefore must always have the support of the people in
order to further the nations agenda. As a leader who lacks the love and support of his people
will regress to periods of unproductivity as public opinion will scathe all his carefully layed out
plans. However a leader who carries with him the love and respect of the majority will more
often than not have numerous policies, as regardless of his actions the people’s loyalty will
secure the legitimacy of his actions thus allowing to make more sucessive moves despite the
pressure of those against him. In the philippine setting few leaders have the undevided total
support of the majority, one of these would be Magsaysay and the Incumbent Duterte. If one
were to look at the progress of their rule as opposed to others who struggled with control.
Theirs is a more active and reactive system which propagated movement not just in
Government but also in the citizenry it self. To better achieve the unity of the nation a practical
unmarried leader should marry into the Sultan of sulu’s family. Why this you ask? By uniting all
sides of the country the christian majority and the Islamic majority, one would be able to pacify
the problem of insurgency and gain enough popularity with the masses by resolving all
conflicts. And with the pacification of the insurgents in this country the state can turn its
interests to other crucial fields of attention that necessarily empowers and feeds it to the
hghest regard. Hence the Leader becomes a Hero of sorts by bringing all sides of the nation into the fold and ushering what the next necessary step to our nation’s rise and our essential
leader’s decisive trait, Nationalism.
A good leader should also be nationalistic putting the needs and interests of his countrymen far
above his own. While this may seem necessarily impossible in the philippine setting but should
a leader of such type be elected he would be able to ease and reverse what is necessarily the
foreign monopoly of foreign nations over our motherland. A not so perfect but decent example
is Duterte’s policies regarding foreign companies by kicking out abusive chinese mining firms
duterte is able to protect first of all our natural resources from unfair exploitation, while also
safeguarding said natural resources for our very own future use. By showcasing his tough guy
act one could say Duterte is a highly biased nationalist who seeks to strengthen the country. His
statements about exiting the UN while necessarily being a bad move showcases his thoughts of
how national development can be furthered without outside influence from other powers. As
after all not all aid is free their is always a catch in all these economic and political endeavors.
Hence a good nationalistic leader is essential to protect the interests of our people and to
prevent a rapid reliance on foreign good and investors and while at the same time securing our
selves from further exploitation.
The struggles of the nations working class is one of the most concurrent themes in politics and
nation building. If the working class is unable to supply itself with the necessities of life then the
nation and the people as a whole become subservient to those oligarchs who monopolize
business. An exemplary leader must have a good understanding of the social contract, it is not
just a mere suggestion but a necessity. Any leader who does not understand the weight of his
government is either a fool or a tyrant in the making. He should keep the balance favorable for those who work to sustain themselves and those who profit to sustain all. It is an utmost
necessity that he has a clear enough understanding of his nation’s social problems in order for
him to strike decisively at the system of opression. The leader after all must embody the
interest of all parties and not just one side of the spectrum. Thus he must reconcile the land
owning class to give up their land and facilitate agrarian reform while also providing subsidies
for small opening local industries. By following such a clear cut plan a leader prepares his
people for nationalist construction while also necessarily satisfying the Greed of both the rich
and the workers. By feeding this necessary greed the conflict between the two sides are
resolved which leads to a more cooperative economy.
Belief is what breaks or makes a good leader, should religions oppose his motions more often
than not he brings about enmity of the populace and soon loses favor. A leader hence must
also be a master of the manipulation of belief. He earns and gains the favour of the religous
sector and gets them to convince the People to serve his Earthly city heartily in order to ensure
all goes well in God’s good graces. By making use of religion the leader becomes a symbol of
hope to the people, and as such shape their respective belief and reason to his will. Making
them see the necessity of his actions and policies in order to protect them from the perilous
dangers of the global community.
And lastly and most importantly a leader must be Machiavellian in nature, he must do what
necessity entails him to do. Forgoing thoughts of familial relationships and so on only aiming for
the necessary in order to keep order. He as a leader must always and always make the best
choice following the supreme maxim of being feared over being loved. A leader must go to the
highest extent to protect his position to undermine attempts to disrupt his rule either to cunning manipulation or through direct yet decisive moves. He is also careful in employment of
skills as his too much of shaking up the waters could stir the giants in the depths. He must be
prudent in his judgement being careful that all his moves be for the good of his state, while also
protecting his person for the sake of his plans for progress. He therefore must do what needs to
be done regardless of belief. For he is reason and necessity in human form. And he is the living
embodiment of the state and the necessities and reason of the people without the illogical.
Hence the political leader should be a competent leader that embodies all of the
aforementioned traits in order for him to reverse this highly unfavourable political, cultural,
social and economic position. Otherwise he would be unable to resolve the necessary issues at
hand, he must embody the mastery of the components of human nature if he is to become a
fierce competitor in the global arena. Excersing caution and dexterity and handling the
information that circulates within his domain, he must secure his nation from all assailants and
be sure to limit the amount of intelligence being leaked to foreign powers. While at the
sametime he must make himself known to the world and garner the respect of all nations
through his wit and rhetoric. And lastly and most importantly he must be the master of his own
soul and not some pathetic little puppet that dances through the infinite strings of the major
powers of the world. He must be a philosopher with his own clear and defined vision that
renders him above the rest of his people, and thus embodying the living essence of the state Bibliography Plato, ., Grube, G. M. A., & Reeve, C. D. C. (1992). Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
Rousseau, J.-J., Falconer, T., & Wokler, R. (1762). Du contrat social, ou, Principes du droit politique. À Amsterdam: Chez M.M. Rey.
