 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Collective Leadership means Junta By Antonio C. Abaya April 24, 2002 When is �collective leadership� not a �junta�? I can�t imagine a case where it isn�t. In their political sense, �collective leadership� is just an English phrase for the Spanish �junta�, which means �joint� or �collective leadership� in the management of the affairs of state. So, what was all the fuss in media about, especially the angry denials from the Benigno-Saycon-Peping Cojuangco camp? My friend Teddy Benigno does not deny forming a �Freedom Force� to offer an alternative to the cannibalistic politics of this country. He does not deny that his group met with Cardinal Sin the previous week, almost certainly to get the Cardinal�s blessings for their enterprise. And, apparently, he thought he got those blessings and proceeded to write about it in his April 22 column (which I did not read, since I do not get The Philippine Star). What caused the ruckus was a disclaimer from Cardinal Sin, which came out in the April 23 issue of The Philippine Daily Inquirer, in which the Cardinal appears to distance himself from Benigno�s efforts: �I am not in favor of the �collective leadership� that you were talking about�..I cannot support the proposed �collective leadership.�� The Inquirer story had mentioned that �(Bishop Socrates) Villegas, who attended the meeting at Sin�s residence, said the (Benigno) group wanted the support of the Cardinal and the Catholic Church in their moves to oust the President.� In his rejoinder to Cardinal Sin in the April 24 issue of The Philippine Star (which I went out to buy), Benigno vehemently protested that his Freedom Force �is still a foetus about to be born� and that �the idea or the theme of so-called collective leadership was mentioned only theoretically, in the abstract�� Benigno vociferously protested that �to oust the President was never in my mind, our mind. Why should we want to oust GMA? She may not be the best president we ever had, but she is the best we have today � bar none, bar no other contender�� Freedom Force, explained Teddy, �as a concept only comes alive as an organization when and if there should be a social explosion of such magnitude as to cripple the nation�s institutions and our fragile democracy. If no such explosion occurs, Freedom Force as a concept and organization remains in the freezer. But if it occurs or before it threatens to do so, Freedom Force would leap to the forefront to persuade the military not to take power. If the political center should disappear because it could be besieged by the Left and the Right, then and only then can Freedom Force intervene to create an opening for the Middle Forces or civil society to take over power. It is only in this sense that �collective leadership� was mentioned. What is wrong with that?�� ***** Nothing, Teddy. I am with you 100% as far as concept is concerned. I myself have expressed similar sentiments in this space and on the Internet in recent months. In my posting of October 3, 2001 titled �GMA: the best there is; but her best may not be good enough,� (which appeared in the October 22 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine), written after a meeting with the President in Malacanang on September 29, I wrote that �it can be argued that (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) is the best president this country has had since 1986. Certainly her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, morally and intellectually unfit for the position, does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. Cory Aquino served the important historical purpose of dismantling the Marcos kleptocracy, but after that it was downhill all the way. �Like Fidel Ramos, GMA is a workaholic who demands the same ethos from her subalterns. But unlike the consensual and permissive Ramos, she is a hard-driving taskmaster who does not hesitate to knock heads and kick butts when the situation demands it, a quality that Filipinos would like to see more in their presidents but have not actually seen since Manuel L. Quezon. But I disagree with Teddy on the manner in which this �collective leadership� is to emerge from concept to reality. I suggested that in an extreme scenario in which the Republic is pushed by malevolent forces to the brink of disintegration, the President form a Government of National Salvation with the consent and participation of key sectors of Philippine society �to address the emergency and to redefine how we want to be governed�..� (See also my posting of January 23, 2002 Gloria Lavandera o Gloria Revolucionaria). But the decision to form such an emergency government and the choice of who would make up its membership should come from the President, alone, without any pressure from any group that fancies itself to be the one and only font of political wisdom; certainly without any implied, subtle or overt threat from 19 unnamed generals. ***** Most important, I disagree with Teddy that his Freedom Force and its parent organization, the Council of Philippine Affairs (COPA) � both formed, led or dominated by former Tarlac Congressman Jose �Peping� Cojuangco and tireless political meddler Pastor �Boy� Saycon, both prominent during his visit with Cardinal Sin � represent the salvation of this country. Cojuangco and Saycon both claim principal authorship of EDSA Dos which installed Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in Malacanang and, as reward, expected to be appointed to Cabinet positions in the Arroyo Government. When that reward failed to materialize, Cojuangco and Saycon allied themselves and their COPA with the Communists of Sanlakas, under the late Popoy Lagman, whose battle cry in 2001, before and after EDSA Dos, was the grammatically tortured: RESIGN ALL! Meaning that not only Joseph Estrada but Gloria Arroyo as well, and everyone else in government, should resign from their positions. How can Cojuangco and Saycon now claim to be the bulwark against both the Left and the Right when they thought nothing of aligning themselves with the Communists out of mere spite for being left out of the Arroyo Cabinet? Besides, Cojuangco does not possess any credentials as a social or political reformer. When his sister Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino was president, Peping was not known to have done, written or said anything that could vaguely suggest that he was deserving of higher positions, let alone that he was equipped to be the savior of this country. As a major player in a �revolutionary government� that was too timid and bewildered to do anything revolutionary, he was undoubtedly instrumental in keeping the family hacienda from being included under land reform. And can we really expect any social reforms from someone who keeps race horses in air-conditioned stables while his serfs dehydrate in the tropical heat? At this point in his career he should be content that his wife has been named presidential adviser on Imelda�s jewelry or whatever, and forget about being Teddy Benigno�s Man on Horseback, because he just ain�t got it. And I do not recall reading anything by Pastor Saycon that suggests that he has the makings of a social, political or economic reformer. Other than wanting to be in a prominent position of power and influence, what exactly does Saycon possess that can convince anyone that he deserves to be in any junta or collective leadership to save the Philippines from the Filipinos? In the final analysis, Cojuangco and Saycon and their Freedom Force are no different from Enrile and Honasan and their RAM. The game they play is nothing but a power game. Heaven save this country from these messiahs! *****. The bulk of this article appeared in the May 13, 2002 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Collective Leadership Means Junta� May 12, 2002 Mr. Abaya. Thank you for your thoughts. On the perennial question of �what is the best form of government for the Philippines,� I have always looked upon the state of Israel as a model to be emulated. Israel is a tiny nation in the Middle East that has been besieged by its enemies since its inception, yet it continues to survive and even flourish in that part of the world. Israel is a secular, free-wheeling parliamentary democracy where even Arabs can vote and where they have their own political parties representing them in the Knesset. (Jews in surrounding Arab countries, of course, have no such political rights. The Israeli Left is quite vocal and the Israeli press can hardly be considered the government�s apologist. (Example: the liberal newspaper Ha�aretz remains critical of the Sharon government and supports the creation of a Palestinian state). Also, despite its lack of oil, Israel has managed to have the strongest economy in the region, boasting a GDP per capita (in 2000) of $18,000, surpassing even some European nations such as Spain and Greece. Saudi Arabia�s GDP per capita in 2000 was $8,000, all its so-called oil wealth notwithstanding. Israel�s free market economy is quite diversified � encompassing such industries as technology, pharmaceuticals, agriculture (Israel is Europe�s breadbasket in the winter), precious metals, finance, manufacturing etc. Its tech sector alone is highly developed. The largest manufacturer of security software in the world today is an Israeli company called Checkpoint Software. Teva Pharmaceuticals is another successful Israeli company that produces generic drugs that are even sold in the US. Teva and about 50 other Israeli firms are in fact listed and trade actively on Wall Street. Israel is quite prosperous, and Arabs (especially Arab women) living in Israel actually enjoy higher standards of living and more political rights than those living in Arabstates themselves. The other thing I�d like to point out is that the Israeli military (the IDF) is very strong and formidable in the battlefield, having defeated the larger Arab armies in four major wars since 1948. Yet the IDF has not intervened in domestic Israeli politics to wage coup d�etats and install a military dictatorship. The only assassination of a major Israeli leader was that of the �dove� Yitzhak Rabin, and even that was not carried out as part of a coup d�etat by the Israeli military. After Rabin�s death, elections continued to be held and later produced Ehud Barak who was even more �dovish� Rabin and who offered Yasser Arafat 97% of the land HE demanded, including East Jerusalem (a generous deal which the incorrigible terrorist Arafat ultimately rejected, thus setting the stage for the current intifada). I�m fascinated by how Israel manages to survive and prosper as a democracy in this milieu of limited natural resources and perennial threats of its existence. It has been claimed that this is due to unwavering American financial and military support of Israel. Well, oil-rich Egypt received $2 billion from the US annually in financial and military aid, yet it continues to be an impoverished and politically unstable country. Jordan gets $225 million from the US annually; Saudi Arabia received $600 million from the US from 1946 to 1975; Arafat�s Palestinian Authority receives $100 million in US aid annually. The major protagonists in the Middle East conflict get aid from the United States, yet only Israel has managed to use the money wisely. IN summary, Israel has a resilient secular parliamentary democracy with a vibrant free market economy backed by a formidable yet disciplined military force. Is there something about the Israeli system of governance that Filipinos can learn from? MY REPLY. That was quite a mouthful. Israel is truly admirable, but it cannot be a model for other countries because of the following reasons: Israel is the only predominantly Jewish country in the entire planet, with all that that implies for the political, social and cultural values of its people and government. Israel receives $3 billion in official financial and military aid from the US. In addition, it also gets an estimated additional $5 billion from private donor agencies such as the United Jewish Appeal. No other country in the world gets $8 billion in aid every year from various sources. Israel�s population are highly urbanized and highly educated, either as immigrants from the ghettoes of Eastern and Western Europe or as children thereof, with survival skills sharply honed by centuries of persecution by Christians. Various countries can profit from Israel�s expertise in agriculture, military technology etc, but they cannot hope to copy and duplicate Israel�s success because that success is built on foundations and conditions unique to Israel and not present in other countries. ***** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |