Roots, Rhizomes, and Charter Change(?)

Another downside of self-serving attempts at amending the constitution (apart from the possibility evil-bitch-in-palace and linguistically challenged congressmen staying in power) is that you can no longer have a proper debate about the issue. At this point, charter change is wrong, period, because of the motivations behind it.

But remember when you could actually discuss the merits and demerits of federal and parliamentary systems? That wasn't very long ago. One day, I suspect, we'll be able to have that discussion again. And when that happens expect to hear one of the most illogical yet surprisingly pervasive arguments in Philippine politics: let's not bother with charter change; it doesn't solve the root cause of the problem. In other words, don't bother with structural change since there are more basic problems to be solved. I remember this argument being made by the once eminent and now bipolar Senator Joker Arroyo in an Inquirer editorial a few years back.

I've taught argumentation to high school and college students alike. One of the things I emphasize is that just because something doesn't solve the root cause of the problem, that doesn't mean it doesn't solve a problem or that it doesn't reduce the problem. For example, in the case of our political system, I suspect the "root cause" people are referring to is corruption. Their argument is that charter change won't solve corruption. Well duh. Of course it won't! Charter change won't solve corruption in the same way that widening Katipunan road won't solve the problem of traffic since Filipino drivers are just so balasubas. Yet people understand the benefit in widening roads. They know it can reduce the problem. It makes no sense to say that something is useless simply because there is a root problem or there is a bigger problem.
Charter change will not solve corruption, yet it may address certain structural problems like, say, political turncoatism. A parliamentary system would, for instance, be likely to incetivize party loyalty because that system assigns duties to parties and not individuals.

When we've defeated KAMPI's efforts at Cha Cha, discussions like these should be had.

Saying that only root causes should be solved prevents us from looking at other causes that contribute to the problem. And besides, when is there ever a "root cause" anyway? Name any social problem and that problem is likely to be a result of a variety of factors.

The social theorists Delueze and Guattari challenge us to think of the social world not in terms of singular binary roots, but in terms of interrelated webs of rhizomes. Modernity has overemphasized the root, the essence, the core, and the primary. It's when we stop thinking in these terms that we become a little wiser. Why reduce the complexity of the carnival that is Philippine social and political life to roots when you can have much more fun with frisky rhizomes?