Saturday, July 30, 2005

Announcement

Dear Students:

Please check the website regularly. If you have difficulty, please check out http://angsosyoklasrum.fil.ph The site contains the pull down menu for the blogs and other features such as chat and comics. If you need to consult with me and I am online, we could try the chat room found in the site. Thank you.

Justin V. Nicolas

Breaking the Silence by Randy David

Breaking the silence
First posted 11:31pm (Mla time)
July 30, 2005
By Randy David
Inquirer News Service

IN HER 2005 State of the Nation Address, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo spoke of two nations -- one experiencing vibrant economic growth, and another mired in endless political bickering. The political system, she said, must be reformed in order to ensure the economy's unimpeded growth. The vehicle for this is the shift to a federal parliamentary government via the fast route of a constituent assembly.
Whether this smart move buys her time remains to be seen. The force of inertia, the fear of chaos, the uncertainty of the alternatives, and the basic distrust of politicians -- all these, for now, are working in Ms Arroyo's favor, notwithstanding the serious allegations of electoral fraud and corruption against her.
The situation we face is not unlike the wrenching dilemma that a wife faces when confronted by the painful discovery that her husband has raped his own daughters. To ask him to go away because of this unspeakable betrayal is to expose the family to economic insecurity and ruin, from which the members may not be able to recover. This is how countless families end up staying silent under a regime of mendacity, abuse and pretense. They abhor this person in their midst. But they fear the unknown even more. They invent all kinds of rationalizations to justify the arrangement. They seek comfort in the recurrent thought that he has been a good provider. They hang on to the hope that someday he may reform. It's a no-win situation for the mother. Only the thought of her children's future finally makes her break the silence.
Whether one is dealing with the pathology of a family or that of a nation, therapy must begin with recognition that there is a problem, that an honest understanding of its complex roots is needed, and that an enduring cure can replace short-term palliatives. Tinkering with the Constitution at this time, to my mind, is like saying to a family that is recoiling from the blow of a betrayal, "I am sorry for this lapse in judgment, but let's move on. Let's take a holiday and play Scrabble." If the problem were not so serious, a respite from bickering might work wonders. But when the problem concerns the trustworthiness of the head of the family himself, a holiday is nothing but a tawdry attempt at bribery and evasion.
Let us step back momentarily from the sordid situation in which the nation finds itself today, and try to make sense of this political crisis. I think the attempt would give us an insight into our political culture and the unjust social order it serves.
As our people become poorer, and as the government fails to respond to their growing needs, their demand for relief from poverty through patronage also becomes greater. The poor know that the politicians are exploiting them, and they respond to this by milking the politicians as long as they can. They would take the money and goods offered to them and proceed to vote for the people they truly admire, namely, their idols and folk heroes. The more their disenchantment with politicians grows, the more they turn for redemption to the celebrities they trust.
The phenomenon of Joseph Estrada was a product of this shift in our political life. His 1998 electoral victory would have been easily duplicated by Fernando Poe Jr. in 2004. Only a patronage machine of the kind mobilized by Ms Arroyo in 2004 would have been able to match the power of FPJ's popularity. But even such a well-funded machine has turned out to be insufficient. That is why the expertise of Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano was desperately sought. It was the main reason Ms Arroyo appointed him just a few weeks before the 2004 election, over the strenuous objections of people who knew the man's notorious credentials as a vote-padding operator.
Herein lies the crisis of the system of patronage politics: it can no longer survive without directly manipulating election results. What we have here is a virtual civil war between a dying traditional political class and a rising celebrity class that has discovered politics. Both of them feed on the needs and hopes of an impoverished nation. The middle class -- with its battle cry of modernity and morality -- is caught in the middle of this war, unable to cast its lot with either the discredited politics of patronage or the politics of mass-mediated charisma.
Also caught in the middle, but actively pressing for a progressive resolution of the crisis, is the Left. Its mass base has dwindled over the years, a casualty of the collapse of agriculture and the destruction of manufacturing. It now competes with the "trapo" [traditional politicians] for the large urban poor mass, and with the middle forces for the large student population in the major cities. A residual anti-communism from the Cold War era hampers its efforts at mobilization among the middle classes.
In truth, our formal institutions are too advanced for the kind of society we have. Our modern constitutions gave our people all the essential rights and liberties of free citizens in a mature democracy, but all these have meant nothing because of their persistent poverty, dependence and disorganization. Instead of being able to exercise their freedoms as citizens in a mature polity, they are trapped in the web of an obsolete patrimonial state controlled by an unreformed oligarchy. That is the root of the problem. As long as the economic vulnerability of the masses is not addressed as a prior objective, no change in the form of government will cure this problem.
This crisis is yet another chance to confront the lies that have marked the conduct of our national life. Break the silence, and free our children!

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Subok lang!

PAKIKIISA SA KILOS MASA SA HULYO 25
Mensahe ni Prop. Jose Maria Sison
Ika-25 ng Hulyo 2005
Mahal na mga kababayan,
Taos puso akong nakikiisa sa inyong kilos masa sa okasyon ng SONA sa araw na ito. Kalahok ako sa diwa at sa abot ng aking kakayahan. Nanawagan ako sa lahat na lumahok tayo sa ganitong napakahalagang kilos masa.
Natutuwa akong makaalam na matatag ang kapasyahan ng napakaraming partido, organisasyon at indibidwal na paramihin ang bilang ng masang dadalo at pataasin ang antas ng kilusang masa para isulong ang mga pagsisikap na ibagsak ang rehimeng Arroyo.
Malaki ang aking tiwala na magiging matagumpay ang kilos masa ng Hulyo 25. Hindi ito mapipigil ng mga pananakot at panlilinlang na ginagawa ng rehimen. Umaapaw ang galit ng sambayanang Pilipino sa rehimen dahil sa pandaraya sa eleksyon, korupsyon, pagkapapet sa mga imperyalista at kalupitan.
Hindi natin mapahihintulutan na nanatili pa ang pekeng presidente sa kanyang nakaw na pwesto. Kasuklamsuklam na siya ang mag-uulat tungkol sa kalagayan ng bayan.Tiyak na puro kasinungalingan ang kanyang sasabihin. Mag-iimbento ng mga tagumpay. Pagtatakpan ang kanyang mga krimen at muling gagawa ng mga hungkag na pangako.
Ang masang anakpawis (manggagawa, magsasaka, mangingisda at maralitang tagalunsod) at mga panggitnang saray ang siyang pinakamaalam sa kalagayan. Sila ang dumaranas sa hirap ng pagsasamantala at pang-aapi. Dinaranas nila ang kawalang trabaho at hanapbuhay, sadyang wage freeze, pagtaas ng presyo ng mga kalakal at serbisyo, pagbigat ng buwis, pagbagsak
ng halaga ng piso, kakulangan o pagkasira ng infrastructure, public utilities at social services at paglaganap ng kriminalidad.
Lumubha ang pagkabulok ng naghaharing sistema ng mga malaking komprador at asendero dahil sa pagsunod ng rehimeng Arroyo sa mga patakarang "free market" globalization na pataw ng US, IMF, World Bank at WTO. Umalagwa ang de-nationalization, liberalization, privatization at deregulation laban sa bansa, anakpawis at kapaligiran. Lumala ang depisit sa kalakalang panlabas at sa badyet. Umabot ang dambuhalang utang ng bangkaroteng gobyerno sa higit na 6 trilyong piso (kasama ang dayuhang utang na 56 bilyong dolyar). Sa nakaraang taon, 81 per cent ng buwis ang ibinayad sa debt service. Sa taong ito aabot ito sa, 94 per cent.
Dapat malaman ng mga mamamayan kung bakit ang karamihan ng mga empleyado sibil at mga opisyal at tauhan sa militar at pulis ay galit sa rehimeng Arroyo. Ang tunay na halaga ng mga sahod nila ay pabagsak. Ang mga pangakong umento hindi tinutupad. Tinanggalan ng COLA (cost of living allowance) ang 400,000 na guro sa mga paaralang publiko. Abot na sa 50 bilyong piso ang dinaya sa kanila magmula 2001. Sa nakaraang apat na taon din, ipinagkait ng rehimen sa mga retiradong militar at pulis ang pension adjustment at benefits na takda ng batas. Kung gayon, galit na galit ang mga militar at pulis, liban sa ilang loyalista na busog sa pangungurakot.
Dapat panagutin ang buong rehimeng Arroyo. Di dapat mangyari na papalitan lamang ni Noli de Castro si Gloria M. Arroyo. Magkasabwat ang dalawa sa pandaraya sa eleksyon at sa pagpapairal ng mga patakarang laban sa bayan at anakpawis. Dapat tanggalin ang dalawa. Itakwil at ibagsak ang buong rehimeng Arroyo na immoral at illehitimo ang katayuan dahil sa pandaraya sa eleksyon at iba pang krimen sa bayan.
Wasto ang sumusunod na patakaran ng BAYAN: magkaroon ng transitional council na papalit agad sa rehimeng Arroyo. Para buuin ang pansamantalang konsehong ito, dapat gumawa ng asambleya ng bayan ang mga pinakamalaki at pinakaaktibong mga partido at organisasyon. Ang mga delegado sa asambleya ang hahalal sa mga miyembro ng council. Magiging tungkulin ng
council na mamuno sa paggawa ng isang patriyotiko at progresibong programa ng pamamahala at mangasiwa ng panibagong eleksiyon sa loob ng anim na buwan.
Mayroon nang impormal at pleksibleng malawak na nagkakaisang hanay ang ibat ibang Partido, organisasyong pangmasa at mga grupo ng militar at pulis laban sa rehimeng Arroyo. Mabilis na nakakapagbukas daan ang hanay na ito sa pagpupukaw at pagpapakilos sa palaki nang palaking bilang ng masang Pilipino. Itinataguyod ng mga patriyotiko at progresibong
pwersa ang malawak na nagkakaisang hanay subalit may kasarinlan at inisyatiba sila.
Mainam na kung matapos ang pagpapabagsak sa rehimeng Arroyo patuloy ang naturang hanay at may mga kinatawan ng mga patriotiko at progresibong pwersa sa transition council at bagong gobyerno dahil kinakailangan ang malawak at malakas na pambansang pagkakaisa upang harapin at lutasin ang patuloy na krisis at malulubhang problema sa bulok na naghaharing sistema.
Kung walang mga patriotiko at progresibong pwersa sa loob ng bagong gobyerno, hindi makakagawa ang gobyernong ito ng mga makabuluhang reporma sa ekonomiya, lipunan, pulitika, kultura at pakikiugnay sa labas ng bansa. Magiging madaling target muli ng kilusang masa ang isang gobiyerno ng mga sagadsaring papet at reaksiyonaryo. Pero kung may mga mabubuting opisyal at patakaran ng bagong gobiyerno, mas madaling makipag-usap at makipagksundo ito sa National Democratic Front of the Philippines sa pamamagitan ng peace negotiations.
Hangarin ng sambayanang Pilipino na buwagin na ang malakonyal at malapiyudal na naghaharing sistema para itatag ang isang sistema na tunay na malaya sa mga imperyalista, may kasarinlan, may demokrasya, may hustisya sosyal, may lahatang panig na pag-unlad at may patakarang panlabas na nagtataguyod ng kapayapaan at kaunlaran. ###

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Compare! GMA's 2004 SONA: 10 Point Agenda?

Thank you Mr. De Venecia, Vice-President Noli de Castro, President Fidel Ramos, Senate President Drilon, Chief Justice Davide and the justices of the Supreme Court, honorable members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, His Excellency Archbishop Franco and the excellencies of the diplomatic corps, members of the Cabinet, commanders of the Armed Forces, officers and members of the Philippine National Police, fellow workers in government, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
Angelo de la Cruz is home.
We did it! Congratulations to the Filipino people.
Samakatwid, ipabatid sa lahat, mula sa pook at panahong ito sa bawat Pilipino, saanman naroroon...
You have a government -- indeed, you have a country -- that cares. Your life is held more dearly than international acclaim. And you have a president who is your friend.
Why was Angelo de la Cruz saved? Because I stuck to my oath. Since I first became president in 2001, my declared foreign policy focus has been to protect the vital interests of the nation, including our eight million overseas Filipinos.
And I cannot apologize for being a protector of my people.
The difference of a few weeks, for a pullout already decided on, could not justify sacrifice of a human life.
Sacrificing Angelo de la Cruz would have been a pointless provocation; it would have put the lives of a million and a half Filipinos in the middle east at risk, by making them part of the war.
Wars are for combatants. As I speak soldiers are being held hostage by communist insurgents but they don't expect to be released except by the compassion of their captors or a military operation.
We have been fighting the longest running communist insurgency in history. We have been coming to grips with fundamentalist terrorism long before 9/11.
As the leader of the nation, I say in behalf of the Filipino people to the world: we are strong and principled believers in democracy. Four generations of fighting Filipinos have ceaselessly struggled against totalitarians and terrorists, for our freedom, for the freedom of our people and the people of the world.
We have fought the enemy, and taken as good as we gave-- not from a safe distance but in close quarters. Bataan and Corregidor, Korea and Vietnam, East Timor, Kosovo, Liberia, to name a few.
When I opted to save Angelo de la Cruz, I was reflecting whether one life should be sacrificed for no pressing reason or saved by accelerating an ongoing pullout.
I did not sacrifice policy to save a human life. I applied policy for that purpose. The Philippines has no policy that demands sacrifice of human lives.
Ask yourselves this: if Angelo de la Cruz had been sacrificed, what would change-for the better in Iraq today?
Having saved one Filipino from a painful and pointless death, we must seize the unity we attained to improve our government and save our economy.
Pinapangako ko ang isang bagong direksyon: Mamamayan muna. Ang taong bayan ang pinakamalaki nating yaman. Ngunit madalas, kaunti lang ang atensyon na binibigay sa kanilang pag-unlad. Di tuloy matawid ang agwat ng mayaman at mahirap. Di tuloy mapa-abot sa lahat ang biyaya ng demokrasya.
I want to create economic opportunity at home and abroad. I don't want just one or the other. I want both.
But it can only be done with-focus, with energy, and with a common purpose to do that which still lies within our power: Put our economic house back in working order before it finds itself beyond hope of repair and doomed to share the fate of failed nations.
We made a headstart in the last three years; we must take bolder steps forward in the next six.
Inflation is under control. The ordinary housewife has been buying her rice and fish at stable prices.
New investments, foreign and better yet domestic, were made. Three million more of our people found jobs in the last three years compared to half a million in the three years before that.
Malaki ang pag-unlad sa pangunahing pangangailangan-- malinis na tubig, health insurance, tirahan, paaralan, aklat.
We beat down crime, we are breaking up the drug and kidnapping syndicates, we are mopping up the stragglers. The people are safer in the streets, in their homes, and in their places of work.
Every government in the world is at war with its own corruption; we have made lifestyle checks a lethal weapon, and adopted procurement reforms to take the fight forward.
Thanks to many of you, I emerged from the last election with more votes than any previous president.
As a further sign of the people's overwhelming support, they gave me a huge majority in Congress, and among the local governments.
This is a new day, with a new direction, and a renewed confidence in what we can achieve together.
I am determined to prove that this tremendous show of faith and confidence is well deserved.
The season of bitter partisanship is over; the season of service is upon us all, majority, minority; opposition, administration.
In my inaugural address, I laid down a 10-point agenda for the next six years -- not utopia but something practical we can achieve and accomplish on time.
What I did promise was that my term would be the irreversible turning point.
Ipinangangako ko iiwanan na natin ang ligalig at alinlangan.
At the end of my term, the question will not longer be whether we can compete but where else in the world shall we take an indisputable competitive advantage.
The next six years we hope is when we finally get things right.
Is there something about that goal we cannot all agree on? Is there a reason we cannot all work together?
All that's needed is to clear away a couple of obstacles, as I intend to do with five key reform packages: (1) job creation through economic growth, (2) anti-corruption through good government, (3) social justice and basic needs, (4) education and youth opportunity and (5) energy independence and savings.
Tough decisions will have to be made. It's going to be tough love from here on. It must be tougher on those who've had it easy than on those who've had it tough already.
Humarap din sa problema ang mga karatig bansa.
Ang kanilang sekreto'y pagkakaisa ng mamamayan, suporta sa liderato, at sakripisyo ng bawat isa.
We must bear the pain and share the pain to enjoy the gain together.
Those with more must sacrifice more; those with less are already living lives of self-sacrifice.
Maraming magsasabi: matagal na silang nagsa- sakripisyo. Ngunit hinihingi ko sa inyo: konti pang sakripisyo.
We must wait with patience for the reforms to work. In the meantime, we must work more productively because world competition is keen and we want the jobs not only to come, but to stay.
Our most urgent problem is the budget deficit. Sometimes it's unavoidable; but chronic deficits are always bad.
Sometimes stamping out deficits too vigorously can slow down growth. But ignoring them can kill the economy. It sends the wrong signal that we don't understand our fiscal predicament and will not help ourselves. This will drive away investments, exacerbate the deficit and hurt job growth.
Chronic deficits drastically reduce government's ability to make those infrastructure investments that business needs to grow and create jobs.
Chronic deficits mean undertaking less social services that private charity will never provide but without which social war is inevitable. This is a sure fire formula for national failure.
So--we must raise revenues, expand government services, yet cut costs -- all at the same time. It boils down to right priorities.
The beauty of the fiscal problem is that all the solutions are known, though applying the right ones is tricky.
All the solutions require: toughness on the part of government, cooperation on the part of business, patience on the part of our people, and active support on the part of Congress.
All the solutions require profound, even personal changes. Politicians will need to focus on the job at hand rather than on their prospect of re-election.
The worst offender yet the hardest to pin down is corporate corruption. Businessmen must adopt an attitude of tax acceptance not tax avoidance. They must stop trying to outrun the tax collector. They must recognize that only a fiscally stronger government can create a more congenial business environment: greater security, better infrastructure, cheaper credit, more business.
My administration will undertake reforms to raise or save P100 billion. I ask Congress to pass eight revenue measures that will collect P80 billion more.
Alam kong maaasahan ko ang mga mambabatas. Upang burahin ang deficit. Upang ituloy ang magandang trabaho. At upang itaguyod ang saligan ng matapat na gobyerno at malakas na ekonomiya.
Investments in infrastructure and energy provide the greatest multiplier effect for growth and job creation. Pag maganda ang imprastraktura gaya ng kalsada, tulay, pantalan, telepono, koryente, maraming mamumuhunan. Maraming magkakaroon ng trabaho.
We must achieve sufficient, efficient, cheap energy in the near term. We must be sure to have the capacity to meet the demands of a growing economy, so as not to choke off growth when it comes, and thereby lose the opportunities that may not come again.
To this end, Napocor power generating plants and transmission lines must be privatized but not in a fire sale. Delivering electricity to virtually an entire country as big as ours cannot possibly be worth nothing but the trouble of running it.
Napocor's transmission systems will be sold on terms that recognize the lucrative monopoly of its transmission grid. I ask Congress to pass the transco bill that already passed the house in the 12th Congress.
Our investments in social justice and basic needs are as vital to our future as fiscal and macroeconomic reforms. A nation deeply divided will not stand. And it certainly will not move forward.
Our nation is divided by social and economic fault-lines. The tectonic plates may shift with unthinkable consequences.
Some say that is it cheaper to die than to get well from an illness, that it is impossible to find clean water in this rainfall country, that in this modern day and age, part of the country still sits in darkness. This is a terrible waste and a terrible shame.
Kaya ang aking agenda para sa maralita ay hanapbuhay; reporma sa lupa; tubig, gamot at koryente; pagtatanggol at kapangyarihan para sa mahina.
In fact, we will now be able to bring clean water to the entire country because during my previous term, you, Congress finally passed the Clean Water Act; because in my first days as president in 2001 I signed the solid waste act; ---thank you also for giving me that opportunity --- and because we are reforesting our watersheds.
The place to start now is livelihood, for 10 million Filipinos.
The growing industrial, service, and micro- enterprise sectors will take care of some, a thriving agri-business sector will keep more in the countryside rather than burdening a metro manila that is already cracking under the weight of overpopulation.
Land reform covers agrarian land, urban land, and ancestral domain land. I ask Congress to qualify farmland as bank collateral and reform the system of urban land title
ang kapangyarihan ng taong bayan ay puso ng demokrasya. Dapat kasama sila sa paghugis ng kanilang kapalaran.
Dadalhin ko ang aking mga reporma sa taong bayan. Ako'y magpapaliwanag, ako'y makikinig.
I have shown that government does care even for a single Filipino life. Now we must show that we care for the rest of the Filipino people, especially the weakest among us.
To adapt the words of Adam Smith to the information age, "the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor seems to have been the effects of a modern education."
Economies have exhausted the possibilities of the division of labor; the way further forward now is a better-educated, more adaptable workforce.
We need to start early. And we need to maintain the highest educational standards. I ask Congress to legislate an extra year of studies not by adding a fifth year of high school but by standardizing what is taught in barangay day care centers.
To expand youth opportunity, we need to focus on technical and vocational education; on strengthening English, science and technology -- and love of country. As I said in my inaugural: it is not free markets but patriotism that makes countries strong.
There is a sense in which as a society we have failed the youth in their formative years, in growing up normally and productively, in getting a good education, in learning the habits of honesty and citizenship and civic discipline.
I ask the educational system, the parents, the church and pillars of the community to help shape a new culture of honesty, patriotism, respect, discipline and service for young Filipinos.
The roof cannot collapse when the value pillars of government and society are sound and strong.
I fervently support the judicial reforms being carried out by our supreme court.
I ask Congress for a law making the Ombudsman's function as effective as Hong Kong's independent commission against corruption.
Bureaucratic corruption with its numerous leakages is bad. So is government incompetence. Unlike in the private sector, where the free market punishes mistakes, government incompetence punishes only the public.
We have to tear away layers of inefficiency piled on by decades of political accommodation: redundancy in the national service, waste in local governments, and pointless procedures for getting done what isn't needed anyway to secure the public welfare. Just how does paying off the health inspector banish bacteria from a dirty kitchen?
By definition, public services are what the private sector will not do except for a price the public cannot pay.
Where the private sector can do it better and cheaper, government may have to step aside. But the watchwords are better and cheaper. Where privatization only spells public pillage, government will continue to do the work.
But that's no reason to spare public services from the test of competitive performance.
We will simplify procedures to eliminate fixers.
We will downsize the government, motivate excess employees to become entrepreneurs, and increase the pay of a lean and mean bureaucracy.
I have abolished eighty offices under the Office of the President. I will abolish thirty more.
I ask Congress to pass a law on government re-engineering, with silver parachutes for redundant offices.
Once we have proved to our people that we have done what we can within the present structure of government, we can move on to changing the system to one that enhances our freedom and flexibility to do more.
I expect that next year, Congress will start considering the resolutions for charter change.
No one has a monopoly on right ideas. I am reaching out to all segments of society and all parties, be they with me or against me, to join me in those things that should be everyone's concern because they rise above politics to the level of patriotism.
I do not want a honeymoon period after which we can forget the country and go after each other again. I want a marriage not of convenience but of conviction, across the spectrum of parties and groups, encompassing the range of intelligent political, religious and economic views. I want a marriage for at least the life of this Congress.
I do not ask for unprincipled support because it will not hold.
I do ask for an end to unprincipled obstructionism because that always succeeds in defeating our best efforts.
Tunay nga na kahirapan at kawalan ng katarungan ang sagabal sa ating pag-unlad. Ngunit ang mga nagsusulsol sa mahihirap na manggulo ang sumisira sa ating kinabukasan.
So this must stop.
We must put a stop to that.
Every year, every president tells Congress that it is the last chance for meaningful change.
This time I will say it again, adding only that past presidents were right. And that each time change doesn't happen, makes change harder and less likely to happen the next time around.
The time for change is well past due.
This time, let me say, let's just do it!
Mabuhay ang pilipino!
Maraming salamat sa inyong lahat.

How long can she last? by Conrado de Quiros

How long can she last?
First posted 02:53am (Mla time) July 21, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service


THE WAY President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's people have been advertising it, the longer this crisis lasts, the better it will be for her. The better she will be able to ride the crest, the better she will be able to consolidate her forces, the better she will be able to recover the trust she has lost. The longer this lasts, they say, the more the forces arrayed against her will dissipate and the more the forces rising to her defense will grow. It's just a question of time.

Well, yes, it is a question of time. But time is not on Ms Arroyo's side. What we are looking at today is the twilight years of the Ferdinand Marcos regime in a much-abbreviated form. Marcos lasted several years in these circumstances even while being ravaged by lupus on the side. But he was Marcos, this is Gloria. While they may share the same scale of ambition and ruthlessness, they differ in one fundamental respect, which is that Marcos had the (overstaying) generals in his pocket. Ms Arroyo does not, and that's what's going to make her twilight years twilight weeks. But like Marcos during his twilight years, Ms Arroyo faces the same insoluble problem, which is: How do you continue ruling a country that doesn't like you?

Ms Arroyo's tack has been to talk about the economy to divert talk from politics. That was the same thing Marcos did, but Marcos had more credibility. Marcos at least could point to the 1970s when the economy was fairly stable. Ms Arroyo cannot point to any time in her term when the economy did well. Despite borrowing more than Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada combined, which have condemned us and our children and their children to a life of indebtedness, all she has to show for it is an economy about to tumble like Argentina.

Marcos did launch a massive livelihood program during his twilight years called KKK, named after Bonifacio's revolutionary group. It did recall its illustrious precedent in an ironic sense. A joke went around that three people borrowed money from the KKK to put up small businesses. The first one went into piggery and became bankrupt; a pestilence swept over his brood and he lost everything. The second went into planting coconut and he too became bankrupt, and what little he had left after paying for farm inputs Danding Cojuangco stole with his coconut levy. The third however became a millionaire, and he didn't have to spend much. He had a bust of Marcos made in his backyard and he charged different fees for different things: P10 for slapping the bust, P20 for pounding it with a fist, and P50 for pissing on it. He never lacked for a queue in front of his house.

Ms Arroyo launches a livelihood program, she will create many millionaires.

Like Marcos, Ms Arroyo's problem isn't just that she can't be trusted, it's that she can't be believed. Marcos lied about everything, from his medals to his lupus, Ms Arroyo has lied about everything from her plan to run for president to her plot to cheat for president. Marcos lied about everything from the state of his kidneys to the state of his nation, Ms Arroyo has lied about everything from the state of her soul to the state of her nation.

Marcos himself tried a makeover, making his "smiling martial law" smile some more by presumably lifting it in 1981. No one believed him. And in any case, nothing changed, except the, well, not inconsiderable lifting of curfew (which, if I recall right, was at 1 a.m. then, a concept today's kids have trouble grasping), which was a direct boon to San Miguel-it allowed us to drink more beer up to the wee hours of morning.

Ms Arroyo has tried to put on a smiling face in lieu of a dour one. No one believes her, and nothing has changed, except, well, the not inconsiderable entertainment of watching the local version of Michael Jackson transform into a mask. Her problem isn't just that she isn't a good actress with a horrible script: Look at how she did with her apology and with that follow-up of sending her husband into exile, which got plastered with rotten tomatoes by the public. It's also that there is a really good actress around, who is Susan Roces. The contrast is, well, dramatic.

But what's really making the clock tick, and tick faster each day, for Ms Arroyo is that like Marcos she is sitting on a seat that doesn't belong to her. What makes today a throwback to the twilight days of Marcos and not of Estrada's is the issue of legitimacy. It won't go away. Estrada at least could claim to have been voted into office, and by the biggest margin of all. Marcos couldn't (after martial law) and neither can Ms Arroyo. Marcos ruled by decree, Ms Arroyo rules by deceit. Marcos ruled by force, Ms Arroyo rules by farce.

By 1985, you knew Marcos' time was up. It was just a question of when the weight of his internal baggage would collapse in on him or when the horde massed at the gates would break them, or both. By now, 2005, you know Ms Arroyo's time is up. It's just a question of when the remaining Cabinet members and local officials will see the writing on the wall and heed it or when her opponents will start employing civil disobedience to force her out, or both.

Marcos did contemplate one last-ditch effort, which was to round up his enemies, just as he did at the beginning of martial law. And failing that he sent tanks to raze down the military mutineers. But he balked at the last minute when faced with a resolute populace and an angry world. Ms Arroyo's people at least have been making noises in that respect, Raul Gonzalez chief among them. I do hope he holds on to his position, he is the most effective secretary right now-for the other side. Will she balk as well when faced with a resolute populace and an angry world? Or will she go past even Marcos there?

Paul Laxalt did have one very good advice for Marcos at that point: Cut, and cut cleanly.

I've never thought that was an advice, I've always thought that was a threat.

Truth Commissioned by Randy David

Truth commissioned
First posted 00:31am (Mla time) July 24, 2005
By Randy David
Inquirer News Service

IN THE DEBATE surrounding the proposal to create a “Truth Commission,” no one has raised the basic question: Who wants the truth and why? It is Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who is commissioning the truth, and we all know why -- she wants affirmation of her victory in 2004, nothing more.
If we wanted to know who really won in the 2004 presidential elections, we had every opportunity to do so in a constitutional way during the canvassing of votes in Congress and in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Why did our legislators waste this chance by responding to every challenge to the certificates of canvass with the perfunctory word “noted”? And why did the Supreme Court justices, sitting as PET, dismiss the quest for truth behind Fernando Poe Jr.’s formal election protest after he died? Why did they not allow his widow to substitute for him, not as candidate but as petitioner, a seeker after the truth? Why were they content to deal with the divisive issue of a presidential election protest by invoking a technicality?
The answer may lie in the fact that people don’t mind permitting lies when they have beneficial consequences. “Suppose we want truth,” Nietzsche writes, “why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?” Ms Arroyo’s victory in 2004 may be a lie, but to those who believed that an FPJ presidency would have been disastrous, it could only be a beneficial lie. Therefore, nothing is to be gained from inquiring into the truth of electoral fraud.
Today, however, the tables are turned. The revealing conversations in the “Hello, Garci” tapes are swaying a growing number of people into believing that the winner in the last presidential election was the late Fernando Poe Jr. This is a harmful truth. Not only does it expose the spurious nature of our elections and the illusory character of our democracy; it also cancels the last basis of legitimacy of the Arroyo presidency. In her now famous June 27 apology, Ms Arroyo sought to belie the impression that she cheated in the last elections. There is no question, she said, that she won the presidency fair and square. To confirm this, a Truth Commission will be formed to show the “real” score once and for all.
From the way it is shaping up, this is going to be, literally, a commissioned work, not the autonomous open-ended truth-seeking process that the bishops hope it would be. Its goal is specifically to gather solid proof of Ms Arroyo’s victory, rather than to understand what happened in the 2004 elections. Appointed by Ms Arroyo herself, funded and cloaked with the powers of the office she occupies, the commission will be little more than a fact-finding body designed to help solve Ms Arroyo’s political problems. Its goal will not be the search for truth at any cost, but the search for information that will confirm and legitimize the Arroyo presidency.
Ms Arroyo’s interest in the truth has nothing to do with ascertaining how billions in public funds were used to promote her electoral campaign, or how the facilities and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines were deployed in support of her election, or how key officials in the Commission on Elections betrayed the mandate of their positions by manipulating the elections to favor Ms Arroyo.
In contrast, a Truth Commission created independently is bound to raise questions beyond the scope of the 2004 elections. It may ask why running for public office in our country has become more expensive over the years, what role drug and gambling syndicates play in elections, and how campaign funds are sourced, accumulated and spent. It may look into the way political favors incurred during elections are repaid with cushy appointments and promotions, with juicy contracts and tax breaks.
Such a comprehensive inquiry into the workings of our political system may yield truths about the intimate connection between patronage politics and mass poverty, between corruption and underdevelopment. It may reveal to us that the crisis of Ms Arroyo’s presidency is only a symptom of the larger crisis of an obsolescent political system that refuses to die.
Truths like these are not so much discovered as they are made by people who regain the use of their language in order to ask questions that confront the lies on which the whole social order stands. Why are so many of our children dying from malnutrition? Why do so many of them fail to finish basic education? Why are there a growing number of families living in the streets of our cities? Why has our economy become so dependent on the earnings of our exported workers? Why are our government corporations losing so much money every year? Why is debt service the biggest item in the government’s annual budget? Why do we import so many of our basic necessities? If the economy is growing, why are so many of our people jobless? If ours is a rich country, why are so many of our people poor and hungry?
We may need a truth commission when Ms Arroyo is finally gone. In South Africa, President Nelson Mandela established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a first step toward healing the wounds left behind by the apartheid era. It took seven years to complete this cathartic exercise. The kind of truth that Ms Arroyo is commissioning will neither heal nor reconcile the nation. It will only prolong the conflict.
* * *

Friday, July 22, 2005

FILIPINOS GIVE ARROYO A FAILING GRADE

FILIPINOS GIVE ARROYO A FAILING GRADE

If President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo were to receive a report card from Filipinos, she would find that most of them will give her a failing grade, according to independent think-tank IBON Foundation.

Majority of 1,379 respondents to the IBON July 2005 nationwide survey gave Arroyo a failing grade in the following aspects of her governance: the economy, livelihood creation, peace and order, peace talks, foreign relations, national unity, combating corruption, and social welfare. A failing grade means less than 75.

In terms of her overall performance, the respondents gave Arroyo a mean grade of 72.

According to IBON, aside from the people’s perception of widespread corruption in the government and the current political instability, Pres. Arroyo’s failing grade was due to the implementation of policies that resulted to skyrocketing prices of basic goods and services.

For example, Pres. Arroyo’s continued adherence to oil deregulation despite widespread calls to regulate the industry means that government cannot intervene to alleviate onerous oil price hikes caused by profiteering of the oil companies. Hence, the average price of petroleum products has already reached P23.60 per liter in the first quarter of 2005 or 23% higher than the whole-year average in 2004. It is also 300% more than in 1996 when deregulation was implemented.

The Arroyo government’s implementation of energy sector privatization under the Electricity Power Sector Reform Act (EPIRA) has also resulted in spiraling costs of electricity. Because of unbundling mandated under EPIRA, the National Power Corporation (Napocor) monthly effective rate in the Luzon grid for June 2005 reached P4.41, almost 70% higher than the P2.60 rate for the same period last year.

In the face of unreasonable increases in the prices of basic commodities and stagnant wages, Arroyo has also refused to use government’s power to implement price controls and alleviate the ordinary Filipinos’ burden. Hence, the average price of pandesal has gone up 14% between 2001 and 2004, galunggong by 6%, fresh beef by 18% and Baguio cooking oil by 56 percent. Even the poor Filipinos’ standby of Lucky Me instant noodles increased its price by 17 percent.

As she prepares once again to proclaim her achievements during her State of the Nation Address (SONA), IBON advises Pres. Arroyo to consider these factors that led to most Filipinos’ perception that she has failed to fulfill her duties as president. (end)

Monday, July 18, 2005

NSTP Evaluation for BSS 1-1

NSTP EVALUATION

1. What is the relation of culture and values?
2. Why are norms important?
3. How does one develop a self-concept?
4. What are the stages of developing the “self”? (developmental stages)
5. What is the relevance of self awareness to nation building?
6. What are the different styles of leadership? Which is most effective? Please explain.
7. If you are one of our national leaders, which issue will you deal with first? Why?

Dear BSS 1-1:

Please email your answers to this evaluation to salocinnitsuj@gmail.com. Please make your answers concise but complete. On the tiltle of the message, please indicate “NSTP Evaluation: (type your name) Please indicate also your full name and student number in the beginning of the message.

Reminders:

1. Since classcards are not yet available, please submit a 3x5 index card to your class president. Indicate on the index card entries needed for the class card. Please include your contact numbers.

2. Please bring cartolina, art paper, magazines, glue and art materials on August 3, 2005.

3. Please make arrangements on Friday for our clean up drive. Bring small plastic bags and a barbecue stick for picking up the trash.

Thank you.

Justin V. Nicolas
BSS 1-1 NSTP Adviser

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Take your pick!

The limits of political accomodation by Dinky Soliman

The limits of political accommodation
First posted 06:30am (Mla time) July 17, 2005
By Dinky Juliano-Soliman
Inquirer News Service


I AM very sad that personal ties have to suffer and be sacrificed for principles. However, there are limits to swallowing political accommodation that will only exacerbate our country's critical situation.

Leadership and credibility have been standing problems of this administration from the beginning but in the first three years, there were opportunities for genuine reform that were at least pursued. Ironically after the 2004 elections, the openings narrowed just when the fresh and clear mandate could have been used to strongly shun “utang na loob” [debt of gratitude] and zoom ahead with reforms.

Struggle

In my four years in government, it was always a struggle between good and evil -- old habits of traditional politics versus alternative new politics, which empowered communities. The first three years saw positive support for the latter but sadly lost momentum after the elections. We stayed on in the Cabinet thinking that the good of the country will prevail even if promised reforms were understandably delayed.

In the spirit of hope and giving the President the benefit of doubt, we waited, somewhat naively assured that they will be delivered. Many of them were not. Heels were digging deeper into the comforts of power and there was no sign of firm determination to remove them.

The last three months were particularly difficult as the scandals came out. It was disturbing to have the hands of the highest officials of the land allegedly deep into the jueteng jar after we threw out a President on the same issue. The tapes, while we do not prejudge the outcome of the investigation, cast doubt on the integrity of the President and on the electoral mandate that she won.

Agonizing

It took an agonizing and protracted process to reach the decision for us to resign and to request the President to leave her post as well. There was much pain and anguish in deliberating the options before us. It was most frightening to arrive at the point of realizing the lack of credibility of a leader whom you have been serving, whom you wanted to support till the end, whom you wanted so greatly to believe in, and whom you wished simply to do the right thing.

With government programs utilized to deodorize the administration, it's easy to project a "business and governance as usual" mode, deluding the public into thinking that everything could continue as is. Within this safety zone, corruption will effortlessly persist because of a laid-back acquiescence. It's difficult to go against the powers-that-be who have all the resources to negate genuine reforms.

We deserve more

We cannot afford as a nation to be complacent at this juncture. The call for resignation from different sectors, from former President Cory Aquino, from various political forces and from us, who served in the administration, is not merely a call to action. It is a call for each and everyone to discern and to assess what has been done to our country. It is a call to ask of ourselves what we must expect of our leaders. We expect more and we deserve more but we have been beggars too long for alms and crumbs. As mendicants, it is almost too easy to expect nothing at all.

The opposition is not a monolithic bloc. There are numerous permutations of the right and left wings plus middle forces all converging in a single conclusion despite distinct and divergent agendas. These agendas may scare people into indifference but we cannot afford as a nation to be indifferent at this time.

Beyond agendas and personalities, beyond fear and doubt, what is it that bothers us the most about the present situation? What are the options? By options I do not refer to persons but to methods. The reign of political expediency must end. But how? If maintenance of power is the only raison d’etre of the present government, what kind of leadership do we look forward to in the next few months and in the next few years?

Redefine leadership

The aching process that we are undergoing now is part and parcel of a maturing democracy that clamors for strengthening constitutionally mandated means so that whatever gains have been made will not be lost.

We are redefining leadership, raising the bar and standards for those who have taken a sacred covenant between leader and constituent. The sanctity of this covenant has been extremely tarnished and degraded over and over each time we permit injustices to take place under our noses.

The crux of the challenge weighing on us behooves us to make our voices heard, to forego tried and tired ways and to fashion a new and creative path. Like a cleansing after a storm, this crisis can sweep the slate clean, invigorate our people and re-energize our resolve to see our way through these difficult times.

Soliman announced on July 8 her irrevocable resignation as social welfare secretary along with six other Cabinet members and three agency heads. They asked President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to do the same.

Conversations: normal and faked by Randy David

Conversations: normal and faked
First posted 00:37am (Mla time) July 17, 2005
By Randy David
Inquirer News Service

THE SO-CALLED "X-tape" that Ilocos Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson has brought to the public's attention, which supposedly implicates former President Joseph "Erap" Estrada in a plot to assassinate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, seems so patently fabricated he cannot possibly think people would swallow it. Its real intent must lie elsewhere.
My view is that the Chavit tape simply aims to show that real voices can be lifted from an original source and then mixed with other voices to simulate a conversation that in fact never took place. Thus, the public is prompted to suspend its belief in the authenticity of any recorded conversation -- including the ones alleged between President Arroyo and Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. This is invalidation by contamination.
While cultivation of a critical attitude is essential to any civilized society, I doubt very much if this is the objective of Singson. I think what he wants us to do is to put on hold our faculty of reason-our ability to know things, to decide their meanings, and to act on the basis of our personal discernment-until the experts and jurists have spoken. This is the same line being peddled by those who seek to belittle the citizen's commonsense truth on the ground that there is a higher truth waiting to be discovered.
The fixation with authentication, both in its legal and technical sense, dissuades ordinary people from trusting their own common sense in interpreting the recorded conversations. This is absurd. What equipment do we use to understand one another in everyday life but our common sense? We may not be able to explain how we, as ordinary human beings, are able to make sense of the most cryptic conversations. That is the job of analysts. But just because we do not know how the mind works does not mean we cannot use it. We do not need an expert to tell us what is unnatural about the following alleged conversation between Erap and a supposed hired assassin:
Sir: Ah, gano’n.
Man: Ganun nga sir. Pag napatalsik na si Pandak at may transition government na, magkakasakit na si Tanda. Puwede na nating ipitin seguro ang kaliwa, sir. So tuloy na plano, sir. Puwede na i-sacrifice si Tanda. Tutal tapos na siya, sir."
What's wrong with this conversation? For one, it is unnecessarily detailed and chatty. The man exhibits conversational incompetence. He is either a fictional character or from Mars. They're supposed to be talking of the grave business of murder on the phone, yet he breezily outlines the whole sequence of an elaborate plan of murder and revolution as if he were doing a powerpoint presentation. I think we can reasonably presume that Erap, as the mastermind, would have been knowledgeable about it. So why is this operative giving Erap a lecture on the plan as if he were hearing it for the first time?
Emmanuel Schegloff, a scholar who has written extensively on conversational practice, formulates a basic rule in conversations as follows: "Do not tell a co-participant what he already relevantly knows, use it." The man that Erap was supposedly talking to was speaking to the ex-president as if he were describing plans for a weekend of fun to a 5-year-old boy.
"Talking is acting," says Wesley Sharrock, a British sociologist. "Members (of a speech community) do not have a general problem of describing or explaining 'everything' that happens. They do not typically produce actions and then, separately and independently, try to describe or explain what they have done. Sometimes, of course, when what is happening is 'specifically senseless,' members will explicitly offer descriptions or explanations to make sense of something-they will produce what Garfinkel calls 'formulations'."
Compare the conversations in the "X-tape" with those in the "Hello Garci" tape. Here is an intriguing one from the latter, possibly among the most incriminating of the Garci conversations:
Garci: Hello Ma'am.
Ma'am: Hello, atsaka ano, ano, yung kabila, they they're trying to get the Namfrel copy of the municipal COCs.
Garci: Saang Namfrel ho? Namfrel copies ho?
Ma'am: Uhm-uhm.
Garci: Ay wala naman, ok naman ang Namfrel sa atin. They are now sympathetic to us.
Ma'am (mumbling in a lowered voice): Oo, oo, oo ... (garbled) Namfrel does not tally ... Pero yun nga, yung dagdag, yung dagdag.
Garci: Ah, oho, we will, we will get an advance copy ho natin kung anong kwan nila.
What makes this conversation credible? Ma'am brings up a ticklish problem she does not state till toward the end. Instead, she refers to a seemingly harmless event -- namely, the other side is trying to get Namfrel copies of the municipal Certificates of Canvass, or COCs. Garci does not see right away why this is a problem. So he answers with a question: Namfrel where? He knows which groups of the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections, or Namfrel, he controls. He allays Ma'am's unease by assuring her Namfrel is cooperating. Ma'am seems aware of that, but that's not what she is inquiring about. The point is the "dagdag" (the padding), a bad word she is hesitant to utter but could not avoid. She wants Garci to make sure the Namfrel copies in the concerned municipalities reflect the "dagdag," but nowhere does she explicitly tell him so. She assumes he understands what she's saying and what he needs to do. Garci finally gets it, and so he tells her: We will; we will get an advance copy so we will know what ("kwan") they have. He does not elaborate.
Such is the nature of normal talk.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Announcement for BSS 2-1

Dear BSS 2-1:

For my 2004 lecture notes on Anthropology, please log on to www.angsosyoklasrum.ph.tc . Go to the pulldown menu and click on to "Anthropology blog". Thank you. I hope this will help. I will add more notes later. Please email me if you have any problems with the site.

Justin

Sunday, July 10, 2005

CBCP Statement (Full Text)

Full text, CBCP statement on the crisis facing Arroyo

What follows is the full text of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on the political crisis facing President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

RESTORING TRUST: A PLEA FOR MORAL VALUES IN PHILIPPINE POLITICS

The Pastoral Situation

1. As a people we seem to have passed from crisis to crisis in one form or another. For many analysts, reinforcing these crises are ambivalent cultural values such as palakasan, pakikisama, utang na loob, and family-centeredness. As Bishops we have long contended that the crises that we have suffered are basically moral--the lack of moral values in ourselves, in our relationships, in our social structures.

2. Today we are beset with yet another political crisis of such magnitude as to polarize our people and attract them to various options ranging from the extreme right to the extreme left. In this grave situation, various groups take advantage of one another, manipulate situations for their own agenda and create confusion among our people sometimes by projecting speculation or suspicion as proven fact, with the aim of grabbing power.

3. At the center of the crisis is the issue of moral value, particularly the issue of trust. The people mistrust our economic institutions which place them under the tyranny of market forces whose lack of moral compass produces for our people a life of grinding dehumanizing poverty. They also mistrust yet another key institution – our political system. This mistrust is not recent. For a long time now, while reveling in political exercises, our people have shown a lack of trust in political personalities, practices, and processes. Elections are often presumed tainted rather than honest. Congressional and senate hearings are sometimes narrowly confined to procedural matters and often run along party lines. Politics has not effectively responded to the needs of the poor and marginalized.

4. This question of trust in national institutions has taken a critical urgency with the resignation of some key Cabinet members, the realignment of political parties and the creation of new alliances. Amid this realignment of forces we commend the clear official stand of our military and police authorities who reiterated their loyalty to our Constitution that forbid them from engaging in partisan politics.

5. Moreover with academe, business, professional and civil society varied positions have been taken with regard to President Macapagal Arroyo. Some want her to resign; others want her to go through due process. Some want a Truth Commission. Others impeachment. Some want a constitutional process and others an extra-constitutional process. On the other hand there is also a wide manifestation of support for the chief executive by a cross section of society.

6. Today, we ask ourselves, “As bishops what can we offer to our people? Can we provide some clarity and guidance in the present confusing situation?” We can only answer these questions from who we are. We are not politicians who are to provide a political blueprint to solve political problems. Rather we are Bishops called by the Lord to shepherds the people in the light of faith. With Pope Benedict XVI we do not believe in the “intrusion into politics on the part of the hierarchy.” But we are to interpret human activities such as economics and politics from the moral and religious point of view, from the point of view of the Gospel of Jesus end of the Kingdom of God. We are to provide moral and religious guidance to our people. This is what we offer in the present crisis. Not to do this would be an abdication of our duty.
Our Pastoral Role and Our Stand

7. In the welter of conflicting opinions and positions our role is not to point out a specific political option or a package of options as the Gospel choice, especially so when an option might be grounded merely on a speculative and highly controvertible basis. In the present situation we believe that no single concrete option regarding President Macapagal Arroyo can claim to be the only one demanded by the Gospel. Therefore, in a spirit of humility and truth, we declare our prayerfully discerned collective decision that we do not demand her resignation. Yet neither do we encourage her simply to dismiss such a call from others. For we recognize that non-violent appeals for her resignation, the demand for a Truth Commission and the filing of an impeachment case are not against the Gospel.

8. In all these we remind ourselves that a just political and moral order is best promoted under the present circumstances by a clear and courageous preference for constitutional processes that flow from moral values and the natural law. Hence, we also appeal to the people, especially their representatives and leaders, to discern their decisions not in terms of political loyalties but in the light of the Gospel values of truth, justice and the common good. We urge our people in our parish and religious communities, our religious organizations and movements, our Basic Ecclesial Communities to come and pray together, reason, decide and act together always to the end that the will of God prevail in the political order. People of good will and credibility who hold different political convictions should come together and dialogue in order to help move the country out of its present impasse. We believe with Pope Benedict XVI that through prayer the Filipino people and their political representatives and leaders guided by moral principles are capable of arriving at decisions for the common good that are based not only on political realities but above all on moral precepts.

9. Yet having said this we wish to subject specific situations to moral inquiry to guide our people in deepening their moral discernment.
Restoring Moral Values

10. On Moral Accountability: “Political authority is accountable to the people. Those who govern have the obligation to answer to the governed “ (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 408) President Macapagal Arroyo has admitted and apologized for a “lapse [in] judgment” for calling a COMELEC official. The admission further eroded the people’s trust on the already suspected electoral system and raised serious questions on the integrity of the elections. Beyond apology is accountability, Indeed, with forgiveness is justice. To restore trust would require a thorough, credible and independent process to examine the authenticity of the so-called Garcillano tapes, verify any possible betrayal of public trust and mete out due punishment on all those found guilty. Punishment should also imposed on those duly found guilty of corruption and illegal acts, such as jueteng and wire tapping. Moral accountability calls for radical reforms in various agencies of the government to make them more responsive to the requirements of integrity as well as to the needs of the poor.

11. On Constitutionality: In the present crisis some calls are being made of measures that are counter-constitutional. The Constitution enshrines cherished values such as human dignity and the common good, freedom, the rule of law and due process. On this basis, we reject quick fixes that cater to selfish political agenda and advantage rather than to the common good. We deplore the attempts of those groups who seek to exploit our vulnerable national situation in order to create confusion and social chaos, in order to seize power by unconstitutional means. We reject calls for juntas or revolutionary councils. Our political leaders have to be the first to observe and faithfully implement the Constitution. Revolving the crisis has to be within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land so as to avoid social chaos, the further weakening of political systems, and greater harm in the future,

12. On Non-Violence: Violent solutions, as Pope Paul VI taught us, “produce new injustices, throw more elements out of balance, and bring on new disasters” (Populorum Progressio 31) There are today, on different sides of the social and political spectrum, those who would instigate violence in order to promote their own agenda or causes. We reject the use of force and violence as a solution to our problems. Such cannot be an option of the Gospel, for we know that Jesus the Lord taught a Gospel of Love and non-violence.

13. On Effective Governance: “Public authority in order to promote the common good… requires also the authority to be effective in attaining that end” (Pacem in Terris, ch. IV) Together with competence, personal integrity is one of the most necessary requirements of a leader. Ineffective governance may be due to a lack of personal integrity or lack of competence. It could also be the result of a confluence of factors that have eroded trust and credibility and hence effectiveness. In our present situation we recognize that blame could be attributed to many, even all of us. Yet we would ask the President to discern deeply to what extent she might have contributed to the erosion of effective governance and whether the erosion is so severe as to be irreversible. In her heart she has to make the necessary decision for the sake of the country. We all need to do the same, Indeed moral discernment is very difficult since it is not based on political allegiance and alignments but on moral considerations.
Conclusion

14. Dear People of God, sadness and anxiety were our feelings when we as Bishops first met to study on various aspects of the crisis. To confront the fears and hopelessness that are the daily companions of our poor is to realize that we of the Church likewise contributed to them by our neglect, our bias, our selfishness.

15. To respond to the pastoral situation we commit ourselves to a more effective evangelization in word and deed so that moral values might become dynamic forces of human life in economics, politics and culture. We especially commit ourselves to the formation of men and women endowed with competence and integrity and empowered to effective leadership in the economic and political spheres. With the Gospel of truth, justice, peace and love in their hearts they might, indeed, be a leaven of social transformation for our country.

16. This year of the Eucharist reminds us to the abiding, loving, and healing presence of the Lord Jesus in our midst. By the grace and mercy of God and the maternal protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we pray that a deep sense of hope will prevail in these dark moments of our history. Our loving God will not abandon us no matter what pit of evil we have fallen into. We shall emerge stronger from this crisis. We shall rise endowed with greater integrity. We shall be witnesses to the power of God’s grace to transform us into a noble nation, a holier Church, a united people.

FOR THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fernando R. Capalla, D.D.
President
Archbishop of Davao

Beyond Gloria by Randy David

Beyond Gloria
First posted 06:48am (Mla time) July 10, 2005
By Randy David
Inquirer News Service
GLORIA Macapagal-Arroyo has set back the political growth of our country by at least 20 years as a result of her single-minded pursuit of personal power. She has re-injected into our nation's governance a mode of rule that perniciously privatizes state power. Like a small town politico who has mastered the rhythms of the patron-client system, she has bought the personal loyalty of law-enforcers, the acquiescence of legislators, the allegiance of justices, and the silence of civil society. She has used government resources to wage an expensive electoral campaign like no other president has since Marcos.It is easy to think this is all the result of a fatal flaw in character. But that would be a myopic view. The truth is that Ms Arroyo is very much a child of a political culture that was dominant in the time of her father, the late President Diosdado Macapagal. It is clear to us now that she has known no other form of politics, and no other way of running a government.In 1972, Ferdinand Marcos tried to break the stranglehold of this old culture on the nation's life in order to install himself as a dictator. He justified martial law as a shortcut to modernity, a revolution from the center that would resolve the contradictions of a feudalistic social order. He abolished the political parties of the traditional classes, shut down Congress and the media which had been their playing fields, and seized their properties. This attempt to leapfrog to a "New Society" by fascist means, as we all know, spawned its own problems that Marcos could not contain.The coercive mode of rule has a limited lifetime. To prolong its stay, it has to acquire moral legitimacy and practical utility for the greatest majority. Marcos almost succeeded. But he was overtaken by global events and personal illness.The return to formal democracy in 1986 auspiciously began with a revolutionary government under a provisional constitution. The first task that the Cory government set for itself was to dismantle the structures of authoritarian rule and pave the way for the establishment of the regular institutions of democratic life. The pre-1972 political and economic elites hijacked this laudable reform project and sought to put it securely on a restoration track.Today, the democratic, nationalist, and social justice legacies of Edsa I survive in scattered provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Many of these have remained frozen, while others are threatened with cancellation by means of amendment. It is one of the supreme ironies of our time that it may sometimes be necessary to step out of the Constitution's iron grip in order to preserve its spirit.Perhaps today is such a time. The present crisis, as I see it, is at its core a replay of the same conflict that has hounded the history of our republic since its founding. This is the conflict between those who look up to the Philippine state as our people's collective instrument in their quest for a prosperous and secure life, and those who would treat it as a private instrument in the pursuit of personal gain and vested interests. This conflict has come to a head because it is taking place in the context of the sharpest social inequality and mass poverty that our nation has ever known.The underclasses of our society did find a chance to reverse this situation in 1998 when Joseph "Erap" Estrada was elected president. Although he was not of the masses, he nevertheless represented their deepest yearning for a better life. Unfortunately, Erap was entrapped in the same system and soon betrayed the dreams of his mass constituency. His failure gave the modernizing middle class the chance to assert its leadership. With the impending downfall of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, that initiative has now also hit a dead-end.Today, the republic is under severe strain; the old fault lines of our society-class, ethnic, and religious-are opening up. There are enough brokers out there of every imaginable stripe that want to make sure that whoever succeeds Gloria, the basic organs of a dying social order are preserved.The whole issue boils down to this: What kind of socio-political order can give hope to the vast masses who are jobless and hungry, and a chance at personal fulfillment for the millions of our young people who are increasingly unable to imagine this is nation of great heroes? All I know is that we cannot merely change faces and then move on as if it was business as usual.I believe that nearly every thoughtful Filipino today is convinced that deep structural changes are necessary. What these changes are and how they are to be put in place are the main questions upon us. Some insist on a controlled process, under the same government with either GMA or Noli de Castro at the helm, through a constituent assembly entirely dominated by the same political class. What this option offers essentially is basic continuity and the promise of certainty and stability.On the other hand, those who have taken to the streets to air their demands insist on the necessity of a transitional phase that includes the formation of a caretaker government, the drafting of a new constitution, the dismantling of the structures of patronage politics, and the modernization and democratization of the rules and procedures of the electoral system. A number of our citizens have expressed wariness over the uncertainties this option may spawn. But its principal attraction is the promise of meaningful change and of enduring peace in our country.Whatever road we may take, it is now clear to us that a step beyond Gloria is a step in the right direction.* * *Comments to public.lives@gmail.com

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Sociogists, activists, and the post-globalist society by Walden Bello

Sociologists, activists, and the post-globalist society
First posted 00:49am (Mla time) June 04, 2005
By Walden Bello
INQ7.net


(Excerpts from acceptance speech for Honorary Doctorate in Sociology, Panteion University of Social and Political Science, Athens, May 23, 2005.)
Sociologists and activists

ON THINKING of what to say on this occasion, the first thing that came to mind is to express my gratitude to my mentors in sociology. Sociology is often derided for being a soft science. It is often negatively compared to economics, which, with its penchant for mathematization and rigorous theoretical formulation, is said to be the social science closest to physics. Yet when trying to understand how the world really works, how the world got to be what it is, and where the world is going, it is not Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Milton Friedman, or Paul Samuelson that people have recourse to. They go to thinkers like Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Michel Foucault.

Sociologists have too much respect for reality to simply abstract a few variables and subject these rigorously to mathematical formulae. Sociologists know the limitations of one methodology, which is why they try to approach reality in a variety of ways, combining at times the methods of survey research with intensive participant observation and comparative historical methodology. Sociologists, or at least some of us, believe that our findings will always be hopelessly inexact because social reality cannot be isolated from the values and perspectives of the observer. A tragic sense of limits, of finitude, of indeterminacy is the lot of the sociologist, who will never have the certainty of the physicist and the biotechnologist. Thus we probably are less prone to what you Greeks call "hubris" than many of our academic colleagues.

The other thing that came to mind is to “thank” the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines with an iron hand from 1972 to 1986. Why? Because he forced me to become a political activist. I got my PhD in sociology in 1975, but pursuing an academic career was out of the question. In those dark days, an era very similar to the Papadopoulus era in Greece, one either became a supporter of the dictatorship or joined the resistance. There could be no middle ground when your friends and colleagues and relatives were being detained, tortured, or professionally blacklisted. During those 14 years, I was in exile from my country, in exile from the academe, and, like many others, doing only one thing for 24 hours a day: organizing to overthrow the dictatorship. Why? Because, as one friend put it, “it was the only decent thing to do.” I only returned to academic life after 14 years, and by then both I and the world were no longer the same.

The crisis of globalization

I joined the University of the Philippines as a professor of sociology in the early 1990’s. While I was away, I had been forced by the imperative of opposing the dictatorship to try to understand the dynamics and structures of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the US government in order to fight them better as they were the biggest allies of the Marcos government. I had also been forced to be an expert in the economic development of the so-called “tiger economies” of South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, in order to oppose more effectively the model of authoritarian development or “modernization from above” based on the experiences of these countries that Marcos and his technocrats had tried to impose on our country -- a model that they said necessitated the restriction of political rights for the sake of stable economic growth.

By the early 1990s, however, Marcos was gone, and the doctrine of modernization from above was discredited. There was, however, a new mantra, and that was “globalization.” Globalization was the wave of the present, and it was said that it was only those who caught this wave that would enter a state of economic nirvana. And how would one catch this wave? By adopting IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs that imposed radical trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization.

The Philippines was then, along with some 100 developing and transitional economies, in the midst of a structural adjustment program. There was only one problem: instead of delivering prosperity, structural adjustment seemed to be consolidating economic stagnation, increasing poverty, and widening inequality. We were, however, from the 1980s onward, told to wait and wait patiently, like good Christians, for the bright future would reward the tribulations of the present.

In 1995 the World Trade Organization was founded, and, as a former director general of the organization expressed it, it was the “jewel in the crown” of the multilateral system. Henceforth, the WTO would be the engine of global trade liberalization, and along, with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, it would form the trinity of institutions that would form the framework of global economic governance in the period of globalization.

A number of us in civil society were very wary of the free market model that was embraced by many economists and technocrats in countries throughout the world, for the fervor with which it was promoted reminded us of the same doctrinal certainty with the leaders of the former Soviet bloc propagated centralized socialism as the model that would bring about the age of plenty after capitalism. Yet our voices were dismissed as the complaints of people who were chronic critics of everything.

Then came the Asian financial crisis of 1997, a crisis triggered by the radical liberalization of capital flows that has been pushed by the IMF and the US Department of Treasury as part of the globalization strategy. In the summer of 1997, $100 billion worth of speculative capital invested by northern funds in South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand left these countries in panic, without any capital controls to serve as a barrier to their exit because the IMF had said capital controls were bad. That outflow brought down the tiger economies, and with the exception of China, which maintained capital controls, the years of glory of the East Asian economies were over.

In the aftermath of the crisis of credibility of the IMF owing to its notorious role in the Asian financial crisis, people throughout the Third World looked afresh at the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programs that were in place in their countries and the truth came home: that these programs were not creating prosperity, eliminating poverty, and reducing inequality but bringing about the exact opposite. What studies by various agencies such as the United Nations Development Program and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development had been saying since the mid-1980s -- that structural adjustment was not working -- now became real. It took a historical cataclysm to convert statistics into social facts.

Then came Seattle in December 1999. The collapse of the Third Ministerial of the WTO was brought about by two things mainly: the revolt at the Seattle Convention Center by the developing countries that had taken four years to realize that the WTO Agreement was an anti-development document that was geared to promoting the interests of the big trading powers; and the mobilization of thousands of civil society activists who believed that free trade, the panacea of neoliberal ideology, should be subordinated to social rights, human rights, and environmental rights. As in the case of structural adjustment programs, Seattle again proved that truth only emerges in action, as the product of social intervention.

Prior to Seattle, the claim that globalization was positive had the force of truth. After Seattle, the opposite claim had the force of truth: that globalization was creating tremendous problems for vast numbers of the world’s people had the force of truth. After Seattle, the critique of globalization was no longer one carried just by crazy people like me; it had become respectable owing to prominent people like Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, and George Soros joining the ranks of the critics.

Of course, today, globalization continues to have its proponents, and even its establishment critics like Sachs and Soros say there is no alternative to it, except, of course, that the multilateral agencies and the state must actively put in place measures or safety nets that will enable the poor to compete more effectively in the market or to ensure that the losers in the process have a “soft landing.” But even on the right, it is losing adherents. George Bush’s economics, for instance, is not the free-trade economics of Bill Clinton. George Bush’s economics is the promotion of US corporate interests even at the expense of violating the rules of free trade. It is protectionism for the United States, and free trade for the rest of the world. Indeed, the unabashed double standards practiced by the United States today is one of the main reasons why neoliberal economics and the globalization paradigm are in crisis.

Alternative or alternatives?

Nevertheless, in many countries, neoliberal economics and policies continue to reign despite the crisis of the model for want of an alternative paradigm that generates policies that can be viably implemented. This continuing hold of neoliberalism is similar to the scene in the old cowboy movies where the dead hand of the engineer shot by the outlaws continues to grip the throttle, leading to greater and greater speed as the train rounds the bend and threatens to jump the tracks.

So what or where is this much-needed alternative to globalization?

People often say that we critics of corporate-driven globalization are good at criticizing but are lacking in alternatives. I respectfully disagree.

Let me outline very briefly the outlines of an alternative to the current neoliberal model that, though in crisis, continues to reign in international and national economic policies.

An alternative strategy or strategies must address the international and national levels.

At the international level, the way forward in my view lies in disempowering, if not dismantling, the key institutions of the current multilateral system -- the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. At the same time, we must find ways to strengthen what are today relatively weak institutions such as the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, multilateral environmental organizations, as well as regional economic associations.

The aim must be to create a pluralistic system of global economic governance, marked by checks and balances among institutions of roughly equal power. Such a system of checks and balances will create the developmental space so badly needed by the developing countries trying and which is now so sorely lacking owing to the hegemonic reach of multilateral institutions promoting one model for everyone.

At the national level, the principles around which an economy must be constructed have been articulated for some time now in many quarters. Trade must be subordinated to development. The operations of the market must be subordinated to the overriding values of justice, equality, solidarity, and community. Profit-making must be subordinated to the common good. Decision-making on strategic economic issues must be democratic. Civil society must be given an institutionalized role to serve as a check to both the market and the state. Production and consumption must be ecologically sustainable. A production complex composed of a variety of economic actors including private enterprises, cooperatives, and state enterprises must be configured, but it should be one that excludes transnational corporations. And production must be guided by the principle of subsidiarity, that is, whatever can be produced at the local level at reasonable cost should be produced there and not transferred elsewhere for reasons of profitability.

These principles of alternative economics have been generated over the last three decades in debates and books. The problem is that our critics have been looking for a simple model similar to either the free market or central planning -- a model that they would have “objective laws” that can be measured and operate irrespective of the will and desire of human beings. What they are seeking in other words is our own brand of alienated economics or what one great thinker called the economics of “commodity fetishism.”

Let us be clear: What we are talking about is people taking control of economics, of the market. Further, we are saying that there is no one model for all. We are not talking about the alternatives but about alternatives: each society must be able to take the principles of alternative economics and put them together in unique ways that respond to their values, priorities, and rhythms as societies. Diversity will be a central characteristic of the international economy of the future, which is why we need at the international level a system of global governance that will allow that rich diversity to flourish by allowing the world’s many societies the developmental space to create the economic configurations that respond to their needs.

Between the international and local level lies the institutions at the regional level, which assume particular importance in the post-globalist era. In the 21st century, it is going to be very hard for the smaller economies to survive alone in world economy dominated by supereconomies like the US, European Union, and China. Smaller economies will have no choice but to band together whether the criterion is geographic proximity or level of development, that on the basis of being members of the South. The principles of association, however, should not be those of free trade and narrow efficiency but of genuine, comprehensive economic cooperation for sustainable development, where participation in the regional formation would result in the development of all rather than in the advance of the few at the expense of the many.

I take no credit for these ideas. I am simply bringing together and imposing a degree of coherence on ideas and proposals that have been circulating for some time, but which we now need to put into practice owing to the intensifying misery, social conflict, and ecological catastrophe that have been provoked by the failure of corporate-driven globalization. Whether you call this system socialism, economic democracy, sustainable development, people’s economics, or the mixed economy, the important thing is we are talking about a system that serves the needs of people and the biosphere rather than a system that makes people and the biosphere into commodities to serve the insatiable needs of capital.

Let me end by saying that we are past the era of doctrinaire solutions, of one-shoe-fits all models, of fundamentalist certainty. We must temper our ideals with pragmatism, we must respect the diversity of reality, we must learn to live with the possibility of failure even as we venture to create new economic and social arrangements.

Lastly, activists must approach social reality in the way sociologists study it: that is, engage reality intensely, as if there will be no tomorrow, while maintaining what the philosopher Richard Rorty calls a sense of “ironic detachment” -- that is, not to take ourselves or our proposals too seriously owing to the certainty that ours is not the last word on things and that what we propose with conviction today will certainly be surpassed tomorrow.

The author is professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South.

Perilous options for the country and GMA by William Esposo

Perilous options for the country and Gloria M. Arroyo
First posted 00:24am (Mla time)
June 20, 2005
By William Esposo
INQ7.net

First, we find confirmation to what most of us already know: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s already sinking popularity sinks to a further -33%, breaking the record she herself had set in terms of presidential dissatisfaction rating. Soon after, a double whammy hits her —one implicating members of her family as recipients of jueteng payoffs, and the other, the tragicomic “Gloriagate” tapes of a wiretapped conversation which supposedly incriminates her of conniving with a COMELEC official to cheat during the last elections. No doubt, all these would have easily zapped any head of state to kingdom come.
And yet she remains. She remains because the Filipino people, sick and tired as they all are, no longer have any iota of trust and confidence in any of the existing visible alternatives. The prospect of having Noli de Castro as president or having anyone selected from the opposition’s gallery of the disgraced is obviously an unpalatable alternative for a people who already know by experience that all this won’t work.
But just because people reject the idea of a President Noli de Castro or maybe even worse, an Estrada comeback, it does not mean that Macapagal-Arroyo can presume advantage by default. It would be truly pathetic for her to entertain the illusion that she is the only game in town because nothing can be farther from the truth. All this seeming public apathy only confirms how hopeless the Filipino feels in finding relief from misery. The people now seriously doubt the system itself and the traditional politicians it has produced. This is the only logical explanation for all the perceived public indifference to the scandals and the political circus.
I have ruled out public ‘indifference’ as the reason behind the strange silence. While all surveys check out each other in confirming Macapagal-Arroyo’s continuing and even dramatic slide in popularity, these also expose a growing public sentiment for exploring extra-constitutional modes for attaining reform. Under normal times and conditions, Macapagal-Arroyo would by now have been subjected to impeachment proceedings, if not an outright ouster by People Power. The “Storming of the Bastille” has not happened because the system no longer appeals to the people who also consider both the opposition and the administration as two sides of the same rotten coin.
Yet, by no means should Macapagal-Arroyo rejoice over this state of affairs. By no means does this offer a guarantee that she will hold on to her position. What this simply means is that the people are not looking at a return of the opposition to power to introduce the reforms long overdue. The implication of all this is that we are now entering another phase of a political process that is both untried as it is dangerous.
In all probability, the outcome of the convergence of events will be severe for both the present ruler and the nation. That is because the range of options will now have widened to accommodate the possible emergence of the armed groups – both the Left and the Right – as the eventual wielders of political power. The situation has all the makings of a stalemate between a ruler who can no longer rule with credibility and viability and a total system collapse. Based on historical parallels, such a scenario will bring about a deterioration of the fiscal crisis, business closures and capital flight. The economic meltdown on our already fragile socio-economic state can only bring about more restiveness, more peace and order problems and further breakdown of our national and moral fiber.
A situation like this of course makes it ripe for a military takeover, which can come by way of popular acclaim or by sheer mandate of the constitution. We have never been under the direct rule of the generals, even during our Martial Law experience where civilian rule prevailed with Marcos as dictator operating through military muscle. We would be lucky if we end up with a military regime that is idealistic and reform-minded. Maybe this will help provide a swift and decisive action in breaking down oppressive structures in which our conscience-less elite have long remained entrenched. But what if it is the likes of Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia who will end up running the authoritarian regime?
We cannot also discount the possibility of the Left emerging the victor after all this. It will be recalled that the Communists had seized power in Russia right after the collapse of the Romanov dynasty. We have been getting feedback that the prevailing conditions are actually expanding the membership and patronage base of the Left. I will not discount them – especially in the likely event of a system failure. We cannot even discount the possibility that a faction of the military may end up aligning with the Left. It will not be surprising to find more Corpuses and Jarques in the military organization who will end up shifting sides to join the Left.
We must remember that the Left that we had known way back in the 50s through the 80s which had also been known for their religious intolerance and ruthlessness have now mellowed and have become more adaptable. Today’s China, with its unfolding economic miracle, is showing the world a brand new face of the Left. If the Left was at its strongest in 1986, expect the conditions today to be even more favorable for them.
In 1986, US President Ronald Reagan junked his personal friend Ferdinand Marcos when the State Department under George Shultz advised him that if Marcos stayed in power, the Left would enjoy a stalemate by 1987. We just wonder what Condi Rice is now advising George W. Bush on the Philippines. The emerging specter of the Chinese Dragon is rekindling US concern over its geo-political interests in Asia. The Philippines had always and will always be a vital element in upholding US geo-political interests in the South China Sea. I do not for a moment believe the US statement in giving 100% support for the Macapagal-Arroyo regime in the midst of all her troubles. The US can and will go along with Right Wing takeovers if it suits their interests.
Inasmuch as both the Right and the Left will not be expected to watch idly by while one side makes a grab for power, we also cannot rule out the possibility of a civil war. Considering the divisions in our society today, that will be the greatest scourge that we can give to our next generation. If civil war erupts, it will be fought between factions aiming to takeover from the black hole left by the collapsed Macapagal-Arroyo regime. Likely, it will not be between a faction fighting to keep Macapagal-Arroyo in power and another trying to oust her. Judging the relationships in this regime – where alliances are carved out of patronage and convenience rather than principles – I do not see many who will be willing to fight (much less willing to die) for her. Lip service, yes, and plenty of it she will get. But to actually put themselves in the line of fire for her, I don’t see that happening. Marcos had much more support going for him and that did not keep him in power.
Can Macapagal-Arroyo do a Marcos and declare Martial Law as rumors have floated last Friday? She has some bullies around her with substantial interests to lose who may influence her to do that. Unless she has totally lost her grasp of reality, she should not even consider that. She does not have any of the leverages that Marcos enjoyed when Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972 – mainly total support of the military and the US who was then concerned with the Domino Theory of Communist expansion in Asia. There is a serious rift between the senior and junior officers of the military today and if the US will play this game it will likely be to place a pro-US successor of Macapagal-Arroyo.
Neither you nor I should relish any of the emerging scenarios. But it is also the height of folly to delude ourselves and not to recognize the dangers we now face. To solve our problem, we must first face the problem itself. Wishful thinking will not heal the conflicts in the land.
Macapagal-Arroyo cannot hold on to power regardless if there is an acceptable opposition or not. Signals emanating from the administration ranks show that. Already, major players in her political coalition are starting to hedge their bets. Watch the Liberal Party. I’ve written about them in past columns that they have a bright future ahead of them and would not want to go down with Macapagal-Arroyo. Mar Roxas, a Liberal, was the senate race topnotcher in the 2004 elections and is a strong contender for the 2010 presidential elections – if the system lasts until 2010. Liberal Party president Frank Drilon has asked Macapagal-Arroyo to bear down on her own kinfolk who have been implicated in the jueteng scandal. Drilon has also asked Macapagal-Arroyo to respond to the controversial alleged taped conversations between her and COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.
A non-Liberal and administration ally, Sen. Richard Gordon has suggested that Reps. Mikey and Iggy Arroyo resign their congressional posts. The Makati Business Club took a position that Macapagal-Arroyo has to address the “Gloriagate” tapes. More religious leaders are voicing the same position that she has to come clean on the taped conversations with Garcillano. The support she gets from the likes of Mike Velarde and Donald Dee – long suspected ambassadors of the administration – do not echo any credibility.
The Liberal Party has nothing more to gain from sticking it out with Macapagal-Arroyo and too much to lose by going down with her. The lack of credibility of the opposition should spur the Liberals to initiate the move to provide for a face-saving exit mechanism for Macapagal-Arroyo – one that protects their political future. On the other hand, Macapagal-Arroyo would do well to take that departure option where her allies are in control rather than wait for the other dreadful scenarios to play out.
Our traditional politicians are like cockroaches. They endure because they have honed their instincts to sniff danger and opportunity. They certainly know that their figurehead’s power is substantially eroded and that a powerful political wind has hit town. I’m sure they sense that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo – already -33% before these two mega controversies – cannot last. They should know that these issues are not settled in the Courts of Law (where the administration is desperately trying to lead it) but in the Court of Public Opinion as it was settled in the ouster of Marcos and Estrada. The tendency to dispute these issues in the Court of Public Opinion is reinforced by people like Raul Gonzalez in the Justice Department as well as known Macapagal-Arroyo allies who have been appointed by her in the various courts. Few would believe that justice can ever be served with these people at the helm.
Ironically, the root cause of the problem is also the best hope in solving the problem – Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Macapagal-Arroyo, just like Marcos before her, still enjoys the initiative and can diffuse the situation that – if allowed to blow its full potential for discord and dissent – can result in the ultimate tragedy for her and her ilk. The result can be no different to the fate that befell Benito Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci of Italy in 1945 or Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu of Romania in 1989.
With US prodding, Marcos accepted the reality that his further rule was no longer tenable and left with his family while he still could. Marcos, for his foresight, died in his bed.
It’s your call, Madame President.
You may email William M. Esposo at: w_esposo@yahoo.com