Lanz Phil T.

Lacandalo Political Theory

PS3A Prof. Eric De Torres
THINKPIECE

INTRODUCTION

From the species of Homo Habilis to the modern-day Homo sapiens, humans
have evolved for almost 200,000 years. For this reason, I formerly would ask myself,
what makes humans superior to a herd of cows or bees? Is it the lack of wings, a bee
sting, or the size of our ears? Putting aside the difference based on our bodily physique,
it is the intelligence of humanity that not only makes us different but superior in the
animal chain. Sure, we have similarities in the context of the social hierarchy: there is a
group leader, but the most prominent distinction is how humans act. Cows and bees
comply with their boss cows and queen bees, while we humans are individualists in
nature. According to Heywood (2005), we can cooperate without our principles and
religious identity being suppressed or commanded by a hierarchical power. Moreover,
another aspect of humanity’s distinction from primal animals is the ability to be unique.
Uniqueness to others by being able to maneuver itself in shaping its personality through
the lessons it accumulates from personal experiences, parental orientation, or anything
that can influence a person’s growth. Metaphorically speaking, humans are the factory
that makes or invents the result of accumulating many materials. Mentioning these two
points, they recognize the fundamental nature of inalienable rights. As Locke has
emphasized in his work, “the nature of all men is in a State of perfect freedom”
(Locke, 1994, p. 271). This is the essence of Liberalism which, at the time of John
Locke’s prominence, opposes the absolutist idea that the projection of the power of a
single entity has absolute power and the behavior of the people must be compliant.

In the past six years, I reflected on my political stance as I grew up. Therefore, I
can say that my political orientation is inclined to the liberalist approach. This paper will
explain how Liberalism is suitable for my personality and on par with other theories
discussed in the readings, which will be addressed in 2 parts:

I. REALISM

II. LIBERALIST STANCE

BODY

Liberalism is a political theory that gained prominence during the age of

enlightenment in which it was conceptualized and propagated by the Philosopher John
Locke. The theory came to light when European monarchical governments were still the
primary governing body of many countries. People at the time had started to grow tired
of hereditary monarchies. His Literary work , “Two treatises of Government,” can be
perceived as an opposition to monarchial governments. “Indeed, it was the very
absence of these conditions in practice that motivated Locke to develop his
theory and to propagate it against the prevailing conditions'' (John, 2013). To
understand more of the recipes Locke needed to make for his theory to be taken lightly,
it will be compared to one of the theories emphasized in the readings.

Ia. REALISM AND MACHIAVELLIANISM

Realism is a theory that is seen as a counterargument to idealism. “Tranquility

is fleeting at best; conflict and instability are perennial possibilities. The yearning
for a world beyond politics is at best diversionary, at worst destructive (Galston,
2010.).” This statement from Galston, for me, is correct. Yes, it is part of human nature
that it is our habit to think or imagine an ideal world that is free from war, all cures for
diseases, no poverty, and other ideals of a utopian world. However, it will be alarming if
we have this way of thinking. If we are too imaginative on many possible scenarios, it
will make us illusionists who cannot recognize the best solutions to a fundamental
problem because it is too ideal. Our minds will fall into a false consciousness, eventually
diverting individuals to reality. Galston emphasized the rarity of the presence of a well-
ordered society since there are times societies are polarized in many aspects. The
solution for the flaw is emphasizing the Latin term “Modus Vivendi,” which means
finding common ground between two parties for a society to coordinate and eventually
coexist peacefully by having an agreement. For an agreement to be upheld,
coordination is a primary goal. From the realist perspective, Galston stated, “At the end
of the day, coordination will require coercion or the threat of coercion (Galston,
2010).” If we understand the statement of Galston’s readings, we can see how large the
difference is between Liberalism and Realism.

In our history, specifically during the renaissance, some theories employed a

realist perception of human nature. Machiavelli, for example, has a philosophy on
human nature. Having a high reputation for his literary work The Prince, it was
considered a “Dictator’s playbook.” In the statement from Galston, the philosophy of
Machiavellianism has its political realist values for imposing power as it reiterates the
importance of coercion in leadership. In the realist view, for society to achieve
coordination, coercion is much more a fast tracking to receive results in a societal
agreement on a social contract. That is why Machiavellianism has a significant tendency
to become dictatorial. The bad guys and good guys embody the difference between
compliance and coordination because bad guys demand compliance from their subjects
for personal gain by using a radical approach, quick coercion. In contrast, the good guys
receive coordination through a consensus that takes time. Political Realism can be
applied to Duterte’s totalitarian tendencies in his Drug Campaign, which involves
coercion and its threat of coercion. He implemented his violent and ruthless drug war on
drug users, which is also a way to send a threat to other drug users still in the open that
they may suffer the same fate as the people who have been brutally killed, so the threat
work by their surrender and willing to rehabilitate which will be the agreement to the
status quo.

Ib. LIBERALISM

Liberalism highly recognizes individualism because, as Locke has emphasized in

his book and mentioned by Heywood, individuals are born with natural rights and
entitled to uphold their rights with little to no intervention by the state. I highly believe in
this because the state must protect the citizens for their rights and secure those rights.
Is the Constitution’s purpose also securing their rights and giving them knowledge? The
state must not grab away the rights of the people unless there is a level of consent,
unlike realism which has a pessimistic view of human behavior and can step on the
rights of the people to coerce them to comply. When the state has a prevailing liberal
culture with no constricting and authoritarian tendency to lead the state, people would
then embrace their nationality. At the same time, their patriotism will solely develop, and
their strength will grow and expand to the point that it can offer any service to the state,
even if offering their lives.

Furthermore, because of the pessimistic view of human nature, I believe it

underestimates the human mind's capabilities as it constricts them to be compliant with
a social rule that is imposed by a specific power and reiterating Locke’s statement, I
believe the state cannot constrict humanity on a hardened sphere of a single narrative
on what is right. In today’s world, we have seen governments forcibly impose their laws
on people that suppress their freedom. Look at Iran today, where women’s rights are
forcibly constricted by requiring them to follow the Islamic code. Many things are
considered illegal, from diversifying women and men, Public Displays of Affection, and
not wearing a Hijab. After the brutal beating of Mahsa Amini, protests since September
have been ongoing because Iranian women are now exhausted of their rights being
constricted by religious beliefs. This is in line with the readings of Beate John that it is
the nature of all men to be in a state of perfect freedom, which was cited in the readings
of Locke. To me, Locke’s quote in the reading of the two treatises was able to debunk
the methods of states that coercively imposed religious teachings in society on account
of his articulation in his book, “THE SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT” “God,
who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them a reason to
make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all
that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being (Locke,
1690)” The statement of Locke not only erases the distortion of the teaching of God that
was projected in the last centuries which became a basis of some countries to wage
war on religion and to impose authoritarian leadership based on the “teachings” of God
but also recognizes the diversity and the potential and behavior of human nature and
also provided abundant resources that will make our lives flourish which is onto us in
making an outline how to utilize it. The bottomline here is that the government’s
obligation is the protection of the human rights of the people and securing the diversity
of society as the totalitarian method of imposing rules for the people’s compliance to
shape a narrative on what is right is not only morally wrong but also never works in the
long term.

CONCLUSION

To sum up the essay, Liberalism is the political theory that fits my innate
personality and my political identity. It fits me because whenever I interact with people
with different beliefs and views, I must always respect and listen to them. After all, it
helps me understand why they are firm in this kind of belief, no matter how good or bad.
In that way, I am not contributing to the plague of putting people in a secluded position
that encircles them into a sphere that is detrimental to them and society, as I also
contribute to narrowing the academic discourse. Also, The state must not be coercive in
imposing its rules on people who will constrict their behavior. It is the nature of humans
to be curious about their surroundings and what they learn based on their experiences
and what they see. An excellent remedy to battle a harmful thought is to engage in an
academic discourse if we send a message that we can understand their belief and
where they come from rather than simply blocking people by disagreeing, which would
help it spread faster in the underground setting. These were the government’s methods
when combatting certain ideologies like communism. The Philippines had tried to fight a
group that incorporated a totalitarian theory by using totalitarian methods and eventually
failed to quash communism in the country.
REFERENCES:
Heywood A. (2004). Political theory: an introduction (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

John, B. (2013, August 15). Liberalism – In Theory and History. Palgrave Studies in
International Relations.

Galston, W. A. (2010). Realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory,

9(4), 385–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374001

Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Publishing Company.