THE CAREER cross-over of Eddie T. Panlilio from the priesthood to politics, cresting with his application for dispensation from the priestly ministry late last year impelled me to get re-acquainted with the German political economist and sociologist Max Weber.
This, primarily for Weber’s opus Politics as Vocation which, offhand, I surmised would apply to Panlilio, if only for the title: vocation, almost exclusively applied to the priesthood, and politics.
In but a short passage in Weber’s work though, I found less of Panlilio and more of the Philippine politico, to wit:
In all these cases, what did the politicians who made politics their major vocation look like?
There are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives ‘for’ politics or one lives ‘off’ politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. The rule is, rather, that man does both, at least in thought, and certainly he also does both in practice.
He who lives ‘for’ politics makes politics his life, in an internal sense. Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes his inner balance and self-feeling by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a ‘cause.’
In this internal sense, every sincere man who lives for a cause also lives off this cause. The distinction hence refers to a much more substantial aspect of the matter, namely, to the economic. He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives ‘off’ politics as a vocation, whereas he who does not do this lives ‘for’ politics.
Under the dominance of the private property order, some—if you wish— very trivial preconditions must exist in order for a person to be able to live ‘for’ politics in this economic sense. Under normal conditions, the politician must be economically independent of the income politics can bring him. This means, quite simply, that the politician must be wealthy or must have a personal position in life which yields a sufficient income.
This is the case, at least in normal circumstances. The warlord’s following is just as little concerned about the conditions of a normal economy as is the street crowd following of the revolutionary hero. Both live off booty, plunder, confiscations, contributions, and the imposition of worthless and compulsory means of tender, which in essence amounts to the same thing. But necessarily, these are extraordinary phenomena.
In everyday economic life, only some wealth serves the purpose of making a man economically independent. Yet this alone does not suffice. The professional politician must also be economically ‘dispensable,’ that is, his income must not depend upon the fact that he constantly and personally places his ability and thinking entirely, or at least by far predominantly, in the service of economic acquisition.
The culture of corruption permeating Philippine politics readily damns all politicians as living off politics. The realities of SOP, 20-percent commissioners and contactors, rigged bidding and underspecifications in infra projects, short deliveries and overpricing of supplies, padded payrolls and ghost employees, being indubitable evidence of guilt.
On an even bigger, nay, Brobdingnagian scale: the fertilizer scam, the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard overpricing, the ZTE-NBN broadband misdeal.
Yeah, paupers who entered politics leave it multi-millionaires. There is yet to be one who will do the reverse.
Ako ay nakikipagkasunduan sa ating mga mamamayan…Hindi ako magnanakaw.
Yeah, right. And we are the marines.
This, primarily for Weber’s opus Politics as Vocation which, offhand, I surmised would apply to Panlilio, if only for the title: vocation, almost exclusively applied to the priesthood, and politics.
In but a short passage in Weber’s work though, I found less of Panlilio and more of the Philippine politico, to wit:
In all these cases, what did the politicians who made politics their major vocation look like?
There are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives ‘for’ politics or one lives ‘off’ politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. The rule is, rather, that man does both, at least in thought, and certainly he also does both in practice.
He who lives ‘for’ politics makes politics his life, in an internal sense. Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes his inner balance and self-feeling by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a ‘cause.’
In this internal sense, every sincere man who lives for a cause also lives off this cause. The distinction hence refers to a much more substantial aspect of the matter, namely, to the economic. He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives ‘off’ politics as a vocation, whereas he who does not do this lives ‘for’ politics.
Under the dominance of the private property order, some—if you wish— very trivial preconditions must exist in order for a person to be able to live ‘for’ politics in this economic sense. Under normal conditions, the politician must be economically independent of the income politics can bring him. This means, quite simply, that the politician must be wealthy or must have a personal position in life which yields a sufficient income.
This is the case, at least in normal circumstances. The warlord’s following is just as little concerned about the conditions of a normal economy as is the street crowd following of the revolutionary hero. Both live off booty, plunder, confiscations, contributions, and the imposition of worthless and compulsory means of tender, which in essence amounts to the same thing. But necessarily, these are extraordinary phenomena.
In everyday economic life, only some wealth serves the purpose of making a man economically independent. Yet this alone does not suffice. The professional politician must also be economically ‘dispensable,’ that is, his income must not depend upon the fact that he constantly and personally places his ability and thinking entirely, or at least by far predominantly, in the service of economic acquisition.
The culture of corruption permeating Philippine politics readily damns all politicians as living off politics. The realities of SOP, 20-percent commissioners and contactors, rigged bidding and underspecifications in infra projects, short deliveries and overpricing of supplies, padded payrolls and ghost employees, being indubitable evidence of guilt.
On an even bigger, nay, Brobdingnagian scale: the fertilizer scam, the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard overpricing, the ZTE-NBN broadband misdeal.
Yeah, paupers who entered politics leave it multi-millionaires. There is yet to be one who will do the reverse.
Ako ay nakikipagkasunduan sa ating mga mamamayan…Hindi ako magnanakaw.
Yeah, right. And we are the marines.
