In the beginning, my primary hope for the new DOT slogan was that it resonates with international audiences. Now, it may be my hopes are a bit higher, and broader, than before.

Looking back a bit, the fundamental flaw with regards to WoW Philippines was precisely that it did not resonate internationally. The gaudiness of the advertisements, the inherent lack of message in the tagline (you think #itsmorefuninthePhilippines is bad now, imagine how much fun netizens would have had with WoW Philippines), spelled its doom internationally.

Let’s face it, while there are serious flaws in our tourism policies and products (what products?), our inability to create internationally resonant branding also spelled doom for our tourism community. I still believe this is why our government began the whole domestic tourism campaign (and movable holidays): We were failing to attract inbound tourists, so we had to promote internal tourism.

Of course, the rarely spoken point is that we ignored culturally and historically significant tourism product development. Now, one critique I have heard is that heritage tourism is flawed because it focuses on international audiences. I think that ignores the broader importance of heritage conservation rooted in the surrounding environment. As well, other countries have demonstrated that historical preservation and conservation, far from creating pockets of cultural affluence, redound positively throughout and environment. It connects the denizens of that area to their history, it creates communities. And economically speaking, preservation and the leveraging of those artifacts positively impacts the development of localities. It attracts tourists, it encourages capital infusions and development; properly harnessed it can be a boon for social entrepreneurship endeavors. Urban renewal does not require new structures, it can happen with the proper preservation and restoration of old built heritage. Tourism, whether domestic or international, is not just about attracting visitors; properly harnessed, it can be about social, cultural, and economic development. Tourism is just like any other industry, it has its issues and possibilities. But in a country like ours, it can be a major force for positive growth and development. What it comes down to is how we go about promoting that development, not only in how we package it. Because, and this cannot be said enough, our heritage is amazing, it’s gorgeous, and it’s compelling.

On a broader social note, some of the brouhaha surrounding the tagline seems to be grounded in non-constructive wellsprings. For example, the prevalence of binary thinking in our society; the idea that because there are social ills extant the entirety of the Philippines is disreputable. The negative portions of the country should not, should never, obscure the positives. Just because we have poverty does not mean we lack in natural beauty. Just because there are cultural flaws, does not mean we aren’t a vibrant and attractive country. Culture is not an either or proposition; yet in many ways our modes of thinking are rooted in precisely that.

As well, it seems that we have a tendency to demand change, and yet refuse to accept change; arguing that (amorphously I might add) it’s not the change we want. Well, what exactly is it we want to change then? Moving forward as a country is not an instantaneous event. Projects, programs, changes, whatever should be evaluated on their own merits, within their own context, and whether or not they will positively impact the country over time (not just now). Our continuing desire to demand socio-economic reforms, or anti-corruption measures, or new tourism campaigns, then reject them out of hand when presented is a flaw that contributes to stymying the evolution of the nation. There is a distinct difference between taking a principled, intellectual, and critical stand on an issue (whether for or against) and continuing to reject or accept any all attempts immediately. The idea of oppositional politics and modes of thinking (again going back to the binary) is so deeply embedded in our public discourse that it is difficult to distinguish between constructive criticism and just plain bitching. We have this both romanticized and simplified idea of what a public intellectual is: Essentially, it has become someone who just denigrates, no matter the issues or position. Even if it might contradict a position that person took in the past, or be incompatible with their ‘political and social philosophy’ (if they have one that is). We admire the contradictory, without even questioning the fundamentals in terms of philosophy or thought behind the opposition. Take a stand; be principled, critical, and incisive. That, I truly believe, will be a boon to the country. It very well may be that the latest campaign does fail. But at the very least, we should try and make sure that it does succeed. Failure is an option, but it should only be an option. It only becomes an eventuality when we as a country prefer to endlessly chase our tails rather than try and contribute to shared success.

As I said earlier, my initial reaction to the latest tourism slogan was negative. I thought it trite and more than a little superficial. But after my early trepidation, I saw what they were trying to say and how they were trying to say it. And I must say I have had a slight change of heart. Yes, I still think there are serious shortfalls in our tourism product development plans and policies; yes, I think it might leave itself open to ridicule (Sex Tourism. #itsmorefuninthephilippines), but I appreciate what they are trying to do. I can see the possibilities. That does not mean I am a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical convert. It does mean that I can see the possibilities and how it can actually be of benefit to the Philippines. And at least optimistically believe that we might finally have a quality, internationally resonant campaign.

Somewhat surprisingly, this campaign indirectly touches on something that remains unaddressed in public discourse. One of the continuing issues in the Philippines has nothing to do with our culture, our economy, our geography, or politics; it’s about how we view ourselves. It’s about our identity. The idea of ‘fun’ in the Philippines speaks to that issue, it’s about changing mindsets and allowing the Filipino to have a stake in how our country is viewed and appreciated. Not only that, in doing so, in offering new ways to see our country, it offers Filipinos the opportunity to see their country in a new light. Yes, it is fun in the Philippines, and because of who we are and what we are blessed with, it can be more fun in the Philippines.

Lurking beneath the initially apparent superficiality, that is quite a powerful message indeed. One that strikes at the very heart of who we are as a people, and what we might become. I always go back to it, but I truly believe that James Fallows was wrong. Our culture is not flawed or broken. What needs to be addressed is how we see, how we appreciate, our culture and country. It’s our identity and how it is constructed that needs remedying. I don’t think it necessarily begins with thinking of ourselves as ‘fun’, but maybe it can. Sometimes it takes little steps in the right direction.

I think I am going to be contrary: I do believe it is much more fun in the Philippines.

So says Jose Rizal.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been caught in some long-going discussions on the role of history in nation-buildilng; and the form that history has to take. The consensus so far has been that the prevailing historical narrative is so fundamentally flawed that it inevitably undermines attempts at cultural commentary.

How valid is cultural commentary on history if the basis around which it is built is erroneous?

Rizal faced that head on; he defended his misreadings of history as necessary to meet his day’s propaganda needs. But, does that defense suffice anymore? Can we fall back on the old axiom of the ends justify the means, when the very way that we read history injures?

I know we like to project what Rizal believed then today; mostly erroneously, to often with our own beliefs in place of his. So forgive me for this, but I suspect, I believe, that he would not appreciate what we have done with our history; how we have misread it. Most especially in how we consider his period. I don’t think he would recognize it at all.

It is generally accepted that the Martial Law period politicized and corrupted the military. As well, there was a subversion of civil society leadership at the top of the socioeconomic foodchain. The art of capital cronyism, the repayment of support and favors through preferential treatment in public-private accommodations, undermined Philippine business. It concentrated assets, via government mechanisms of transfer and intimidation, in the hands of a few; a carefully selected and groomed cadre of men and women. Loyalists, who still maintain their patronage ties to the past. We still find visible and passionate defenses of that failed regime and its perverse ideas today. Defenses and gross misstatements that go unchallenged in the public sphere.

As well the fourth estate, the social mechanism that is supposed to act as both the people’s voice and a check and balance to excess and abuse, was subverted. One of the first orders that went out was to round up journalists who were critical of the Marcos regime. And then jail them. Newspapers were shut down, writers intimidated and jailed. Editors went into hiding; along with some well-regarded and high-profile columnists. The intelligensia was under attack. And in muzzling their ability to speak, to criticize and explicate, to disclose and detail the indiscretions of the prevailing power bloc, one of the safeguards of the people was eliminated. When media and the ability of a country’s intellectuals to speak is controlled, the flow of information, the engagement of ideas, the forms of education are controlled as well. The best, the most effective way to rule with an iron fist, is to manage what people learn; what they discover and understand about themselves. It is part of the reason why an independent art and culture community, a vibrant one at that, is so important. Without it, sans those divergent and clashing views that exist in a dynamic society, a people stagnate. That is what happened during Martial Law. Eventually though, a people find new footing; it rediscovers its soul and voice. Broad response and reprisal follow soon after.

That is one of the enduring lessons from that period, and any like it in world history. Effective and stable governance is not found through fear and intimidation, it is not found in the continuing miseducation of a people. In the short term, keeping a population compliant through intimidation and ignorance may work. In the short term. But over time, eventually, human spirit rebels. As Edward Said has aptly demonstrated, sometimes the soul of a people is defined in opposition to repression. Art and literature show the way. That is the reason why so much great literature, so much important art, is produced during times that try men’s souls. But the cultural and social process that births voices like Tagore or Rizal takes time. It is not instantaneous by any means. That though is in the case of colonialism from without. What of colonialism from within? What then when a people are trod under by their own?

The same holds true. However, I truly suspect the process is accelerated in cases of internally imposed totalitarianism. At least initially. Once those early voices are silenced, and the mechanisms for public criticism sealed off, I suspect it takes time for new voices to find their bearing. Control in an authoritarian or imperial environment then does not just derive from political and economic means, it is reinforced through oversight of the intelligensia. That is the untold story of Martial Law: The subversion of the academe and the collaboration of public writers with the Marcos regime. 

There were historians, columnists, social and cultural commentators, filmmakers, and artists who became part of the ruling elite during the Marcos years. They are still active today; fancying themselves social sages and purveyors of enlightened wisdom. And, in part, this helps explain why so much of the excess and abuse remains untold, unexplained in the public sphere. We still lack a comprehensive and cohesive tale of Martial Law; the reason is the people, the writers and storytellers, who are in the best public position to create it, collaborated. For every F. Sionil Jose, Nick Joaquin or Alejandro R Roces, or Pete Lacaba (public writers and social stalwarts all), who spoke and fought against the defilement of their country, you have even more who joined forces under some sort of ‘nationalist’ claim. In supporting the very regime that denigrated their countrymen, they made a mockery of the term ‘nationalist.’ One prominent example is Rio Alma. A man who fancies himself as a modern day avenging angel of Tagalog-ccentric nationalism; yet he was a speech writer for Marcos. A man who set-up a rival writers guild to PEN, under the aegis of Marcos. He is by no means an exception. Other so-called nationalist social commentators were working hand in hand with Imelda Marcos during those years. Benefiting from that relationship. Is it any wonder that members of our art and culture community frequently shy away from pointed criticisms of Martial Law?

It was a storyline that played out yet again during the GMA years. The NCCA and NHI were brought inline with GMA’s interests. A negative artistic word was never allowed. The culture institutions were controlled and muzzled. The sad part is some people who were anti-Marcos ended up collaborating with GMA. They committed the same sins decades previously they had spoken out against. There is a lesson to be found here in the damage that results from allowing unfettered power and weaknesses in our institutions to continue.

The fact is, in so many ways, our intellectual and academic communities in the Philippines have let the country down. They are supposed to be detectives and storytellers. The men and women who not only unearth social ills and iniquity, but are challenged to heal those wounds; to show ways out of the morass in which the country has found itself. Without public writers and artists digging deeper and creating new perspectives a country, and its people, will never evolve. That is the situation the Philippines finds itself in today. Our public writers and historians, with a few notable exceptions, are caught in some sort of cycle of pseudo-intellectualism and perversely twisted and superficial nationalism. Their changeability and lack of intellectual integrity comes most to the fore when commenting on political situations. Very few actually write from positions buttressed by research or even organic philosophies. More than anything, so many writers and historians are bound by ties of ideology and patronage. Those ties also encompass student-teacher relationships. One of the key issues in our historical community is the sheer reverence in which older historians are held. To write an opposing view, or critically of their positions, is almost forbidden. At the very least, it is frowned upon. 

World views that are so bound by personal relationships or ideology result in almost worryingly limited commentary on all issues. It is the same when it comes to understanding history. It results in superficial understandings of the self and nation; past, present, and future. There are current examples of this limitation. For example, the on-going PCSO expose is one. There are many who glommed onto the pronouncements of Manoling Morato with nary a critical question asked or evidence-backed substantiation requested; yet remain curiously silent concerning the Commission on Audit reports detailing the excesses and errors of previous PCSO leadership. Well, except in the case of attacking wayward bishops. Consistency and constancy are in short supply sometimes.

Even more amusingly, there are those who spoke glowingly and in whole-hearted support for Jose Rizal and his philosophies; describing in detail how he was their hero, and how his words and deeds were inspiration. Yet, defend warlordism as not only necessary, but appreciated. Our own history belies the very idea that concentrating power in the hands of a select few (and allowing political dynasties to flourish) is worthwhile. This distressing mutability in the basic philosophies results in almost humorous inconsistencies in positions on issues. And publicly, the act of framing and contextualizing issues is quite rare. More often than not, analysis, and criticisms there in, occur almost in a vacuum. Multi-disciplinary thinking remains elusive. And that is a continuing failure of our education system.

The burden of not only identifying, but offering avenues to repairing, extant social ills falls most heavily on the art, culture, and intellectual community. The reason is simple: They have the ability to do so. In accepting the mantle of being a public historian, writer, artist, or journalist they are dedicating themselves to a higher calling; to national service in a sense. That is the reason why arts and culture are usually among the first civil sectors that are silenced in a totalitarian regime. In driving them underground, the public mechanism for ideas and resistance is abrogated. What else is art, but subversion?

And that is what concerns me the most, on an intellectual level. It is not just how broken the system is, or the type of people who inhabit it. It is the fact that the road to redemption for the Philippines has become muddied by the very people who should be shining a light and creating paths out of our current situation. Instead of being the backbone of a strong, informed, and dynamic intellectual community, they have become withdrawn, elitist and even intellectually incestuous in a way. Their ideas of what it means to be Filipino are stagnant and old-fashioned. Instead of discovering new perspectives on the country, the same old hackneyed ideas are repackaged in pretty, albeit superficial, forms.

But, serving the public good does not necessarily mean always being against government. What it demands is something far more difficult than that; because let’s be honest here, the easiest path is just to always be contrarian, to always try and tear down and criticize. Instead it demands adherence to a core set of beliefs; ideas and philosophies from which all personal ideas and positions derive. That means not allowing things like private relationships to influence. It means focusing on issues of content, and not personal likes and dislikes. I remember one writer telling me that he was most proud of the fact that he angered his friends and opponents equally during his career. If everyone agrees with what you have written, then what you wrote is meaningless.

That is the challenge for the next generation, our generation, of artists and writers. To break the shackles of repressive historical and social thought and the strictures of perverse ideology. In other words, to come up with new meanings on what it means to be Filipino. For me, that starts historically. But for others? It has to begin where passion is found and where new ideas can flourish. Else we are failing ourselves and we will continue to stagnate.

In a sense, we are even worse off than when we were colonial subjects. At least then there was fire and passion and energy to discover and create a new and cohesive nation. Verve that today seems to be in short supply.