Insincere Political Class by Dr. Ronald Meinardus

Insincere political class
First posted 04:11am (Mla time) July 03, 2005
By Dr. Ronald Meinardus
Inquirer News Service

THESE days, the political class in the Philippines is not concerned with governing. It is preoccupied with other things. Its attention is focused on what one commentator has termed "the worst crisis any administration" has ever experienced. The opposition is orchestrating turmoil and openly calling for the ouster of President Macapagal-Arroyo. To achieve this goal, the President's foes have discharged into the air several poisonous arrows. Following allegations that the President's husband, son and brother-in-law are entangled in corrupt practices involving illegal gambling, audio recordings surfaced which, according to the opposition, substantiate claims that the President cheated her way to power in the May 2004 elections.
As the opposition is not inclined to wait for the next presidential elections five years away, three alternative scenarios of bringing the Arroyo presidency to a premature end are being debated: resignation, impeachment by Congress, or a popular uprising supported by the military. With the resignation and the impeachment considered unrealistic options, the extra-constitutional formula has once more advanced to the forefront: "The vocabulary of political change in the country has been defined by two words-coup and people power," observed Inquirer columnist Amando Doronila in a recent commentary.
Most observers agree that the situation today is not ripe for yet another popular uprising. While many Filipinos are unhappy with the President (who is very unpopular), the outrage needed for a political explosion seems to be missing. "People are either weary of protests or apathetic to it all," says one observer. As is often the case in extra-constitutional processes, the call for "people power" does not stem from the "people" but from self-appointed leaders without a popular mandate.
When the Filipino masses rose in 1986 against the tyranny of Ferdinand Marcos, the whole democratic world joined the celebrations. People Power became a synonym for democratic and peaceful transition, and the Philippines was hailed as a global trendsetter. Compared to 1986, the popular uprising in 2001, which brought the incumbent to power, had far less splendor. It took place in a constitutional and democratic framework and was hardly targeted at a dictator.
Once again, major political forces in the Philippines are advocating extra-constitutional methods to rid the country of what they term a corrupt and illegitimate leader. On a more general note, this advocacy exposes a fundamental weakness of the Philippine political system and its institutions. The issue of the legitimacy of the electoral results of May 2004 stands at the center of the political turmoil. Up to this very day, the opposition has not conceded defeat, insisting that the President only won because of massive cheating. With all legal efforts exhausted, the opposition has politicized the struggle. A heterogeneous cluster of individuals and groups reaching from the far Left to the far Right is confronting the President. The cluster's only common denominator is the aversion against the President. They have neither produced a rallying figure who could replace the President, nor have they come up with a program of government. This said, the anti-GMA coalition is a negative one-purpose campaign only.
Whether this is enough to mobilize the Filipino masses is questionable. The least a successful movement of the kind some of the armchair revolutionaries are dreaming of would need is a joint political blueprint for a better future. The lack of this enforces the widespread suspicion that the whole commotion is less about political direction and principles but solely about personal ambitions.
In the midst of the turmoil, the President announced her intention to initiate the process aimed at changing the Philippine Constitution-from the present presidential form of government to a parliamentary and federal system. Not a few observers saw this as a move to deflect public attention away from the negative headlines the scandal has been producing.
To raise the constitutional question in this delicate situation is untimely and also premature. The problem is not the present Constitution, but a lack of respect for the basic law. It is debatable, also, whether a shift from the presidential to a parliamentary system would improve the political situation. While it could strengthen parliament, it could at the same time weaken the executive. To solve the myriad problems, the Philippines needs strong political leadership. I am not convinced at all that a leader based on a potentially fragile parliamentary majority would be better equipped to get things done than a chief executive with a popular mandate.
Apart from that, for a parliamentary system to work, you need an institutional framework with a functioning electoral system and strong political parties. Compared with other democracies, both the electoral and the party system of the Philippines are feeble and in dire need of reform.
Hardly anyone remembers today that in 2001 the political parties agreed in a political summit to enact legislation aimed at establishing strong, platform-based and publicly financed political parties. Up to this day, nothing practical has come out of the well-sounding rhetoric. This shows that the political class is really not genuine in its desire to strengthen the political parties as democratic institutions.
I also cannot sense political sincerity regarding electoral reform: Today's political turmoil is basically a consequence of the inadequacies of the electoral system. Had the 2004 elections been computerized and not conducted in what observers then called the archaic system of manual counting, today's allegations of cheating and rigging would simply be baseless. It is disturbing (but also revealing) that hardly anyone is campaigning for election reforms today. This leads to the conclusion that many in the political class seem content with an outdated electoral system that is not only open to manipulation but also extremely destabilizing.
Dr. Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation and a commentator on Asian affairs. Send comments to liberal@fnf.org.ph