Wazzup Pilipinas!?
The statement “use the proper channels to change things” has been a widely accepted mantra in societies around the world, one often repeated by those in positions of power or control. But what does it really mean? Who decides what those “proper channels” are, and do they always serve the best interests of the people? This complex issue touches on democracy, power dynamics, public trust, and the fragile balance between order and disruption.
The Comfort of Control
One key reason people insist on using the “proper channels” to address grievances or seek change is that they control these channels. They understand that when issues are funneled through these established systems, they are more likely to be diluted, delayed, or even ignored, which allows those in power to maintain the status quo. The repetitive phrases—“I’ll answer that in the proper venue” or “Go ahead and file the proper charges”—are often used by those who know they hold the keys to the venues and the courts, aware that they can make sure it doesn’t result in anything meaningful.
The truth is that while this stance may reflect how things operate for many, it’s not an ironclad rule. It’s situational. In some cases, the so-called “proper channels” may indeed offer a way to seek justice, resolve conflicts, or create change. But this system is not foolproof, nor does it always deliver outcomes that serve the greater good. In fact, it often works in favor of the powerful, maintaining the inequality it was designed to uphold.
The Disillusionment with Institutions
Why do so many people across the political spectrum harbor such disdain for our institutions? It’s because, despite their stated mission to serve the people, these institutions often function in a way that only benefits the powerful. Many individuals can easily spot the glaring contradictions: every time a regular citizen benefits from these systems, it is typically in spite of its design, not because of it.
The constant reinforcement of "proper channels" encourages a mindset that can be likened to Plato's allegory of the cave. Society is encouraged to follow the rules without questioning the validity of those rules or understanding the forces behind them. Many people remain trapped in this metaphorical cave, watching the shadows on the wall—rules and institutions presented to them as truths—without ever questioning whether they reflect reality or serve real justice.
Institutions and processes, such as the courts, elections, and government bodies, exist because they were created to prevent chaos. However, the current state of these systems often feels like a product of manipulation rather than a genuine attempt to reflect the will of the people. Many of these systems were born out of crises, past abuses, and failures, but they have evolved into structures that serve the interests of the powerful, not the common person.
The Failure of the System or the Failure of Society?
When people argue that the “proper channels” should fail, they are often expressing frustration with a system that seems to perpetuate inequality. The frustration lies in the fact that these “channels” are supposed to ensure fairness, but they frequently fail to deliver justice, instead serving the interests of those who are already in power. The idea of “of the people, by the people” seems more like rhetoric than reality.
However, the proper channels, as flawed as they are, also represent the rule of law—a critical aspect of a functioning democracy. These channels offer a way for everyone, regardless of their position in society, to have their grievances heard and addressed through legal and structured processes. This is the principle behind elections, laws, and governance: to ensure that no one is ruled by the whims of an individual or a violent authority.
The truth is that while "improper channels" may appear to offer a quicker route to change, they come with significant risks—chief among them the abandonment of the rule of law. If individuals or groups ignore these systems, they invite the possibility of strongmen taking charge. Without legal protections, those without power would have no recourse, leading to a society ruled not by fairness, but by force. History offers a chilling reminder of what happens when this happens: chaos, tyranny, and suffering for those who are most vulnerable.
The Necessity of Disruption
But when has real change ever occurred through proper channels? The history of social movements tells a different story. Major shifts in society—be it civil rights movements, labor reforms, or gender equality struggles—have often been sparked by disruption. In many cases, those advocating for change had to push against or even break the system to force it to evolve.
The truth is, sometimes proper channels simply don’t work. They are slow, they are often designed to maintain stability, and they can be manipulated to favor the interests of the powerful. In these cases, disruption becomes necessary. Public perception shifts, marches, protests, and even radical action can be the spark for change when the established systems are unwilling or unable to address real grievances.
However, disruption is a double-edged sword. While it can indeed bring about change, it also has unintended consequences. History shows us that when change is pursued through improper channels, it often leads to more harm than good. For instance, uprisings may lead to the downfall of corrupt regimes, but they may also open the door to authoritarian control. The same improper channels that allow ordinary people to protest can be turned against them, leading to the rise of new despots who claim to be the solution to the old problems.
The Balance of Power and Protection
The conversation around proper and improper channels is not just about whether the system works. It’s also about the relationship between power and protection. In an ideal world, the rule of law protects everyone, ensuring that the less powerful have a voice and that justice is not subject to the whims of the powerful. If that fails, society runs the risk of descending into anarchy, where the strong hold all the power and the weak have no protections.
That’s why the “proper channels” aren’t just about bureaucracy; they represent a safeguard for everyone, ensuring that power doesn’t concentrate in the hands of the few. The process may seem cumbersome and flawed, but it’s better than the alternative—rule by force and lawlessness.
Conclusion: The Proper Channels or Something More?
Ultimately, the debate about proper channels versus improper ones is a question of balance. We cannot simply accept the system as it is or allow it to go unchallenged. While proper channels can be slow and ineffective, they also protect against the dangers of chaos and authoritarianism. But they must be held accountable, reformed, and made more accessible to the people they are meant to serve.
If we truly want to change things, we must recognize that sometimes disruption is necessary. But this must be done with a clear understanding of its potential consequences and a commitment to protecting the core values of fairness, equality, and justice that the proper channels are meant to represent. Change cannot come at the cost of law and order, but it also cannot come without challenging the systems that need to evolve. The future lies in finding that balance.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
Post a Comment