Maboloc on ZTE and our right to know the truth (Between Protest and Deliberation)

ZTE and our right to know the truth

Speaker Prospero Nograles complains that Jun Lozada and Jose de Venecia Jr. have been making the rounds in schools and campuses, recently in Davao City, to tell the students about the ZTE mess. The Speaker claims that it is “unfair” since the proper forum should be in court where the “accused” could find the means to defend herself against all these allegations.

We often hear government officials, school officials, etc. accused of wrongdoing, i.e. corruption, abuse, etc. that those allegations against them should be substantiated and brought to the “proper courts”, not in the streets, nor the media, not during sermons, for instance.

This issue is a big debate between two of the century’s greatest political thinkers, John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. In no uncertain terms, we need to understand the distinction between deliberative and critical democracy.

Deliberative democracy concerns what Rawls calls the “public use of reason”. It is, according to him, the “political use of reason”, and concerns the instrumentalities of governments, i.e. courts, parliaments. He claims that the political should be insulated from our comprehensive doctrines (our beliefs) because only then can citizens under a constitutional rule work for an “overlapping consensus”. Public issues and matters pertaining to the affairs of government, therefore, belong to the forums that are constitutionally established, the constitution being a product of that overlapping consensus. Thus, complaints must be filed in courts so that both parties can avail of the due process. With regard to the ZTE issue, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman, have done their constitutionally mandated tasks.

But civil society, which includes the “church, schools, the media, community organizations, and the masa”, whose culture is considered as non-public, may not be properly represented in these forums. For Habermas, the people have a right to voice out their concerns on important issues. Civil society, according to Habermas, can act as the people’s sounding board on issues in a democracy. It may not be the proper forum that the Speaker is talking about, but constitutionally, protest is a democratic right, i.e. freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc.

Of course, the Ombudsman, trial courts, and the senate would require documents, evidence, etc. to prove certain allegations. But leaving everything to these venues is perilous for a democracy. As a free people, we have a right to know the truth regarding the ZTE issue and make own judgment accordingly since it is only through this kind of vigilance that we are assured that our democratic rights are secured. Otherwise, without a critical populace, government can abuse its power. As the saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.