Oligarchy in RP [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Oligarchy in RP


chowchow
11-14-2007, 09:14
This is true sa atin and like in all places.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


5 results for: oligarchy

(Browse Nearby Entries) oliganthous
oligarch
oligarchic
oligarchical
oligarchically
oligarchies
oligarchs
oligarchy oligemia
olighemia
olighidria
oligist
oligistic
oligo
oligo-
oligo-1,6-glucosidas…
oligo-a1,6-glucosida…
oligoamnios
oligoarticular
Oligocene
oligocene epoch
Sponsored Links
Workflow Mgmt Solutions
Try Numara Help Desk MGT Systems Manage& Resolve Issues: See Webinar
www.NumaraSoftware.comDictionary Definitions
Get automatic Word Definitions now with Live.com—Search Intelligently
www.Live.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ol·i·gar·chy /ˈɒlɪˌgɑrki/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ol-i-gahr-kee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -chies. 1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1570–80; < ML oligarchia < Gk oligarchía. See olig-, -archy]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This ol·i·gar·chy (ŏl'ĭ-gär'kē, ō'lĭ-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. ol·i·gar·chies


Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
Those making up such a government.
A state governed by a few persons.

ol'i·gar'chic, ol'i·gar'chi·cal adj.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
oligarchy

1577, from M.Fr. oligarchie (14c.), from Gk. oligarkhia "government by the few," from oligoi "few, small, little" (of unknown origin) + arkhein "to rule."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This oligarchy

noun
a political system governed by a few people; "one of his cardinal convictions was that Britain was not run as a democracy but as an oligarchy"; "the big cities were notoriously in the hands of the oligarchy of local businessmen"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
oligarchy [(ol-uh-gahr-kee, oh-luh-gahr-kee)]


A system of government in which power is held by a small group.


[Chapter:] World Politics


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atmarcella
11-15-2007, 06:24
the really sad thing is the authors of the 1987 constitution who at that time were handpicked as the best and the brightest of the country set out to stop this, this was one of their primary goals.....what can i say, maybe the best and the brightest of the pelepens is not so bright at all.

cznayr
11-15-2007, 19:08
Well, it's unfortunate. The politicians seem to also know how to go around the constitution. I don't know any law which cannot be circumvented. Any law also that might restrict them totally will not be passed since they are the legislators.

Like for Basilan (I'm using this analogy of an oligarchy with our current LGUs), the deceased Akbar is the congressman, 1st wife is the governor, 2nd wife is a mayor of a town, and the other mayors are nephews, cousins etc. They could rename Basilan as Akbar actually.

Now, how could we pass a law prohibiting political dynasties and at the same time ensuring that the law does not restrict each individual's rights to run for a public post? That was the big question our brightest minds were faced with. It's a big debate.

(Sir Atmarcella, pwede na tong interesting thread)

isuzu
11-15-2007, 19:14
what can i say, maybe the best and the brightest of the pelepens is not so bright at all.

That's why people call them the best and the brightest. They know how to hang on to power for generations. :) Senador ang Lolo; Congressman ang Daddy; Governor siya; Mayor at kung anu-ano pa ang mga anak niya.

Pare, hanapbuhay yan, at the expense of the taxpayers. :(

kristiansen
11-15-2007, 21:57
i'm just curious.how much is the total budget of congress and senate?and if we dissolved both,using that x budget ,how many schools,hospitals,roads,other public services will it bring kaya?we have enough laws na eh.its the public services we lack.hay buhay........

atmarcella
11-15-2007, 23:20
Senador ang Lolo; Congressman ang Daddy; Governor siya; Mayor at kung anu-ano pa ang mga anak niya.


sir yung best and brightest that i was refering to were the professors, PHD's etc. who authored the 1987 constitution.... marami ata dun taga UP hehe

Sir Atmarcella, pwede na tong interesting thread

its not even getting warm...yung saguisag na thread was already close to warm hehe

chowchow
11-16-2007, 00:03
For eksampol lang, mga pamilyang Teves at Macias sa Oriental Negros. Osmenas in Cebu. Of course mga Marcoses in Ilocos region. ANo pa?

horge
11-16-2007, 02:16
Devil's advocate (literally ba?) ako:

Only a tiny percentage of the population is technically qualified for public office,*
and if those qualifications can tend to be correlatable to genetically inherited attributes,
then what are you going to do? Vote morons for the sake of diversity or avoiding dynasties?

I don't care if all the politicians happen to come from just a few families.
I only care if they are doing their utmost to serve the Filipino people,
and judge each pubic servant as an individual. Sins of the father and all that.

JMO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL...
:)


*heh... Forget about the tiny percentage qualified to serve in public office...
Just look at the sort of folks chronically voted into office, and you'd be tempted to conclude
that only a tiny percentage of the population is qualified to vote.

New_comer
11-16-2007, 18:18
I have come to realize that not everyone is qualified to lead. That a platform of simple good intentions is never enough to let anyone hold the reins of power. That eventually, over a period of time, we get a government that represents us as who we are as a people.

Do we now have a government that represents me individually? Far from it... I didn't even vote in the senatorial elections because of lack of choices I prefer...

But do we have a government system that represents us as a people, at this time?

My answer is YES, no doubt about it. But do we deserve it? It's another question altogether... ;)

atmarcella
11-16-2007, 20:28
cguro after 200yrs we will have a decent government....

by that time mga neighbors natin mas malago pa kesa japan ngayon...oh well, better a govt. run like hell by the natives....

yung mga hawaiian natives 2nd class citizens ba sa lugar nila? im just wondering....di naman cguro ano....insecure lang talaga si quezon sa mga kano, mga hawaiian kasi malalaking mama din eh hindi cla na insecure....im just thinking out loud

i think this is an accurate assessment of what happened then... na insecure lang sya, i blame quezon for all the hardships the pinoys are experiencing now and 200 years after.

horge
11-17-2007, 03:47
Quezon was a Katipunero, and obsessed with independence.
However, IMO lang, 'making the wrong choice' wasn't his mistake.

His fatal mistake was believing he HAD a choice to make;
his mistake was imagining that independence was ever really on the table.
Look at it this way : in over half a century of "independence",
has our government ever really been "run by natives"?

Well okay... so it's not as bad these days:
Dati kasi, every aspect of our domestic and foreign policy was being authored
or vetoed half the world away. Ganu'n, up 'til the early 90's.
In a way, even if Quezon had gone the other route,
would the U.S. have actually kept us, like Puerto Rico?
Lots of reasons not to: the way things turned out, they kept control,
while shedding nearly all financial exposure.


What I said about only a small percentage of the population being qualified to lead?
It applies to countries as well. IIRC Liechtenstein makes world-class dentures, and they
seem to be a happy bunch. (Come to think of it, wasn't there a recent survey
about some "happiness index", that the Philippines topped?)

A great swathe of Philippine population has a crazy mix of cultus/caudillismo in their veins
Too many able bodies want to be dependents: on governement, on a breadwinning OFW, etc.
That's too rich an environment for corrupt politicians not to exploit with their messianic promises,
nor especially to perpetuate.

Pag-dating sa tate', ang sipag ng Pinoy --kasi wala'ng maa-asahan kung hindi sariling
sipag. Kapag sa Pilipinas nakatira, takbo kaagad sa mga nag-pa-padrino para sa lahat
ng kailangan. Ang lalaki ng katawan, naghihintay na lang ng remittance ng nanay o
tatay sa abroad, at iwawaldas sa PS3, Wii at kung anu-ano pa, en vez na i-fondar
sa negocio...

haaaaaayayay....

atmarcella
11-17-2007, 04:16
would the U.S. have actually kept us, like Puerto Rico?


we could've been like guam...US territory

atmarcella
11-20-2007, 21:11
Dati kasi, every aspect of our domestic and foreign policy was being authored
or vetoed half the world away. Ganu'n, up 'til the early 90's.


H,
does this mean that joe has been in the drivers seat since 1946? cos thats just pointing a finger at joe and blaming him for all our doldrums... problem w/ that is 3 fingers are pointing back at us.

New_comer
11-21-2007, 02:35
In 1898, President McKinley argued that God had told him, in answer to his prayers, that it was America's duty to control the Philippines. He argues:

"They were unfit for self-government--and they would soon have anarchy and misrule worse than Spain's war. [Therefore]...there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died."

Like Beveridge, McKinley did not see any large American selfish motives for controlling the Philippines. But, of course, in return for our control and guidance, the United States and American economic interests would benefit by dominating and exploiting the Filipino economy and natural resources. American economic benefits were just our just reward for our efforts to "uplift and civilize" the Philippines.

Taken from : http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/spanish.htm

The American leadership at that time did not see any way we could rule ourselves. They might be right...

atmarcella
11-21-2007, 02:49
they were spot on!

and to educate the Filipinos

thats why UP exsist bcos of joe.... i wonder why those guys are always in front of joe's embassy burning his flag....could it be they're ingrates?

horge
11-21-2007, 15:43
H,
does this mean that joe has been in the drivers seat since 1946? cos thats just pointing a finger at joe and blaming him for all our doldrums... problem w/ that is 3 fingers are pointing back at us.


:)

Not blaming the Americans. If we allow ---no, desire for ourselves to
be dictated to and ruled by another country, that's our own fault.

I also don't think we're in a doldrums.
Disparate Pre-Hispanic, Hispanic colony, American colony, Commonwealth... all these
periods compared in terms of the well-being and security of the common Filipino,
I'd say we're in pretty good form these days. Putting it another way...
we're no worse screwed than in decades past, although the arbitrary
yardsticks by which the world wants us to measure 'progress' can create some
entertaining impressions.

:)

CatsMeow
11-21-2007, 17:53
Taken from : http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/spanish.htm

The American leadership at that time did not see any way we could rule ourselves. They might be right...

THEY ARE RIGHT. Proven time and again during elections. Sometimes I wonder if my vote made a difference...

atmarcella
11-22-2007, 06:38
man...i dont even vote at all these days. just read the newspaper kanina, phisix is doing kinda ok maybe there's hope still. i think ping will win next elections if he gets eraps support, whoever gets eraps support will definitely win....

Allegra
11-22-2007, 06:49
Go Ping!!!

BUT , it will be Chiz's 40th bday sa 2010
He's got the ambition