 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Chacha: Shall We Dance? By Antonio C. Abaya December 11, 2002 In Gene Orejana�s Online TV program last December 11, we discussed the current political scene, including the gathering momentum for charter change and the significance of recent public opinion surveys showing President Arroyo lagging behind wannabes such as Raul Roco, Fernando Poe Jr. and Panfilo Lacson. I voiced my opinion that these surveys are really meaningless because they are too early and the points separating the four leading contenders (one, two or three points) are too small to be significant since the surveys have a margin of error of three points. In other words, 19 points are not statistically different from 18, 17 or 16. Furthermore, the incumbent is at a disadvantage: in our bad-news media environment, she is being judged largely for her mistakes and is being compared with wannabes who have not yet made similar mistakes for the simple reason that they have not had the opportunities to make those mistakes. If and when Roco or Poe or Lacson becomes president, he too will be making mistakes and he too will be pilloried by the bad-news media the way GMA has been, or even worse. In addition, we still do not know where Roco and Poe and Lacson stand on certain issues: Are they in favor or against free trade and globalization? Do they support or reject US assistance in the campaign against terrorism? Lacson at least has taken a categorical stand in favor of the use of artificial methods of birth control. But what about Roco and Poe? Does any of them have a formula for generating the jobs needed to lift millions of people from poverty? If so, let�s hear it so we can judge how practical or impractical that formula is. Everyone is against corruption. If the Arroyo government has not succeeded in combating it, as obviously it hasn�t, how does Roco or Poe or Lacson propose to handle it? And no motherhood statements please. Does Poe have any opinion on anything aside from the incarceration of his drinking buddy Erap? We really do not know, and the relatively high scores he and the other wannabes have been getting in the public opinion surveys this early are really based on popularity alone, not on any perceived ability to find solutions to any problem. At this early stage and in the succeeding months, the polling organizations should survey the potential candidates (to find out where they stand on specific issues), not the potential voters, who have really little or no basis for making an intelligent choice from among them. ***** Gene and I also discussed the growing momentum for amending the Constitution to shift to the parliamentary system of government. I have long favored this shift for two good reasons. One, it drastically reduces the cost of running for public office, since a candidate campaigns only in his/her congressional district and not in the entire country (as he/she would when running for the presidency, vice-presidency or the Senate under the presidential system). Drastically reducing the cost of running for office opens the system to deserving citizens who have only modest resources, and at the same time reduces the temptation for corruption. In the present system, running for public office has become a huge financial investment that has to be recovered and multiplied many times over once that office is won. The present system carries in its womb the seeds of its own corruption and is therefore incapable of cleansing itself. Two, the parliamentary system allows a good prime minister to remain in power, legally and constitutionally, longer than the six years mandated in our presidential system. All the successful countries in this part of the world, without exception, experienced that success under modernizing leaders who were in power longer than our six years and at the same time had the correct economic strategy, the export of manufactured goods. Let me repeat the stay in power of the successful modernizing leaders in Asia: Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, 30 years; Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, 21 years and still counting; Gen. Park Chung Hee of South Korea, 18 years; Gen. Chiang Chingkuo of Taiwan, 13 years; Deng Xiaoping of the People�s Republic of China, 16 years. Ferdinand Marcos stayed in power 20 years, but he did not have the correct economic strategy of the other leaders: the export of manufactured goods. Instead Marcos gave his relatives and cronies cartels and monopolies in the domestic market. Conversely, the parliamentary system allows for the speedy removal of a corrupt or stupid prime minister via a simple vote of no-confidence, without the need for a People Power �revolution..� ***** The clamor for a shift to the parliamentary system has been around for decades, but it is only now that it has acquired the inevitability of an impending avalanche, due in part to the perception that the political system has been hijacked by showbiz fornicators and TV anchors who have nothing between their ears but a telegenic smile. The scenario favored by House Speaker Jose de Venecia is for this shift to occur before 2004, the scheduled elections postponed for two or three years while a constituent assembly, made up of incumbent trapos, diddle with the Constitution. In my opinion, this scenario is not attractive because it preserves the prominence of the trapos (who are one of the causes of our political malaise and cannot therefore be part of the cure). The scenario I favor, as mentioned in my earlier article titled �What Is To Be Done� and discussed with Gene on Online, is one in which the incumbent president forms a government of national salvation sometime in 2003, with members drawn from both the administration, the political opposition AND concerned citizens from the non-trapo communities, including the communists (if they are willing to join), which will draft the changes necessary over the next two or three years, on condition that the incumbent president disqualifies herself from running for any office in the emerging new order. For President Arroyo, this should be an attractive alternative. Given that her rating is going down and is likely to continue going down, a second term is becoming less attainable by the day. If she continues on her present course, she will exit in 2004 as another lackluster president, another failure of liberal democracy, forced from running for a second term by a hostile press and an ungrateful electorate, who must hand over power to another More-of-the-Same government dominated even more by predatory trapos and illiterate showbiz fornicators. This prospect could send more of the all-important middle-class scampering for immigrant visas abroad, leaving this country to be populated largely by the masang tanga, who will be singing and dancing and laughing with their showbiz idols-turned political leaders as the curtain falls, this time permanently, on another extravaganza brought to you by Mother Lily and ABS-CBN. On the other hand, if GMA were to opt for a non-trapo cha-cha in 2003, she has the distinct possibility of exiting in 2006 or 2007 in a blaze of glory after engineering a top-down revamp of our execrable political system that could give the present and future generations some hope of a better tomorrow. Put more bluntly, the alternative is really More of the Same. ***** The bulk of this article appears in the December 30, 2002 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine. |
TONY, I think your readers will benefit to hear how you see the government of national salvation getting formed. 1) The current President must accept that if she is to be the heroine in the salvation of the nation, her sacrifice is to foreswear any ambition for a second term. How do you see her credibly coming to terms with this prospect given her normal political baggage? 2) The composition of the group that will draft the changes to the Constitution must be finalized as soon as possible, which means that their number, and the acceptability of the members to all parties concerned, must be addressed with the highest priority. 3) Assuming she is able to make the right choices and the drafters are able to do their job within their timeframe of 2-3 years from 2003, the process of effecting the changes to the Constitution will probably require a referendum, the timing of which should be anticipated. If there are controversial provisions or propositions in the draft of the new Constitution, what do you see to be the procedure for either eliminating them, or airing them before they are put to the people for decision? 4) If the referendum approves the proposed changes, indeed the new Constitution, the implementation of the shift to a parliamentary form of government will probably need elections to be scheduled to choose the members of parliament. What is your guess or time calculation for this exercise? 5) In the meantime, presumably, the current President runs the government until her successors are put in place. Because of this, it might look like the current President may be getting her second term anyway, but without benefit of election. Again. It seems to me the planning for this must have a very good and firm framework for the various timelines so that hitches are reduced to the minimum, and most importantly, the various activities and their schedules are predetermined and insured against delay or mischievous disruptions. Above all, our people must be persuaded that this is a sincere, and truly serious and crucial effort for country and homeland. Given the implications suggested in the foregoing, is the shift in form of government a likely or sanguine prospect? Bobby Hilado. [email protected]. December 30, 2002 MY REPLY. GMA announced this morning that she is not running for a second term in 2004. That is the most important and necessary first step towards what I have in mind. Let us just wait for the next steps in the coming weeks and months. ����������������������������� THE SURVEYS, Tony, I think reveal the "masang tanga's" choice. Issues, as you have mentioned, are not important to them. So, the Philippines will have more of the same. The shift to the parliamentary as you have proposed will not be understood by the "masang tanga." If nothing drastic happens, and Fernando Poe, Jr. runs, he will be your president. It is time you got out, too, or you will be always throwing your pearls to the swine. Gras Reyes. [email protected] December 29, 2002 MY REPLY. I am too old to get out and start a new life in another country. I�ll just keep on throwing my pearls at the swine. �������������������������� UNFORTUNATELY, popularity has been the main determinant in the outcome of the last two presidential elections. GMA has been unpopular because she has failed to govern effectively. She has chosen instead traditional politics as the way to 2004. A SWS survey has shown that the main concerns of people is poverty, graft and corruption and criminality. Inexplicably, since assuming office, GMA has been able to come up with a poverty alleviation program (Kalahi) only last month. Policies that protect vested interest and rent seeking economic activities, such as the cabotage law, have not been touched obviously for political reasons. (Poverty alleviation comes only with the creation of jobs. Unfortunately, her midterm development program chose to focus only on agriculture, information technology and tourism. She has a bias against manufacturing, probably because of her commitment to free trade and globalization under which the Philippines has apparently been crossed out as a manufacturing country and must fend for itself as an exporter of labor. Read my article dated October 3, 2001 titled �GMA: the best there is but her best may not be good enough� and subsequent articles. ACA.) Other than announcing a lifestyle check on public officials sometime ago, GMA still has to make a determined effort to address widespread corruption, especially, in the local governments where it is felt more by people. Again, politics is the only possible reason for inaction. Mistakenly she thinks, like Ramon Mitra and Joe de Venecia before her has thought, that building and financing a network of local power brokers would see her through 2004. (Name one Philippine president who has succeeded in eradicating corruption. You are probably too young to recall that in 1949, a senator of the republic, Jose Avelino, in reply to a question on widespread corruption in government, cynically asked, �What are we in power for?� ACA.) GMA has succeeded in reducing the incidence of kidnapping, a crime against the rich especially in Chinatown, but not the overall breakdown of law and order affecting the ordinary citizen in all parts of the country. Earning pogi points from potential political financiers could only be the reason for such a narrowly focused anti-crime drive. (The overall breakdown in law and order cannot be put on the doorstep of a single person. The overall poverty, caused by the lack of jobs and exacerbated by the global economic slowdown since 1997, is a major cause, but not the only one. There is also the widespread materialism and weakness of moral values from the influence of movies and TV programs, and the unbridled consumerism promoted by advertising, which whets the appetite for goodies that one cannot afford with the meager wages from honest toil. Crime is much more complex than what you make it out to be. ACA.) Yes, the pretenders to the throne have not shown their mettle yet, but this is beside the point. The fact is that people now think that GMA is incapable of addressing their main concerns. They are now looking at the wanabees as an alternative. GMA has one year to prove the people wrong before they make their final judgement in May 2004. Otherwise, deserving or not, Roco wins, just as Fidel Ramos and Erap Estrada have won the presidency and Miriam Defensor-Santiago nearly has. None of these candidates have presented a clear program of government while standing for election, have they? have one thing in common though. They have effectively, if not actually, presented themselves as an alternative to trapoism, which GMA is now associate with. There is a new political paradigm prevailing due in part to the synchronization of election. This paradigm has neutralized the potency of patronage politics and political machinery. An article by Dennis Arroyo (Inquirer, 01 December 2000) and two articles by Randy David (Inquirer, 15 and 22 December 2002) provide excellent insights on this new political paradigm that GMA has mistakenly ignored in favor of trapoism. Gico Dayanghirang. Davao City. January 03 2003 ����������������������������� In a message dated 12/28/2002 6:49:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > >> Let me repeat the stay in power of the successful modernizing leaders in >> Asia: Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, 30 years; Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of >> Malaysia, 21 years and still counting; Gen. Park Chung Hee of South Korea, >> 18 years; Gen. Chiang Chingkuo of Taiwan, 13 years; Deng Xiaoping of the >> People's Republic of China, 16 years. Ferdinand Marcos stayed in power 20 >> > > Mr. Abaya: I was highly impressed with this information. During these > periods, was there continual growth and developlemt on all party sides. Did > any leader reach a point of stagnation? Let alone, did the people desire > change? Or, was change wanted by the people but not feasible by government? > >Andra Stone. Texas. [email protected]. (through cebupolitics egroup) December 28, 2002 MY REPLY. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, the People�s Republic of China, as well as Thailand and Suharto�s Indonesia, all experienced rapid economic growth for two decades or more, mostly from the export of manufactured goods, and under regimes of various degrees of authoritarianism. Which is empirical proof that American-style liberalism (the path chosen by the Philippines, and the Philippines alone in East Asia) is not necessarily the most effective way to modernize a Third World country. ����������������������������� I HOPE your option comes through in the end! A very percutant analysis I share entirely! All the best to you and the family Paul Obrist. Paris, France. [email protected]. January 4, 2003 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Chacha: Shall We Dance?� DEAR MR. ABAYA. Recently a member of Tau Alpha Fraternity, an engineering fraternity in UP, posted your �Chacha: Shall We Dance?� That�s how I became acquainted with www.tapatt.org. So for the past two weeks, I have been reading your past columns. I find them very enlightening, provoking and timely. I find myself in most cases supporting your views. I started with your December 4, 2002 column and have just completed the one of December 12, 2001. So as not to miss any of your columns, please include me as one of your regular recipients. My profile: male, 66 years old, living in Fullerton, California, Orange County, California. Resident in the USA for more than 30 years, retired mechanical engineer. Thank you. Gus Lucero. [email protected]. January 02, 2003. ��������������������������� |