Fanatics’ hour

Fanatics excusing corruption and dismissing accountability because of their political allegiance is the defining political sickness of our times. And tragically, countering or curing it will take a very long time, spanning generations.

No matter your feelings about fanatics, the fact is recent events showed their paranoid fanaticism is undeniably laying siege on the Filipino body politic.

As criminal justice Prof. Raymund E. Narag recently lamented on where we are now: “We are not lacking in evidence. We are drowning in it. Paper trails, testimonies, bank records, whistleblowers, congressional hearings — one scandal after another, each more brazen than the last. And, yet, nothing changes. Not in the one place where it matters most: the minds of the faithful.”

The faithful is doubtless a euphemism for fanatics.

How citizens of a supposedly democratic country became engulfed and wallow in political fanaticism is a complicated tale involving, among other things, self-interested political leaders brazenly undermining accountability to social media mercenaries amplifying lies and impunities.

But whatever these dark political forces did to unleash fanaticism, needless to say, many citizens inadvertently ended up forgoing their powerful rights to scrutinize public officials and hold them accountable.

In other words, scores of “responsible” Filipinos have become complicit in wrongdoing themselves. Even more tragic, these same citizens don’t want to take the responsibility for it, wistfully washing off their guilt.

In fact, dispensing with responsibility afflicts even embarrassing political personalities like Senator Robinhood Padilla. In recently saying that he is tired of our political system, the good senator didn’t so much as take responsibility for the fact that he is one of the very reasons the political system has become as bad as it is now.

Anyway, what often passes for the fanatic’s version of scrutinizing or holding public officials accountable is actually nothing but an “elaborate exercise in denial.”

Such shameless hypocrisy, for instance, occurs when fanatics are confronted with proof of wrongdoing or abuses of power by their professed leaders.

“Political supporters in this country do not process evidence, they repel it. They begin with a demand for proof — as if they are open to persuasion, as if they are willing to be convinced. But the moment proof is laid bare, the rules change. The evidence becomes tainted, its sources questioned, its origins politicized. When the evidence is independently corroborated and verified, they shift again, now claiming that everything is part of a coordinated attempt to destroy their leader,” Narag observed.

Political actors resorting to politics as a shield against accountability is of course an age-old trick. Political actors manipulating or exploiting systems designed to enforce transparency such as investigations, checks and balances and legal procedures are precisely about delaying or preventing scrutiny.

Fanatics, however, don’t see it that way.

“Presenting evidence is treated as an attack and criticism of a political leader is interpreted as a personal insult. Supporters do not merely disagree, they feel wounded. At that moment, the discussion ceases to be about public accountability and becomes a defense of identity,” says Narag.

What eventually happens is that once genuine political issues and corruption are exposed, politics is not only made a blanket excuse for deflecting wrongdoing but is also a convenient mechanism to avoid self-reflection.

Refusing to personally reflect on the wrongdoing of their leaders only makes for fanatics exhibiting blind, oftentimes emotional, political loyalties.

Blind loyalty without accountability all but allows abuse of power and corruption to flourish openly.