Minor Expositions: Base of the Republic

Chapter I

It's the year 20XX, much time has passed since my insanity has befallen me in 2020.

It's the afternoon and I, Petros, am in Intramuros with my former colleague Martinet, we were walking in Muralla Street looking for a café. Thankfully the local Starbucks is still there. We proceed to enter the coffee shop and ordered the signature hot chocolate for the both of us. Then we sat down on a table on the patio outside but just infront of the shop.

Martinet: So, Petros, nice to see you today. It's been a long time since we've talked in person. I'm kind of surprised that you'd reached out to me after these years. What have you been up to?

Petros: Well, I'm serving the church in the ways I possibly could and I'm working now to aid in the combat against the perversion of morals in our government. This is in hope that one day when a capable leader is elected as our president, then I could help him or her in the fight against corruption. Despite our nation's history of electing corrupt officials, I still hope that one day, our people will be educated and disillusioned enough from these corrupted statesmen and ultimately make a choice that will truly benefit our nation.

Martinet: That seems like an honorable display of hope, but I fear, Petros, that you are being too naïve. The people will choose based on popular trends and who can appeal most to their most base of senses. Our politics has become a circus, any reasonable man who enters it will have his voice be drown out by the cheering crowd looking for a more entertaining tune than the voice of reason.

Petros: That is true, Martinet, and I am quite aware of your concern. But, if I were to hold our people in contempt for their ill-advised decisions and cast them out of the equation in solving the problems of our national government, I believe to do so is a far greater evil than my own naivety. I'd rather be a fool in hoping for the people that someday they will make a prudent choice in choosing our nation's leaders.

Martinet: Very well, Petros. Still, I am concerned with this naivety that I might someday intermingle my own understanding of your naivety for what is deemed as intentional ignorance of the matter.

Petros: Be that as it may, but I believe what I have to further say would implore you to clarity and change your opinion about my naivety.

Martinet: How so?

Petros: I understand it is a foolish errand to trust our nation's fate on a people that has continuously made mistaken decisions throughout these years - decades even. But for those such as I that are keeping our people in my mind without discarding them as a vital component of our nation's functioning, I discover a necessity that all people must know. Just like an advisor watching over an incompetent ruler, to which I as the advisor and the incompetent ruler is our people, is it not most prudent for our nation and I as the advisor to educate our ruler in the matters of ruling than to exterminate our ruler and usurp the throne for ourselves? To usurp will further cause instability and unnecessary pains to our nation, and such is mere selfish pragmatism manifested vying for control and power. In the eyes of heaven, isn't this act of seizure of power an immoral act thus rightfully endowing us with condemnation?

Martinet: I cannot say for sure, Petros, I'd rather have my acts be judged after the fact than contemplate on it meaninglessly. What is the point of this conversation if we were merely speculating on the subject? Are we in the position to cause change in our country? Surely not, lest we forget our place as mere civilians with no political clout.

Petros: Time is coming that those who merely discusses these things will have the chance to be elected as leaders and even as the president of our nation. This conversation between us is not mere inconsequential chatting, but rather a way of imparting knowledge to our posterities so that we may secure a future - where the ruler of our nation which is our people is well-advised and prudent in their decisions. Hence there is an imperative between us to preserve our thoughts in our conversations to act as both condonation and condemnation for future generations.

Martinet: If so, then I pose some questions on your arguments - questions that are simply rooted in common sense.

Petros: Very well, Martinet. Please proceed with your inquiries.

Martinet: I ask solely on the wisdoms of pragmatism, Petros. Why should the nation bare suffering in the hands of an incompetent ruler when a solution can be made although some lives may be expended? Is not the expense of the few be an acceptable casualty for the sake of the betterment of the more numerable majority? Why should we care about opinion of the eyes of heaven when we're just mere mortals always in the face of death where ultimately, we cannot truly know if such beliefs are just illusions demanded by our own perception and not reality at all?

Petros: Well said, Martinet, I will try my best to proceed and answer these questions. First off, the nation must bear the suffering caused by our incompetent ruler because this ruler I am referring to is our people with their own rights and suffrage. We cannot eliminate the rights of the people for the sake of practicality that we the few may perceive, but rather we must accept the fate of our nation based upon the decisions made by our people. This is an imperative and a truth that must be accepted as it is the base and fundamental nature of our republic. Our republic is a democratic institution making the reality of this nation to be and should be, by principle, defined by the will of our people. If the people are incompetent, then so will our president be. If our people are bloodthirsty, then so will our president be. But despite these shortcomings from our people, we must never lose hope for them to make the right choices. And by keeping the eminence of the place of the people to the state well in our mind, then we are opened to the rightful necessity that the people must become well-informed, well-advised, and educated in the matters of ruling our nation. We must not eliminate the incompetent ruler, but rather we ourselves must become instruments of wisdom and education for our ruler. That is our place in ruling, to be cordial advisors to our ruler - the people.

Martinet: That is admirable, Petros. Truly, our democracy and our people should welcome citizens such as you who will complete the republic as its amiable advisors. But what says you about my misgivings on your belief in heaven?

Petros: In terms of what I perceive as the eyes of heaven, the ordinary citizen may as usually concede to you that they do not know for themselves whether the heaven we talk about is truly there. Know this, the nature of the Church does not rely on blind faith but relies upon examination of historical documents to prove its authenticity and any other pretense are mere misinformed biases against the true nature of the Church. But even so in terms of being a common man, even when the reality of heaven is covered by a veil of mystery where it is unknown to us if such a reality is truly there, I would tell you that such a conundrum is a trivial matter for me, as in the same way that I have already decided to be a fool for the sake of the people, so I have also decided to be a fool for the sake of my own religion and my own principles. I have taken a leap of faith into the unknown and I do not care about the abyss as I believe these principles held upon by my predecessors are worth dying for. By adopting the Church as my own, I have also been adopted by the Church and counted among its ranks throughout history. For me, If I am privileged enough to be called among the Saints, it is worthy for me to stand by the holy grounds to which my Catholic forerunners have stood for throughout the ages. It might seem foolish to the eyes of men to sacrifice my entire life for the principles I believe in, but even so, I would rather be a fool in the eyes of men than deny my own principles and the Church. I have it within me a conviction that expresses to the world that it is worthy for me to die for the sake of the Church, my religion, my principles, and my people.

Martinet: There are plenty of your ideas that I seek to argue with, but I fear that if I pursue my curiosity, our conversation may be derailed away from the discussion about the State. I trust we will take account of them within the flow of our conversation.

Petros: I am aware of your possible questions, Martinet, but yes, I trust we will elucidate on the few topics that I have mentioned. For as I have it understood, the State and the Church may be separated by the Constitution, but they are still ever so intertwined in the governance of the people that you cannot discuss one without the other.

Martinet: Nevertheless, Petros, it seems your faith has remained sturdy as it was from the time we have met.

Petros: It has.