WALA PAY SM
17 December 2024
by caloy bueno
Let's say that both sides of the conflict between warring political entities have glaring deficiencies or even liabilities. Any rational person would agree that to effectively remedy such a situation, there is ready recourse to the standards for adequately settling such matters ~ through the justice system (the rule of law). Serious culpabilities have to be addressed and righted, and innocence has to be duly recognized and upheld (or the lack thereof). Otherwise, such an untenable situation would only tend to worsen, and may even become disastrous for everyone, including the clueless public.
Back when there was no social media yet (i.e., still no Internet), the mainstream (or now termed "legacy") mass media virtually ruled the public sphere of influence. "Virtually" ~ because the actual rulers were those who owned and controlled such mass media, or had consummately bought its 'loyalty' and services. Still, the people at large had their own insights and stands on public matters or issues ~ because there were always some distinct local opinion leaders or outlier influential personalities who held less than popular views and standpoints that offered various options or alternative takes on any particular subject of public discourse.
In the Information Age, social media had fast become a milking cow for easy money ~ because people discovered that social media popularity was not just good for one's vanity, but also a lucrative source for income complementation or augmentation (or even as the main source) ~ if they knew how to 'weaponize' information and opinion, and therewith become influence peddlers. In politics, there is no lack of moneys to go around for such influence peddlers (as well as for established mainstream mass media pundits) that would serve to further reinforce politicians' "popularity and acceptance" among the people. Before the Internet, this was referred to as "envelopmental journalism" ~ pertaining to the legacy mass media practitioners (print media), or "payola system" with reference to the broadcast industry (radio and television).
So between social media and mainstream mass media (which have migrated to being electronic or digital also), the general populace would have so many sources of opinions and viewpoints available at their fingertips (i.e., through their cellphones). Political battlegrounds are now so far different from that of a few decades ago, when 'battle lines' were distinct or clearly delineated according to their obvious loyalties, and the 'analog' or real-life spaces and real-time dimensions involved. Today, however, such 'loyalties' or distinctions between stands are less clear or outstanding ~ perhaps because of rapidly shifting developments, or rapidly increasing payouts, or even a combination of the two. Of course, there are those who staunchly maintain their identified preferences and loyalties ~ these provide the 'referential points' in the many-dimensional arena that constitute the new political battlegrounds.
But the logical framework of any such political conflicts set against the existing sociocultural background at present (the people's hearts and minds) is still basically that of what is constitutionally and legally right, what is morally upstanding (and socially acceptable or ethical), and what is deemed best for the country's long-term sovereign interests and national benefit. It is largely within this framework that the political clashes are conducted in the virtual political battlegrounds ~ although when the weapons of influence and/or 'psy-ops' are engaged, "everything is fair in love and war" (practically nothing is barred or withheld). The aforesaid people's hearts and minds are the primary targets (and therefore also constitute the most number of "collateral casualties").
If all these seem too complicated or incomprehensible, it is what it is ~ that's modernity and technological advancement weaving its invisible web within and all around the state of human civilization today. Most people are ill-equipped to even grasp the fullness of such convergent realities, or how it all works. However, it can be somewhat simplified ~ to be more palatably 'bite-sized' and more easily digestible. The key is the 'hearts and minds' of the people ~ the ultimate battleground for any political, social, economic or whatever issues and problems affecting the public life of the people.
What really matters to the people ~ within their own spheres of influence and spans of control? Their individual families' welfare and interests and future. Now, as head of your own family, what do you do when your children quarrel or have disagreements? Of course, you try to impartially and fairly settle the matter, as soon as possible, while also imparting some wisdom for their guidance moving forward from such conflicts. Blow up that scenario to national proportions ~ we're all one Filipino family, but practically all are bickering and fighting each other ~ over this political conflict obtaining at present.
Who therefore should stand as the "parents" or "head of the family" in such a (national) conflict?
Maybe the Supreme Court will (or should?) step into that role . . .
#PagMayTime
