Perhaps it is interesting to note that the law's title is also a well-known bible verse: "Strike the shepherd that the flock may be scattered" (Zechariah 13:7). In any social group, there may be one or several people who inevitably rise to prominence—presidents, monarchs, generals, even school group leaders who seem to take charge and "rule over" a certain social group. These rulers rise to prominence primarily because of their influence over others. The law suggests that to be able to garner influence over a certain group of people, or to assert power and superiority, you must target their rulers.
Before the Spanish colonization, indigenous Filipino communities were overseen and lead by religious leaders called babaylans. They functioned as the communities' shamans, philosophers, and healers. Their influence was so prominent that when early Spanish colonizers tried to spread Catholicism in the country that they chose to target and convert the babaylans of the communities first. Consequently, the rest of the indigenous peoples followed suit—without questioning their sudden shift of principles from polytheism to Catholicism. What the babaylans believed, the people followed. The babaylans were the "shepherds" of the indigenous communities—prominent leaders with influence over their people. The Spanish saw this and exploited this aspect to their advantages. They knew that in order to capture these indigenous peoples, they had to target their leaders first.
What the Spanish did was an example of gaining power over people by taking over the powerful through direct means. But there are also other ways to take over the powerful: a more covert, but equally powerful way is through isolation: separate the ruler from the ruled, and taking over will be an easy task. Isolating can be done via banishing a ruler (e.g. 6th century B.C. Athenian democracy), or by weakening a ruler's power through diminishing his influence.
While the law has definitely helped many great rulers in history to garner power over other rulers—and consequently, power over people, the law assumes that the ruled are powerless without their rulers. Are there instances when a struck down ruler actually benefited the ruled? Or is it a no-fail principle that the ruled is powerless without a ruler?
Chio Cebrero
Hi 18 L
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
I personally believe that a leader has a very great influence upon his people, whether his motives are good or bad. In the end, the people are the majority and will take it upon themselves to rise from whatever has befallen them.
Answering your question, there has been a case wherein a struck down ruler has benefited the ruled. In the context of the Philippine setting, when President Marcos was asked to step down, it clearly showed how democracy worked and how people gathered for them to be heard. Dictatorship was gone and the Philippines became free.
What do you think?
Gia Fortun
HI18 - K
The question of majority counts, but there has been also other figures in history that exemplifies the adage "A single man can equal a thousand".
Take for example Alexander. Julius Caesar. Cyrus the Great. Napoleon. Their countries deteriorated after their death.
I think its not about the majority, but the political capability of those that are left. When Marcos stepped down, Cory and the Church rallied the people. (even before he stepped down)
-Dylan Valerio
Hi18L
(i forgot to write this on the prev post :)) )
There is a fear present in a leader pushing for reforms. One fear is that if he should be assassinated, would his disciples resolve to revolution instead of the reforms which he/she fought so hard for? Though this may not be a present in every leader, it's interesting to note that some of history's leaders have struggled to prevent violence.
Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King sure did not want their people to bring about a revolution. Jose Rizal was on the reformist side for a while...but later threatened Spain with a revolution that he won't be able to stop.
Denis Flores
Hi 18K
I agree with Dyl. It's not so much the fact that the leader was dethroned. It's more of who the leader was to the people and how great of an influence he had on them.
As a reaction to the law, though I can't think of any particular instance now (I hate the flu), I think that there will be times when the people will rally because their leader was struck down. It's not very fair to say that all sheep are helpless without their leaders. After all, I think power is a cycle. Someone has to hold it next...
Bea Ocampo
Hi 18-K
In this sense, the strength of the leader to govern and lead his/her nation and trust given to him or her will be put to the test.
Will you follow a decree that GMA says that would vastly affect the way we live just because she said it? The factor of who she is to our eyes will take effect.
But, theoretically speaking, same situation but Jose Rizal or Ninoy Aquino or whoever influential and prominent figure of our history is in the place of GMA, will you adhere to him or her?
I agree with Bea and Dylan ("it's not about the majority...left").
I think this law is only very relevant to those places/social groups that have no strong chain of command and with those groups whose former insecure leaders did not want capable or great leaders in their second/third-in-commands because these would pose too much of a threat to them (*law 1:never outshine the master).
monica ang
L
At one point in his entry, Chio states this about the Spanish: “They knew that in order to capture these indigenous peoples, they had to target their leaders first.” While I agree with that, I think that this idea also needs to be taken into consideration: knowing how to capture the hearts and minds of the ruled. In fact, rebellions are known and anticipated to arise from ruling over people by force.
One instance to support this certain idea is during the American colonization. Claro M. Recto stated in one of his articles that when the Americans gained control over the Filipinos by force, they recognized that that form of method was still not enough to win over them. They haven't ruled over them completely because there is great and apparent possibility of rebellions. As a solution, they decided to get to the hearts of the Filipinos and subconsciously place into their mindsets that they are only acting on their best interest at heart (brainwashing of sorts as perceived by Recto).
The Americans understood that in order to do that, they need to be able to captivate their hearts by using the English language (via their educational system). As a result, the Filipinos have been brought up to believe that anything American is always better. They’ve grown used to buying American products, watching English plays, American mentality, even the preference of using the English language instead of their native tongue, etc.
In any case, to succeed as a leader requires that the ones being lead respect one’s words and one’s orders. But in order to become truly effective at that, one needs to abide by the law of "captivating" their hearts as well. Not only does it build a good reputation for the leader, it also makes things easier for him/her.
Chua Rojas, Serica
HI 18 - L
this law assumes that the individuals which form the seamless mess of humanity following the laws enforced by the leader are incapable of leading themselves.
there might be more conflict but, ultimately, i believe that people choose to follow -- and that choice is indicative of an ability to reason out.
it might not be practically true but that's how society should function, theoretically.
-kyra ballesteros hi18 K
Well, this law might be true back in those days. But I guess in the age of modernity where there has been an influx of knowledge and self-awareness, the individual has become critical in assessing things especially if these are beneficial or not. So it's not that easy to just strike the peak of the pile. Think about it. Go hit the topmost layer of a pile of bottles placed one on top of the other, and many still stand. But if you hit the bottom, everything goes down.
section L
@Rei, I really like the analogy you gave with the tower of bottles. I guess I never thought about it that way :)
Sometimes I think that a leader is just an image that followers of a certain group or society cling to in order to feel secure. Richard I of England was called Richard the Lionheart, indeed a very valorous title and one that could easily intimidate conquerors. But I believe that though he was a great military leader, he was more of an image that the English people held on to. Though he successfuly expanded English territory, Richard I was an absentee king who was always off at war fighting the Muslims. If anyone remembers the cartoon Robin Hood, he was perfectly portrayed as the older brother of the villain Prince John who was off at war, only to return at the end of the movie. Despite his 2 minutes in the movie, throughout the film his name was mentioned by the townspeople as they eagerly awaited his arrival. This also complements Law 16: Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor.
Regina A. Yulo
Hi 18 L
This law makes perfect sense. Attack the chain of command, paralyze the top and somehow it will trickle down to those below. Although we cannot say that those under the leader are mindless drones that are solely dependent on their leaders, we cannot also assume that the leader has no influence over them. Points regarding GMA and Marcos I believe do not stand when we talk about this law because those two politicians, although the highest in the land hold very little influence hence we can't really call them leaders. If we want to look at this law in the right perspective let's look at real leaders. Let's look at people who really have great influence over their people. Because you can't really be a leader if your people don't trust you. You can't be a leader if you hold no influence over them. So you see, holding the leader captive is tantamount to holding their followers captive. Because leaders will have followers and those followers, no matter how critical they may be, trust their leader and have huge respect and faith in them. The example given in the article was a perfect example. The Spaniards took control by taking control of the leaders. Once they had them, they had their followers.
There have been a number of great leaders in the past. Institutions can also be leaders. The Catholic Church for example here in the Philippines is a great example. Control the Church and you'll have huge influence over the flock. We know how the Filipinos are, the CBCP is one of the most powerful institutions right now. Let's look at it at a broader perspective, the pope has huge influence over the Philippines. As far as he may be, his control over the CBCP has by transitivity allowed him to control the Philippines. If say for example the pope says let's go with the RH bill, the CBCP will most likely have to abide. And when that happens, in an instant the law will pass in the Philippines. You see holding control over those who hold control in certain societies give you total control of the said society. As confusing as that sounds, it's quite simple really.
Last good example I can think of is the current king of Thailand. He holds so much power that when he says the PM should go down or the rallies should stop they happen. Don't tell me the Thai people are stupid, it's just that they really really trust their king. Control the king, control Thailand.
Jaime Lizada
Hi 18K
This maybe true in some cases but in modern times it is really not that applicable. These days, there is always someone who will take the place of the fallen leader. Take for example during the battle of the bulge. When Junior officers were killed, other people took command of the remaining men. Or in some cases when the CO is killed, they would simply follow another CO even if he is from a different unit in the army.
Sean Co
Hi 18K
this law seems easier said than done. i think that with this law, the reaction/state of the people from the loss of their leader greatly matters. just like what the others said, taking over a group of people that had a tight bond with their leader is something hard to do, that the leader had a special meaning to the the lives of the people. this means that also their beliefs and lifestyles might be hard to change. the people might not readily accept the person who got rid of their leader. They may be hostile and unwilling to accept that new person as their leader. however, if the people were helpless after the loss of their leader, or if they did not like their leader in the first place, then this law might be applied easily.
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K
@Jaime: I love your example of the Church being the ruling institution in the country. Even if there technically must be a separation of Church and state in the Philippines, the Catholic Church is so prominent that it virtually shaped modern Philippine society and laws into what they are today.
I agree that taking over the Church in the Philippines is the easiest way to take over the country.
Chio Cebrero
Hi 18 L
@chio - yeah i agree about the separation of church and state being only on a technical level. separation of church and state is practically impossible here in the philippines because religion is to much embedded into our lives ever since the spaniards influenced us. it was too much absorbed by the filipinos. the church still has too much influence over the minds of filipinos and is vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power.
(insert on the last post)
John Kristoffer M. Gomez
hi18 - section L
as for the law itself, yes this is true but not all the time. there are times that the people under the authority destroyed will be helpless and will just surrender as soon as they realize that they are dependent of their king or master or whatever. but there also are times that the people under the authority destroyed are so loyal to their master that they will take actions to avenge him/her and overcome the threats against them.
John Kristoffer M. Gomez
hi18 - section L
There are definitely those who deviate from the ruler but I think even they will fall if someone offers another form of power. Loyal or not to the existing power, it is certain that as long as another form is introduced then the ruled will definitely *follow. It is especially important however to target the one of the highest position because he is the one with control and besides, it is harder to take control by convincing each and everyone. Let the leader of that community do the talking and everyone will listen.
I also agree on how the church is inseparable with the government. Priests and other religious leaders already have too much power.
Czarina Kathryne Masagca
Hi18-L
@ Rei: Excellent analogy. I guess it all boils down to whether people would allow themselves to fall prey to their rulers or still stick to their own principles.
People have evolved. They are more knowledgeable now than ever. Agreeing to whatever our rulers pass on to us would signify nonchalance. It would appear that we've let ourselves fall into a trap and we're just too powerless to stand up to our personal dogmas.
Monica Copuyoc
Hi18- L
Certainly, there are instances wherein the death of the leader benefited the ruled. Let's take for example the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae. Leonidas, despite only having with him 300 men, still fought their hearts out in trying to stop the invading Persians led by Xerxes I. Though the mighty Leonidas and his comrades fell to the hands of the Persians, it showed their people and even their enemies what kind of men they were truly made of.
In the end, the sheep held on together and they were able to defeat the Persians.
Tom Manahan
Hi 18-K
This law operates on what a leader means to the people he leads. All groups of people, because there's more than one of them, need a representative who will embody and carry out their ideals, objectives and standards, and hold them together ideologically (a group that's together because they believe in democracy has a leader/government who embodies the democratic spirit, practices democracy and prevents people from going against it). Damaging the governing body is like damaging whatever ideology it is that people are a group for. If a leader is overthrown by the people, he wasn't really their leader, not internally (which is why they got rid of him).
Du, L
It’s just like attacking the head of a drug syndicate. The government’s campaign is to go for the drug pushers, not drug users. Once you’ve diffused the source, then the users would vanish (well, lessen at first of course). That’s what they are doing in some parts of Europe (where drugs are illegal). You see people openly using drugs in train stations and other public areas but the police allow them to do so. Why? Cause they’re after the big men, the pushers, the people who smuggle the drugs in and out of the countries. Catching the users would not make an impact in their campaign against drugs; it’s the big guys that matter… the shepherd and not the sheep.
Mara Liboro
Hi18-K
A leader is the symbol of unity in a group. Strike the leader = Total chaos. In most cases, you will end up catching the rest of the pact unprepared and vulnerable. They wouldn't know what to do because their strong front has been struck down. Most would probably retreat to other groups to find a central person they can follow.
However, we cannot underestimate the power of the people. If the people of a group truly have a united community, then they will end up banning together to fight for the loss of their leader.
I believe what we have to take note of is which leaders to attack. It would be for our greater advantage if we attack groups that are solely dependent on their leader and those who are incapable of merging forces for a cause.
Teri Marcelo
Hi 18-K
Funny enough, the deposition of a ruler still has great effects even when the ruler himself is deeply unpopular with his subjects, and even if the ruled constituents really are powerless to act upon the hit on their leader, other forces may convene to start action.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand resulted in the First World War.
Peep Warren
Hi18-L
with rei's comment about the bottle, it could have been also the other way round say the one bottle was the object holding up the whole thing together. it would be total chaos once that is broken.
the community might still function without the help of a leader but, at least they will surely be less effective.
Imagine playing a very competitive game of basketball without referees. You'd probably hate the calls most of the time since everyone has their own view on things and most of the time they do not meet at the same point.
JR Resma
Hi18K
There are always exceptions to rules. I agree that people usually become powerless without the ruler, but I think the degree of getting powerless is different among people. How the leaders train their people would significantly influence the people under them. Indeed, it is a good strategy to try striking the leader, because there are great possiblities of the group's failure. However, I think choosing the wrong group would give counter results. The absence of the leader might make the members be more eager to do their jobs properly.
Yu Chin Hong
Hi18-K
While it might be true that followers of a leader are sometimes guilty of blind obedience, i cannot agree more with Rei Etuna when she says that in this day and age, there is an influx of information which is readily available to the people, and knows no social division. Because of this, people have become highly critical of themselves and their environment, and just because their leader or their president (as Raf Sobrepeña has mentioned earlier) believes in or pushes the people to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that her followers, the Filipino people will follow. Most of the time, we would actually push back.
However, i do believe that some leaders have such a strong impact and influence over his/her people (take Obama for example), that having power of him would be synonymous to having power over almost the entire America.
I agree with Gia's example of a struck-down ruler benefiting the people. With the edsa revolution, a more empowered and united Filipino people arose.
Elise Noelle Anne Lim
Hi18 Section L
I can give a good example of an instance when a ruler who went down benefited his subjects. I will not stray far from our beloved country: the Philippines. During the reign of Marcos, the people were distraught, restless and terrorized because of the way he ruled. When he came down, the people actually rejoiced, and they benefited from it by changing the government form from Martial law to Democracy.
Tyrants in general are, in a way, good leaders, because they have managed to have their people obey their will. But these leaders, when they go down, would either take their people with them (because the people have become helpless dependents through his tyranny, and in this case, the sheep did indeed scatter), or would make the people happy with the passing of their reign.
~Sydney Arbilo
HI18-L
I doubt it's a no-fail policy. Nothing is perfect, and, as Murphy's Law dictates, if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. I think there have been instances where striking the shepherd united the sheep. Although not exactly the shepherd, when Ninoy Aquino was shot down all those years ago, EDSA I was triggered. The sheep, the Filipino People, united, came together as one on the national highway, and managed to end the Marcos dictatorship.
I guess it all depends on the sheep and the shepherd. If the sheep love and are loyal to their shepherd, they will not scatter. They will defend the shepherd, and you will be in a lot of trouble.
Sam Bautista
Hi18-K
Yοur own write-uр provіdes сonfirmed benefiсіаl tο me personally.
It’s veгу useful and you're simply clearly really well-informed in this field. You have opened up my eye in order to different thoughts about this specific matter along with intriguing and reliable content material.
Here is my blog : Xanax
cheap finasteride buy propecia australia cheapest - propecia effectiveness
Post a Comment