 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Gloria Lavandera? O Gloria Revolucionaria? By Antonio C. Abaya January 23, 2002 Before I proceed, let me first repeat what I wrote in my posting of January 15 titled �The Politics of Revolution� (Philippine Graphic, February 4): Revolution does not necessarily have to be violent or bloody; e.g. the revolution that de-communized Eastern Europe in 1989. Revolution does not necessarily mean one class overthrowing another; e.g. the revolution in China begun by Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and still continuing, in which the Chinese Communist Party has remained in power before, during and, presumably, after. And revolution is not the exclusive domain of the communists; e.g. the revolutions that swept the communist parties from power in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-81 were carried out by non-communists and some ex-communists (e.g. Boris Yeltsin). But, of course, some revolutions do get bloody and violent, especially when the targets of the revolution resist bloodily and violently. But blood and violence in themselves are not a moral argument against revolution. If they were, then the American Revolution of 1776 against the British could not be morally justified, nor the Philippine Revolutions of 1896 and 1899 against the Spaniards and the Americans, respectively. On the other hand, the mere absence of blood and violence during an upheaval does not necessarily mean there has been no revolution, as I have argued above and in previous postings, using the Eastern European, Soviet and Chinese experiences as examples. In our own experience, the bloodless and non-violent EDSA Uno and EDSA Dos cannot be correctly classified as revolutions, not because there was no blood and violence, not because one class was not overthrown by another, but because nothing revolutionary happened in their wakes. As many burgis commentators have complained amid much wailing and gnashing of teeth, there have been no substantive changes in Philippine society after the events of 1986 and 2001. Which is exactly my point. So why insist on calling those events (or non-events) revolutions? It just devalues the currency. ***** When I write that only a revolutionary leader and government can make the sweeping changes necessary to give the Philippines a new beginning, I prefer that they come to power in a bloodless and non-violent manner, such as through a consensus among major sectors of society: the middle class, the military, the Church, the business and professional communities, the labor unions, civil society, etc. I realize that under normal circumstances, this may be a tall order, but in a severe crisis situation, when chaos and anarchy threaten, this is not impossible or improbable. Charles de Gaulle, for example, was called in from retirement to re-assume the leadership of France when the republic was on the verge of disintegration in 1958. Do we have a De Gaulle waiting in the wings in our future? Fidel V. Ramos may be grooming himself for that role, but I doubt if the Catholic Church would agree to having the Protestant and birth-control advocate Ramos back in Malacanang for even another day and under any circumstance. Installing someone else by coup d�etat would not fly either; nor would a �civilian-military junta� favored by certain coup plotters. There just is no one around of sufficient stature and prominence who can elicit support from a broad spectrum of society for a power grab, no matter how well-intentioned and sincere. Nor is there sufficient time to build a credible Third Force and position it as a major player in the coming denouement. More like a Third Farce. Which is why I propose that if worse comes to worst and the Republic is pushed to the brink of disintegration, the incumbent president be asked by leaders of key sectors of Philippine society to form a Government of National Renewal or a Government of National Salvation to address the emergency and to redefine how we want to be governed. Not because I am a great fan of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo � I am not � but because she is the sitting president, she has a valid constitutional claim to the office, she is genuinely popular with a large segment of the population, arguably with a larger segment than anyone else, and she has the intelligence, the political acumen, the analytical mind, the authentic leadership qualities needed to steer the leaking ship-of-state through troubled waters, perhaps even the vision to guide it to a more felicitous destination. I realize that many do not like her voice, her abrasive style, even her physical appearance, and many more have been disenchanted with her failure to build a New Singapore in 365 days. I myself vehemently disagree with some of her policy decisions, especially her unqualified embrace of free trade and globalization, and I think some of her Cabinet appointments are plainly abominable. But we have to make do with what we have. This country has not produced a Superman since Jose Rizal, and even he would not prosper in the political environment of 2002 since he is neither movie star, basketball celeb nor TV newscaster, and, like most the multi-faceted intellectuals, he would not know how to connect with the squealing masa. ***** So, for better or for worse, it is President Arroyo, more than any other person on the scene, who is both the best qualified and in the best position to make the revolutionary changes needed to save the Filipinos from themselves. I realize the communists would scoff at the very idea, but what do we care what the communists think? They represent no one but themselves. And if some burgis still become nervous at the mention of the dreaded R word, they will have to read this piece all over again. Whether she will agree to assume that responsibility if and when destiny calls, is, of course, another matter. But I suspect that public figures at that level cannot but have a sense of history and when they come to a fork in their public lives wherein they must choose between the beaten path to comfortable and predictable mediocrity and a less traveled path to innovation and audacity, a daring few will choose the latter. Innovation and audacity in our situation includes switching to the parliamentary system of government, making the legislature unicameral, dismantling political dynasties (including the incipient Arroyo dynasty), mandating 90-day continuous trials for certain crimes, and liberating the electoral process from the clutches of money politics. And postponing the 2002 elections for two or three years, until these changes take root. If Gloria Lavandera is prepared to champion these causes, she has my vote to be Gloria Revolucionaria. This article appeared in the February 11, 2002 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine.. |