Subservience to persons of authority has always been a distinct characteristic or trait of Filipinos since time immemorial.
The Spaniards ruled the Philippines for more than 300 years, and this was more or less brought about by our subservience to their rule.
In hindsight, historians today now understand that the reason for the longevity of Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines was most likely because of the influence of the church – since there was no separation between the church and the state back then due to the Patronato Real. Thus, friars and secular priests were mostly used as political instruments to maintain Filipino loyalty to Spain.
They did this so successfully that even the mother of Jose Rizal, an educated woman, feared for her son’s life. Because for her, too much education was dangerous.
Filipinos in those days were afraid to act against blatant injustice because they feared something bad might happen to them as a result. They always played it safe.
To this day, people are afraid to speak truth to power.
This fear has often been capitalized by people in authority as they unabashedly continue to abuse their power. They can do this so easily because of the Filipino people’s subservient predilections to power.
As they say, just follow the rules and refrain from dissent. If there will be some dissent of any kind, this will then – almost always – be considered negatively, as questioning authority or insubordination.
They will then call the dissidents as people with no utang na loob or not having any modicum of gratitude to the people they’re criticizing.
By and large, the common defense these types of individuals here in the Philippines is that people should be more respectful – that good values and morals are more important than having an education, or being intelligent.
Unfortunately, this mentality would evince other Filipinos’ backward thinking; it’s a common defense mechanism among Filipinos who are not used to, or feel uncomfortable towards, people speaking out against people in authority.
That feeling of discomfort is more or less brought about by their subservience to authority – a trait that was common during the 19th century among Filipinos.
But 19th century was Rizal’s time; we should at least have learned from history, and change this negative trait among Filipinos.
Matter-of-factly, Rizal – who was irritated by the insouciance of his fellow Filipinos – said that Filipinos tend to be very subservient to people in power; it was ingrained in their minds that going against the authorities would simply be an act of disrespect.
Tyranny and injustice continued to pervade during Rizal’s time because of this subservience, and backward mentality that speaking out against people in authority is rude and disrespectful.
So many Filipinos, sadly, have not learned from Rizal even if they venerate him every year, or worse, teach a subject devoted to his life, works, and writings.
Hypothetically speaking, the Filipinos who prefer good values and morals over intelligence and education are typically those who would judge Rizal had they lived during his time. They would be the ones to judge him for being rude against the friars, for being disrespectful against the Spanish colonial officials, and for having no values whatsoever because of his writings.
At present, they are the ones who are dismissive of dissidents rallying in the streets; they’re also the ones who are over-zealously loyal to a certain person in authority or an institution that any form of dissent directed to them is invariably considered as a disrespectful act.
However, these people speak out, too; they can also be opinionated, albeit only when they are personally affected by an issue. And if they’re not, then why bother, right?
Oft-times, it becomes personal for these people, and that is where we should draw the line.
One’s responsibility in the workplace should not be mixed with his personal prejudice or biases.
I know this because there is a current issue in a certain institution about a form of injustice done towards a certain individual. I believe there has been no action done so far by the concerned individuals because of their abhorrence to the main advocate of the issue.
It seems that their abhorrence towards the messenger has compromised their judgment.
You may abhor the messenger, but never include the message – never invalidate or undermine the message.
It may be worse than I think it is, though. They might genuinely hate the message, too, just like how the friars and Spanish colonial authorities viewed Rizal.
One of Rizal’s main advocacies was equality between Filipinos and Spaniards. It was different during that time because the Spanish colonial authorities – more so the friars – did not like his animadversions towards the hypocrisy of the church and the corruption in government.
They also did not like Rizal’s message of equality. Hence, it was both the messenger and the message they disliked.
In the end, I wonder… if these backward-minded individuals had lived during Rizal’s time, would they have bumptiously told him to just follow the rules of the Spanish colonial authorities? Or would they have just told him to respect the friars and the corrupt Spanish colonial officials? Because then again, they were the ones responsible for his education – thus, there should be a some utang na loob?
These fatuous individuals with misplaced loyalty would rather choose a person who is blindly loyal or dedicated – like Boxer from the Animal Farm – to a person in authority or institution; a person who would simply follow the rules without question will always be better compared to a thinking, if [in their eyes] unappreciative, individual who cries foul when there is injustice, and who is not afraid to speak out against abusive people in power.
Dissent should never be mistaken as disloyalty.
History would show that those who honestly dissent against injustice and abuse of power are ineluctably revered as heroes, while those who are remembered as enablers are the sycophantic, blind loyalists.
__________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]