Philippines, I’m sad to say, is way out of its prime nowadays. The onset of its economic winter took place alongside the ousting of the late president Ferdinand Marcos. His successor, Corazon “Cory” Aquino, who was the prime mover of the peaceful revolution that was responsible for Marcos’ ostracism, subsequently had our national economy hammered down to the depths of oblivion, brought about by her imminent political incompetence and overdependence on her subjects.
Fidel Ramos made matters worse by realizing the “contractual” employee. This poorly-thought policy limited a typical citizen’s employment to a specific period of time; wonderful news for the businessmen, a catastrophe for the poor.
After Ramos’ anti-worker regime came Joseph “Erap” Estrada, who might be regarded as the most stupid president my country ever had. Estrada gained the presidential seat through his charisma and hypnotizing propaganda: Erap Para Sa Mahirap (Erap For The Poor). What seems to be a promising future enclosed within his promises were shattered by his horrible stay in office; the rapid rise in the number of illegal gambling dens he himself promoted, uncontrollable ballooning of crime rates, logic-deprived economical decisions, and countless stupidities that ruined the reputation of the government beyond belief.
He was impeached and was subsequently replaced by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who, although spearheaded the genesis of automated elections and new railway systems, was regarded by many as the most corrupt president of all time. Finally, after her rant-filled term in office, she was succeeded by Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Aquino III, son of Cory Aquino. To know more about the Philippine’s current president and his atrocities, you can visit this article.
Truth be told, the Pearl of the Orient did have a macabre trend of corrupt and incompetent administrations which left it in a state of social disarray and economic chaos. There is a perpetually growing rift between the rich and poor, increasing crime and unemployment rates and exponential population growth; the typical evils of a dystopian scenario.
Economists, sociologists and a whole bunch of thinkers are brainstorming on possible remedies for our ailing nation. There were suggestions of various comprehensive social and economic reforms and suggestions of charter changes. Be they logically beneficial or detrimental, their proposals aren’t the subject of this article, for the simple reasons that I can’t possibly update myself with their conversations, and that I also have my independent ideas.
In this article I shall attempt to explore the political nature of our national ills, and offer possible solutions in hopes of addressing our country’s crises. Know that I’m not an expert in the field of politics or law; I’m simply a college student performing a critical analysis and exercising my freedom of speech.
Let us begin this discussion with this very important question: is our current charter adequate?
Is our current political system still efficient when it comes to the growing issues Philippines is currently facing? Can it still address our problems with precision and competence? This is an important question to ponder on; if our current charter isn’t up to the task anymore, then shouldn’t measures be taken in order for our nation to implement a new political discipline that can answer our pleas more efficiently?
Is the democratic republic format of the Philippine charter enough?
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares it a democratic and republic nation. In technical terms, a republic is a type of government wherein the general public is active when it comes to political affairs, headed by someone whose election wasn’t determined by heredity, rejecting the concept of monarchy. A more detailed definition of republic is shown below:
“A republican form of government is a type of government in which the citizens of a country have an active role in the affairs of the government, and the government is not headed by a hereditary ruler such as a king. This definition leaves a lot of room for wiggle room, as you can see; many governments around the world are considered to be run along the lines of a republican form of government, ranging from dictatorships to representative democracies. Many people think that the republican form of government is a particularly strong and effective form of government.
This type of government takes its name and inspiration from the Roman Republic, which actually involved the input of only a very small number of citizens. Many people in the West idealize Greek and Roman culture, so it is perhaps not surprising that the republican form of government has become so popular. Fans of this form of government argue that when well run, a republic truly represents the will of its people, and it can be easily changed if citizens desire changes.
There are lots of different types of republics. Some are governed by a constitution, for example, in which case they are known as constitutional republics; these governments are often headed by a President, and they may include branches of government which oversee legislation and judiciary matters. Others are collectives of numerous states, as in the case of the United States, and these are known as federal republics. Parliamentary republics like the United Kingdom have a separate head of state and a head of government who share powers with each other and with a parliament, while Islamic republics are run in accordance with Islamic law.
The strength of the republican form of government relies on the people involved. In some countries, citizens are extremely active in their governments, working to reform things they dislike, participating in elections, and holding officials accountable for their actions. In other nations, people are not as active, either out of a lack of will or understanding or because the officials in the government keep them in a state of fear or confusion. The “people's republics” in some Asian countries are one example of this sort of republican government, which is in theory run for and by the people but is actually run by a small and elite group.
There are lots of ways to set up and administer a republican form of government. The important thing to remember is that such a government is not necessarily a democracy. Democracy as a concept is often integrated into republican forms of government which try to be fair to their citizens, but it is also possible to see abuses of power and a ruling class in a republican form of government.”
Source: link
Meanwhile, a democracy, in a broad sense, is a type of government where every citizen has a say about issues that concern them, and where they have the right to elect their leader through a free and fair election. Democracy manifests in several forms, some of which are socially healthy, while some are extremely detrimental. The main types of democracy are as follows: direct, semi-direct, and indirect. I shall expound more about the strengths and weaknesses of different types of democracy later in this article, wherein I shall explain why I prefer indirect democracy, particularly representative democracy.
Anyway, in summary, our country’s charter can be described succinctly this way; it has a republic system, specifically a presidential system (a president as head of state together with its cabinet and other government officials), where the general public has an active role in the maintenance of the country, and where they have the right to express their opinions and exercise their rights for their welfare. At face value, our national charter seems to be good, and does serve the interest of the public, which is noble. However, through a little inquisitive scrutiny, we can see that our current system does have its shortcomings; shortcomings that are too dangerous to ignore.
The Good:
As what have been aforementioned, our current charter satisfies the needs of the populace to express themselves in the midst of economic issues. People are entitled to freedom of speech; something the Marcos regime took away from the citizens, which in turn enticed a revolution to put a stop to his despotism. We can declare our thoughts to our heart’s content through various media; television, radio, even the Internet. Truly, freedom is unarguably the best thing our current Constitution has given us.
The Ugly:
I can’t really cite anything that’s just “bad” regarding our political system, for the reason that calling its faults just “bad” is a severe understatement. Otherwise, our economy wouldn’t have been compromised so seriously in so short a time. And so allow me to name the issue from which most of our woes originated; the mother problem our charter was unable to address effectively; excessive centralization.
One could see nowadays that most of our major industries are privately owned or owned by the state.
We can observe that several of our micro-businesses ran by our fellow citizens who are also in the working group are undermined by business titans who have already gotten their hands on our resources, essentially turning our business industry into a sanctuary for monopolists and oligarchs. Where am I going through this chain of statements? Towards the mother issue of course, excessive centralization.
Know that a huge percentage of the process of production and distribution of wealth is limited to a few corporations, effectively restricting our nation’s riches to a select few, creating a great rift between levels of social standing; the very essence of centralization. The same can be said with how the government distributes funds for the maintenance of its districts and provinces. Notice that the money passes through a good number of governmental departments before finally reaching its intended recipients. What is the guarantee that we have fully received our money for our welfare? Sadly, we do not have any. This is the common misery amongst us citizens; the constant lacking of necessary funding despite the constant provision from the government. Behold the great flaw of restricting wealth to a small group of the powerful and distributing it from a single point of origin, brought about by misguided centralized planning.
I must stress that the worst side of this frustrating truth is that our current political system cannot resolve this increasingly bothering matter. The structure of our constitution, as well as the governance of our current administration do not regulate the alarming rate of centralization in our country, resulting in the formation of social hierarchy; the insanely rich and the wretched poor. This undermines the idea of social equity, which the democratic nature of our government promotes; poor Filipinos lose more and more opportunities for livelihood while the rich just get richer and richer by the moment. From this standpoint we see that urgent measures must be taken before our societal rifts become permanent.
Also, from this standpoint, I perceive the need to observe a new political strategy to salvage our nation from economics collapse. Armed with this inspiration for reformation, I started to work. For days I’ve researched and analyzed a whole variety of government systems and economic strategies in an attempt to find a possible solution to our nation’s seemingly incurable disease. It was tiring but insightful work. Hours of research and brought me in the realm of famous thinkers, including Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, Milton Friedman and the Founding Fathers. All raised powerful points about their ideas; some too radical, some moderate, some innovative, some impractical. It was needless to say that I was faced with a dilemma of picking the relatively best idea from among hundreds or thousands. Of course I could’ve created my own philosophy, but I shouldn’t push what little political and legal knowledge I have too much, and besides, I stand by the belief that I must first gain a concrete cornerstone of ideas from which I can start working on amends and improvements, and so I felt compelled to select the most suitable strategy that can possibly aid our needy motherland.
And I think I’ve found it. All those work didn’t go in vain, for after a rigorous examination of different works of thinkers, I seem to have found the answer I was looking for in the name of “democratic socialism.”
What is democratic socialism?
The brainchild of a number of thinkers, including Fenner Brockway, Robert Owen, John Stuart Mill and James Keir Hardie, democratic socialism is a relatively new concept that became a prominent movement at the end of the 19th century. As the name implies, this politico-economic system employs the principles of democracy and socialism. It has been argued by most democratic socialists that democracy and socialism go hand in hand, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Both democracy and socialism are aimed at the benefit of the citizenry, not just for the good of a few powerful. Both democracy and socialism purport that there is more to citizens than just being citizens, being told by the government what to do, and they encourage the public to really get involved in the issues that concern them. Now, let’s proceed to the technical stuff concerning democratic socialism.
1. Democratic socialism retains the principle of equality and freedom.
I must stress the importance of the granting of equality and freedom to a nation’s citizens, no matter how clichéd it might seem. Freedom, as I have mentioned before, allows us to express our feelings and ideas, allows us to explore things and expand horizons and exercise critical inquiry without due intervention from the government. Meanwhile, equality enables every single one of us to gain access at every opportunity our economy has to offer. Several capitalists against equality have based their arguments on the assumption about equality implying that social standings must be as levelled as possible, that the rich must become as poor as the rest, and that the talented must be as mundane as the rest. I shall offer my counterargument regarding this issue on my explanation why I reject capitalism. Anyway, going back to democratic socialism, it preserves the virtue we Filipinos held dear throughout the years.
2. Democratic socialism promotes decentralization.
A strong reason why I’m putting my money on democratic socialism is the fact that it despises excessive centralization as much as I do. It also saw the ills conceived by restricting a nation’s wealth and power to the hands of a select few, and the cataclysm that would ensue should this trend continue. Given this vision of future events, democratic socialism aims to loosen up the tight grip of the powerful on the nation’s resources, so as to avoid elitism and promote the fluidity of finances across the different sectors of our country. It attempts to remove the barrier that traps the benefits so that it can reach its intended targets; the citizens.
By the powerful, democratic socialism meant both the business titans and the government itself, as they have the ability to restrict the distribution of wealth in an unjustly manner. Democratic socialism, according to the Democratic Socialists of America, does not want “to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy," and it does not want "big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either.”
3. Democratic socialism promotes cooperativism for consumer-goods industries.
If we loosen the grip of the powerful on our nation’s resources, where would the leaking wealth go? Who would handle such money? The democratic socialists’ answer is simple; the people shall handle them, through the concept of cooperativism. A typical economics student will know that a cooperative is a system where a group of businesses run by groups of people are working together for a stronger pull for profits. It is the democratic socialists’ strong belief that the ones who are most affected by specific businesses should be the ones to handle them. They perceive that the working group, who happens to be citizens as well, should be entitled to the responsibility of governing those businesses. A perfect example is the consumer-goods industry, particularly groceries. Super-corporations can handle the said industry, in a sense that they have the finances and manpower necessary for the maintenance of its operations.
However, to closely monitor the fluctuations of the price system and ensure that the citizens are not sacrificed nor the earnings of the business is a different story. And who can better manage such serious concerns than the people themselves? After all, they are the primary receivers of benefits and troubles, and so I, together with the democratic socialists, see it fitting that the populace, preferably the working group, receive the task of looking after what affects them the most, in the form of cooperatives.
What’s good about consumer-goods cooperatives run by the working group?
- The source of benefits intended for the general public will be closer to them like never before, as the managers of such cooperative are themselves part of the general public.
- This will help even the playing ground for businesses, which is consistent to the advocacy of democratic socialism of decentralizing economy as much as possible. Sources of benefits will not stem from one point of origin anymore. Wealth shall be distributed evenly throughout the country.
- This can improve the role of the public in a national economy, upgrading them from mere law-abiders and consumers to major players in the business world. Democratic socialism truly exalts the might of productive labor from the working group.
4. Democratic socialism has a comprehensive welfare system.
It is true that welfare systems, if not planned well, tend to compromise the economy. But to abolish welfare altogether defeats the advocacies of democratic socialism, which is the betterment of the public. We’re rejecting our primary weapon to combat our citizen’s social difficulties, which should not be so.
Yet some capitalists have raised an interesting point about welfare systems. Going back to what I’ve said before, it is true that poorly-planned welfare programs spell out economic disaster. Furthermore, these capitalists argue that the prospect of welfare, for instance health care, is synonymous with the less fortunate “stealing” from the able-bodied for financial support, leaving fewer funds for the government to utilize for the maintenance of its sectors. Such a claim does demonize welfare, and so it seems democratic socialists face a dilemma; they want to support the needy, yet the money is at risk. Or is it?
Democratic socialism has a nifty trick up its sleeve; the synchronization of the welfare system to decentralization.
As I’ve explained before, democratic socialism promotes an even playing field for business by introducing consumer-goods cooperatives, which are to be run by the working group. You can see where I’m going now. Since a benefit from having cooperatives run by citizens is the closeness of wealth to the general public, we can also conclude that the welfare system, or at least most of it, will do better in the hands of worker-run cooperatives. Aside from additional sources of money that can be utilized for different purposes, we also gain a guarantee that an equitable distribution of benefits will take place, as opposed to super-corporations providing health care programs, which gives us little to no guarantee, which might help explain the consistent disappearance of funding of the government on welfare systems, where most of the blame is put on the said systems themselves. Needless to say, welfare systems promoted by democratic socialism is comprehensive, in a sense that it introduces worker-run cooperatives that can effectively support these systems.
Oh, and just to insert a moral input, I seriously disagree with how capitalists view the welfare system for the sake of their arguments. As far as I know, there is no “stealing” in such services (unless we take ulterior motives from higher powers into account), but only transitivity of benefits, much like how the taxpayers’ money are utilized for the construction of roads, buildings and a whole bunch of stuff. Given their mindset, we might as well protest against government projects, since they’re technically “stealing” from us for the completion of their endeavors. Again, I do not believe in the existence of theft or extortion in welfare programs; only the transitivity of benefit. It’s just our economic way of “giving back” to our elderly, while maintaining the perpetual circulation of money.
5. Democratic socialism is flexible.
Democratic socialism is not all-high-and-mighty. Despite its promotion of decentralization, it nevertheless recognizes the ability, even the necessity of the government and major corporations in handling very big industries, like energy and steel. I must emphasize this point so as to avoid democratic socialism being accused of supporting pure worker ownership, which in my perspective isn’t good either. While the working group is a formidable team, we must take their limits into account. Oil companies, for instance, are way out of the league of the working group, and thus necessitate the administration of a higher embodiment of power; in this case, necessitates the existence of state ownership, and private ownership to some extent.
Once again, I must stress that democratic socialism, while a primary advocate of decentralization, nonetheless acknowledges the capabilities of higher powers. This is where its flexibility comes in, and we all know that all economies must be flexible if it is to withstand crises.
Democratic socialism is flexible, in a sense that it still retains the enabling of the transition of wealth sources into different kinds of ownership. While of course it strongly prefers, and thus prioritizes the power of the working group to participate in the business industry, it nevertheless opens the possibility of an alternate type of ownership to regulated extent, which makes this economic strategy really versatile. Should there be a problem in a cooperative management, democratic socialism has left a space for the transition of ownership, until the former management can regain its stability, or it can entirely leave the management in the hands of the new owner and develop another cooperative; a very intellectual plan. It empowers the public, evens the battlefield, while maintaining ownership flexibility at the same time.
Democratic socialism really does offer a lot of benefits that might just help vanquish the olden wounds of our nation. For an extensive overview regarding the ideals of democratic socialism, check this link.
As I deeply contemplated on my current politico-economic stand, I ended up asking myself this important question; why not the other disciplines? Why choose this particular one?
This question would either fortify or debunk my stand, but, reflecting on what I’ve discovered during my research, I can say that I have fortified my stand regarding this matter. And so I shall post my answers regarding why I chose to reject some of the most prominent ideas our thinker has concocted throughout the years: pure socialism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, pure democracy and capitalism.
Why not pure socialism?
Note: I am talking about the old and correct definition of socialism, which is Marxist in origin.
As we all know, pure socialism is a political discipline where all industries are effectively run by the working class, either through cooperatives and absolutely rejects any form of private ownership.
I do support worker ownership, but I’m definitely not in favor of giving all properties and business to our citizenry. I am against this notion for a strong reason; we must also recognize the limits of worker-run cooperatives. Such cooperatives will be a great asset for our national economy, but aren’t we pushing their abilities too much if we start handing over huge industries like oil, energy and steel? Surely we should spare them from such a burden?
Democratic socialism recognizes this limit of worker-owned cooperatives. Therefore at a certain extent, it allows the existence of state and private ownership to handle big boys like the industries I’ve cited. I do not believe that we should force the public into receiving such a herculean task, which defeats the concept of protection of their welfare. Too little of something is harmful, but so is too much.
Why not communism?
Note: Know that I’m talking about the communism as practiced by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Meanwhile, the original form of communism, the one espoused by Marx and Engels shares the same problems as pure socialism, and, so as to avoid redundancy of ideas, I excluded it from my Q&A.
Communism espouses one of the things I abhor the most; total ownership of the de facto government over the production and distribution of wealth. It is an embodiment of centralization which I’ve been arguing against in the course of this article. As democratic socialism explained, having the acting government take over the means of propagating wealth for our nation is not simply an unjust notion, but also threatening. A communist nation will inevitably face the unsettling prospect of an extremely inflexible ownership system, which can be detrimental to the economy given certain circumstances, as well as implications of corruption (this factor is irremovable, especially for a heavily centralized system as communism).
Communism is too despotic and rigid for my taste, and so I had to reject this discipline. Given the already faulty government Philippines has at the moment; a government tainted all over with corruption, hypocrisy and incompetence, implementing communism might just be the worst move to make. It's like replacing a corrupt state with a corrupt-to-be state.
Why not anarcho-syndicalism?
Anarcho-syndicalism’s endeavors are quite similar to democratic socialism’s, in a sense that they both empower the capabilities of the public, specifically the working group. However, anarcho-syndicalism has taken things to the extreme and is promoting the abolition of the state, envisioning the labor force as the best prime mover of a nation. Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned anarcho-syndicalist, and while I greatly admire his vast intellect, I must argue against what he believes in.
For one thing, the same problem manifests both in pure socialism and anarcho-syndicalism, which is the neglect of the limits of the public in handling bigger issues. Can we really leave the responsibility of looking after the whole nation solely in the hands of the working group? The idea is a profoundly worrying one. Philippines, or possibly any country for that matter, cannot afford such a drastic paradigm shift, which can endanger the stability of society, and this is why I must disagree with this discipline. Democratic socialism accepts the necessity of the state in handling the macroeconomics of a nation, as it also anticipates that the efficiency of worker-run cooperatives will break down at extremely vast industries, something anarcho-syndicalism disregards.
Why not pure democracy?
Pure (Athenian) democracy, as the Founding Fathers have deduced, is socio-economic disaster concealed within a prospect of freedom. You see, in layman’s terms, pure democracy is just “rule by majority.” To a politically-wired mind, he can already see the catastrophe that will ensue with this despotic system. All one needs to have all his endeavors come true in a purely democratic society is to gather as many acquaintances as possible, as the determination of the passages of laws solely depends on the majority vote. Thinkers weren’t wrong regarding the severe flaws of pure democracy. History has told us that Athenian democracy, in due course, has eroded into anarchy, a stateless society, until what remains of Athens’ glory merged under an oligarchic rule, confirming pure democracy’s despotic nature.
You might say that “but democratic socialism, judging by name alone, must somehow exhibit properties of democracy.” Yes it must, just not pure democracy. I firmly adhere to the belief that the most suitable type of democracy for democratic socialism is an “indirect” type, specifically the representative democracy.
Representative democracy, as its name suggests, is a type of “restrained” democracy where the voice of the general public is channelled through selected representatives, who will then take part in governmental decisions, where their suggestions and complaints will undergo legal examinations and critical analyses, promoting a civilized way of making public opinion known. Through this method, the iron fist rule of pure democracy will be defeated, and thus the stability of society shall be preserved. You might be familiar with the structure of representative democracy, for a republic is considered a “restrained” democracy, and therefore it can be considered as such.
Given these points, I am in favor for the preservation of a republican government as an integral part of democratic socialism. Know that democracy comes in different forms, and that some are dangerous, while some can be helpful. But years of loss of clarity ended up with people using the word “democracy” plainly to encompass all of its types, and this leads to confusion and misinterpretation. In summary, I reject pure democracy, while I support representative democracy... plus democratic socialism of course.
Why not pure capitalism?
This question is most frustrating to answer, for the reason that I actually like capitalism, if not for its horrible flaws that compelled me rebel strongly against it. Again and again, capitalism has proved to be a very, if not the most, efficient discipline in terms of economic growth. Its economically assertive nature has enabled its powerful performance in creating wealth. Milton Friedman, a well-known capitalist, even claimed that capitalism is the best political system human civilization has devised. While this may seem agreeable at face value, a careful examination will reveal its flaws that can prove destructive if left unchecked, which eventually led me into rejecting it, despite its promising capabilities.
1. It is an embodiment of centralization.
Capitalism is a centralized system; it restricts most of national economy to the hands of privately-owned super-corporations and industries. I’ve stated before that excessive centralization of wealth creates an unfair scenario for budding businesses, as they are undermined by the fact that most of the country’s generated wealth is circulated only around the superpowers of the business industry. This scenario, should it be realized, will defeat the idea of a diverse group of entrepreneurs, essentially turning the playing field into a kingdom for monopolists. Thus, as an advocate of decentralization, I must reject capitalism.
2. It creates and enlarges a societal rift.
This is the consequence of the first flaw. The longer the wealth stays fixed within the influence of capitalists, the richer they become, while the public, who are deprived of adequate wealth will then suffer, eventually compelling them to work under the upper class. Capitalism justifies this advocacy of class division by claiming that they “exalt” the might of the working group. Is this how you truly appreciate the public? I confess that I really do not see any form of exalting in this kind of treatment, but only the promotion of class division. What capitalism truly exalts is the selfish; the individualistic.
3. Finally, it has a flawed moral premise.
Capitalists insist that the only starvation and greed are the reasons why people are motivated to work. This is most disagreeable. DSA has stated that:
“We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.”
To deem humanity as a mere organism solely concerned with its carnal desires and impulses is nothing but derogatory.
I can still remember having a Facebook conversation with some good friends, fantasizing about a nation where capitalism and generosity coexist, and pondering on whether such a nation is possible. One of my friends argued that in order to get a step closer to this utopia, one should somehow manage to restrain capitalism. However, I realized that this can't be possible. A restrained capitalism isn't capitalism anymore, as it is deeply rooted in the principle of laissez faire, therefore defeating any chance of achieving that socio-economic paradise. It seems that when faced with capitalism, you either accept it all throughout, or you go and find another discipline. I chose the latter.
Given these answers to justify my rejection of other political systems, I have confirmed my siding with democratic socialism.
~~
Politics and economics, like most sciences, are meant to be progressive. Sometime in the future, someone might just be able to come up with a revolutionized politico-economic discipline that can address our country’s ailments far better than any other; the ideal theory, one might say. But, while I would certainly give my wholehearted support to that idea should it appear, its creation would without doubt take a very long time (there’s a good chance that it might not even come at all), and we’re currently in a desperate race against time. Given the urgent cries of our motherland, I think it’s about time to take immediate action. I believe it’s time for the Philippines to convert to democratic socialism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment