We are a country of thieves and beggars whose existence is made endlessly possible by the adherence of the ruling political class to the rituals of democracy. The thieves need the beggars to elect them to office in what is, for all appearances, a democratic contest. Once in office, the elected professional plunderers, usually acting in concert, raid the public treasury with wanton abandon so as to create a permanent impoverished class. Through the professional plunderers’ public show of piety and benevolence, especially during times of crises, the impoverished class is to be kept barely alive and half sentient until the next electoral exercise.
There are, of course, other entities in this decidedly Filipino circle of hell.
Charities have been outlets for aid directed at specific sectors. Despite the impact non-government organizations have provided over the years, philanthropy remains a morally insidious practice. This mode of aid privileges elite, wealthy, and well-off individuals to maintain distance from addressing the systemic issues that create charities in the first place. Goodwill becomes self-gratification in charity; it is a method to make a fool out of making a difference. At its peak, charity creates an imaginary goodwill class with a wellspring of funds and compassion. But what do we achieve after we donate to charities? What do we address through it—the symptom or the cause?
Unfortunately, civil society as a whole is largely entangled with the issue of aid. A lot of civil society projects and activities rely on external funding, whether it be through private donors or aid foundations. Like in other countries, Philippine civil society has been the beneficiary of international aid-giving bodies such as USAID and the UN. Contingent on funding, the reach and function of their support become scarce. This conjures the bleak reality that—to an extent—democracy runs on aid. If our main source of funding is international bodies, does this spell out that Philippine democracy is not wholly dependent on the Filipino people?
As resistance against these issues, mutual aid has become a viable political act. As social safety nets and institutions fail the public, grassroots movements motivated by rage and compassion organize projects that band-aid immediate needs while also addressing narratives of suffering. This recalls the notion of bayanihan, albeit with the risk of romanticization. Even if the logic of mutual aid aligns with contestatory politics, is its current praxis sustainable for Philippine democratization? Can it and will it end up in the same moral pitfalls of ayuda and charity? Will aid—born out of grassroots solidarity—be the end-all be-all of democratic resistance?
The second installment of the 2025-26 UP TWSC Francisco “Dodong” Nemenzo Jr. Public Forum Series focuses on the idea of how aid becomes the lifeline of democracy. For years, much has been discussed about political patronage and public misery, while little has been conversed about the horizontal relationship of aid through solidarity projects and mutual aid and how these factor into our democratic frameworks. With this, how does the public grapple with the reality of aid dependency? Does democracy promote aid dependency? How do Filipino values of malasakit, utang na loob, and pakikipagkapwa inform our democratic actions? How can we escape from limiting our democratic participation in the discourse of aid? Does democracy need aid to sustain itself?
