 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Illegal Revolutions By Antonio C. Abaya Written March 26, 2006 For the Standard Today, March 28 issue In his speech before a joint meeting of all the foreign chambers of commerce in Metro Manila, assembled at the Intercontinental Hotel last March 16, former President Fidel V. Ramos warned that the �disaffection in many units of the AFP and the PNP (may) appear to have been damped down. But we may be sure it has been damped down only temporarily. The chain of command may continue to hold, but we also know that specific officers and specific units � in the elite fighting outfits � continue to be aggrieved�..� He also warned that the stability that the Arroyo government currently enjoys was temporary and fragile, or words to that effect, and that the Arroyo government would not be able to withstand another major shock. What kind of shock, I asked during the open forum (I was a guest of the Philippine-Finnish Association). He declined to be more specific. We can only speculate that it could be a severe economic shock such as spectacularly high oil prices caused by US military action in the Middle East, and/or a global depression that sends millions of suddenly unemployed OFWs back to the Philippines, neither of which appears imminent or likely at present. Or, perhaps, a severe political shock such as the assassination of a high profile opposition figure, or a major setback suffered by the AFP in the hands of the NPA. I also asked FVR about the status of his support for GMA which, when Proclamation 1017 was announced, he had characterized as �waning�.waning�� Has it now waned completely, or has it actually waxed? He likened it to movie ratings; he rated GMA as XX, one step away from XXX. But Ramos� preferred solution to our problems is constitutional change in the form of a shift to the parliamentary system of government. So he should be perfectly happy with President Arroyo�s calculated moves in that direction, including the much ballyhooed �people�s initiative� last Saturday, to get around the senate�s objections to ChaCha., a self-serving maneuver redolent of Ferdinand Marcos at his scheming worst. So where does that leave us? We have a very unpopular but extremely resilient president, on the one hand, and a trapo opposition that is as welcome as a flock of lepers (with apologies to the lepers), incongruously allied with Maoists who want to establish a Maoist dictatorship of the proletariat., on the other. No wonder the middle class have taken the Shakespearean position of �A pox on both your houses!� and have pointedly abstained from joining their pathetic rallies, except for some na�ve do-gooders who do not seem to have thought out thoroughly the inevitable consequences of their alliance with the trapos and the communists. It is in this context that my proposal for a revolutionary government should be taken. I realize that the word �revolution� still terrifies some people, especially among the middle class. And I am not surprised that some readers recoiled at my suggestion in that interview with an Italian news agency, which I had proposed many times earlier. Marlowe Camello emailed from California: �It is illegal from the very beginning. The result is highly speculative�� Etc. Of course, it is illegal. All revolutions and the revolutionary governments that they spawn are, by their very nature, illegal. The American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Chinese Revolution of 1949, the Cuban Revolution of 1959 were all illegal and extra-constitutional.. But their illegality is not an argument for the continued stay in power of Batista or Chiang Kai-shek or the Romanovs or the Bourbons, or for the permanence of British imperial rule in the American colonies, even though the results then were �highly speculative.� Our EDSA People Power uprising in 1986 was illegal, and the Cory revolutionary government from March 1986 to September 1987 was also illegal. So were the people power revolutions that swept away the communist regimes from Eastern Europe in 1989 and from the Soviet Union in 1991. But would anyone argue for the status-quo-ante just because these developments were illegal and extra-constitutional? Lilit Cuisia emailed: �I have just come back from a business trip in Myanmar. My second visit there in two years. It�s not pretty. I wouldn�t want the Philippines to become another Myanmar.� Neither would I, Lilit. But surely you have also visited South Korea, Thailand and/or Indonesia. Their modernization and industrialization began and took root under military generals who came to power through illegal and extra-constitutional means in 1961, 1980 and 1965, respectively. That Myanmar failed to modernize and industrialize even though their military have (illegally and continuously) held power since 1962, is due to the economic strategy that they chose and followed (autarky), and does not negate the military-brokered successes in South Korea (1961-1979), Thailand (1980s) or Indonesia (1965-1998). The point is that revolutions of all kinds are, by their very nature, illegal and extra-constitutional, whether they are spectacularly violent or remarkably peaceful, whether they are carried out by civilians or by the military, or by combinations thereof. They are justified by their own success, and nothing else. They are unjustifiable when they fail. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �Illegal Revolutions� Another Abaya article pushing for provisional government. This is an idea needed in our time, idea long been needed and now needing our collective support. Let�s help clean the Philippine politics! Start by forwarding this email to your friends and let them also forward it to our circle worldwide. Paul Dalde, [email protected] Beaumont, Texas, March 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I strongly go for a change. As I have said before, the situation may likely get worse before it starts getting better. I can bite the bullet because I know my children will live in a far better government in the future. Bombing Moll, [email protected] March 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ACA I have no doubt that people would have gone to the streets today for another revolution as they did in 1986 when they removed an oppressive leader, but with the kind of leaders we presently have, particularly the left-leaning Opposition, people are aware that the disastrous results would have been far worse than any one can imagine. Rather than that, people have taken their chances with GMA. People today have shifted their focus on economic concerns because they are tired of politics. It's about time we all did. Poverty is the root cause of the political problems. Political solutions never worked to resolve the problems, but economic solutions will. Cesar M. de los Reyes, [email protected] March 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Points to ponder, a thought I got from my ninong, a member of PMA class of 66. He told me .."in order for a revolution to be successful, it has to be bloody." I answered... lest people forget? Jovito Palo, [email protected] March 29, 2006 MY REPLY. The revolution that swept away communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 was not bloody, except in Romania. Neither was the revolution that swept away the communist regimes in the 15 republics of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the past five years, the people power uprisings in Georgia, Ukraine and Belorussia were relatively bloodless. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, This is off-topic but wanted to share with you... My uncle came back from a business trip where he visited Vietnam and Philippines recently and he said that Vietnam has a better chance of having a better business system than Philippines. Sayang talaga. We speak better English than many South East Asian countries yet we are WAY behind in regards to business practices. Sayang talaga. Louie Eguaras, [email protected] Valencia, California, March 29, 2006 MY REPLY. See my article �Here Comes Vietnam� (Dec. 06, 2005) archived in this website. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, This time your essay seems very lame. You talk of a "revolutionary government" and then you fail to discuss fully how it might be effected. (Do you want me to get arrested for �inciting to sedition�? ACA) We all know that all unsuccessful revolutions are illegal from the point of view of those against whom the revolution is directed. They become legal when they succeed. Those lawyers in the UP College of Law can tell us when a successful revolution becomes legal. Of course it is power that makes them legal. These days, power, as Mao says, comes out from the barrel of the gun. And the readiness to fight it out with nations who may not like your revolutionary success. Last year, Dr. Francisco Nemenzo was in San Francisco. There was a forum which I happened to moderate. He was saying that during the early months when Mrs. Cory Arroyo was in power, the government she headed was a "revolutionary government". I don't know if he was correct. (I have been saying that in more than a dozen articles. Mrs. Aquino headed a �revolutionary government� from March 1986 to September 1987, when a new constitution was ratified by referendum. During that period, the Aquino government ruled by decree, without a constitution. That is the definition of a �revolutionary government.� ACA) Anyway, I hope you can share with us your thoughts on how this "revolutionary government" might be effected through some "successful, legal" revolution? Incidentally, Suharto's takeover of Indonesia in 1965 when a high estimate of three million mostly PKI Indonesians were massacred does not seem to be a nice model of a "successful legal" revolution. According to Transparency International, Suharto landed No. 1 in its list also. (Suharto came to power in 1965 in a military counter-coup against the Parti Komunis Indonesia (PKI), after the PKI launched a coup by assassinating the top ranking generals of the Indonesian armed forces, except one, who escaped and launched the military counter-coup. Not a �nice�model, since anywhere from 300,000 to three million communists and suspected communists were exterminated by the military. About the same number would likely have been killed if the communist coup had succeeded. Suharto landed in the list of Transparency International because of perceived corruption, not because his military killed so many communists and suspected communists. ACA) Cesar Torres, [email protected] San Francisco, California, March 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I'm curious to ask: what is your line regarding the question on legitimacy of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's "Presidency"? If you consider GMA as the legitimate President of the Philippines, then your article regarding revolutions being illegal is coherent and congruent. However, would "illegality of revolutions" still be relevant vis-a-vis "illegitimate governance by GMA and her cohorts"? PMCSI, [email protected] March 29, 2006 MY REPLY. The legality or illegality of a revolution is determined by its success or failure. History (or legality) is always written by the victors. A government may have been duly elected to office and therefore legal, but if a critical mass of the people agree that it should be removed, and act to have it removed by extra-constitutional means, and succeed in doing so, then their revolution can be considered successful and therefore legal. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I don't think that the idea of a "revolutionary Government" is so unpalatable.After all, we are in the "People Power" country. But it has to be done correctly. I've said before, I DO think people will rise up if there is a viable alternative. In the Philippine context, this means a name to rally behind. That name carries an image. A "no names mentioned"- "revolutionary government" is a non starter. "Ninoy" "Cory" "GMA" they all MEANT something. There was a dream attached to each name. "Revolutionary government?" Uh, sorry, I don�t see the dream. Is it possible that between now and 2010, a group of people could get together and release a manifesto (how's that for a nice revolutionary term) that could clearly outline its stand on major issues? And then pick a leader and build him/her up? Pick an economic team, a social team, and release a set of goals and a timetable? Then they could try the Legal way first. 2010 is not really THAT far off. and as the days go by, it will get closer and closer, and before you know it, it will be past. Now, if someone could put a solid party together, with a really good platform, and then they ran and lost the election, THEN you could possibly have a People Power uprising and the people would all be singing the same names. People WOULD march. And they would be genuinely pissed off that there was cheating in the elections. Thats the kind of "revolutionary government" that you could expect people to support. But no names, no agenda, no fine details... forget it. The people will wait. The country may crumble to bits waiting, but here, hope springs eternal, the people will wait. Peter Capotosto, [email protected] March 29, 2006 MY REPLY. I agree with you 100%. But do not expect that name or those names to be floated at this early stage. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Problem is, Tony, that we cannot trust the people who will lead this revolutionary government. Maybe if it was FVR, without the leftists and the opposition. Do you like FVR? Grace Abella-Zata, [email protected] March 31, 2006 MY REPLY. FVR may be too old (78) to lead a revolution. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The Need for Revolutionary Transition Last April 30, 2005, the Movement for National Salvation was launched to express the urgent need for ousting GMA from the Presidency. This tipped and snowballed into several movements of various persuasions calling for GMA to step down. Unfortunately, these movements have not rooted strongly into the ground to present a sturdy united front to effectively challenge the enormous powers of GMA's presidency. With no strong effort to unite, these movements are now clustered in various post-GMA takeover scenarios - "in the box" or constitutional solutions and "out of the box" solution of extra-constitutional or radical character of change. "In the box" or constitutional scenarios come in the form of constitutional succession; snap or any form of election; impeachment; charter change by convention, constituent assembly, or appointed constitutional commission, all of which are intended to preserve the status quo.. "Out of the box" means unconstitutional mode of change that may come in the form of a coup by the military, police, any armed rebel group, or any segment thereof; or, extra-constitutional but not unconstitutional by people power alone or aided by the military in a constitutional rescue to change the incumbent dysfunctional government and provide for a transition that will lay down a new and reformed constitutional order. In Ukraine and Georgia, pure people power toppled the incumbent leaderships. Here, there is a strong notion that civil society through people power alone will not succeed to remove the national leadership and change the system of governance without military support. Edsa 1 influenced this thinking that without military support people power alone will not succeed. What happened at that time was that the call for the people to protect the Enrile-Ramos rebellion sucked the whole military establishment to tip the balance against the Marcos regime. That event institutionalized the protector clause of the military in the 1987 Constitution, and that clause was used in Edsa 2 in support of the move of the sovereign people to withdraw its authority for President Estrada to farther govern the nation in accordance with Section 1, Article II of the Constitution. But I, for one, still believe in a united, solid, peaceful mass movement of people bound by a common cause and unrestrained by organizational or personal persuasions - political, social, economic, ethnic, religious, ideological - moving and carrying only one flag, the Philippine Flag to show a real people movement to effectively confront and topple a misgoverning and corrupt national authority without the support of the military that is firmly holding on to its neutral position. Opting for an "in the box" solution will only perpetuate the status quo or trapo system of governance that has been pushing this nation farther to the brink of national disaster. The proposal for a Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution, the most applauded during GMA's SONA, invited strong repercussions in that it will only cater to the whims and political interests of the members of Congress, one of the institutions that need to be overhauled and revolutionized. And this is the reason that some groups, using the Constitution's sovereignty-of-the-people clause, are seeking "out of the box" mode of change to replace the present national leadership system with one that will uphold the interests of the people as a whole. The most publicized "out of the box" method is to put up a caretaker government to provide for a revolutionary transition toward a new and reformed constitutional system of governance. Why revolutionary transition? Because there is a need for a cleansing period of say 1 to 2 or 3 years to transit to a new system of governance. Transition implies a timeline to undertake innovative and revolutionary ways of cleaning the dirt of our traditional politics and institutions, inculcating discipline in our way of thinking and behaving as a people, developing a firm and authoritative governance under a disciplined democracy. Revolutionary transition is nationalist in character - meaning a non-onion-skinned virtue of country-first-before-oneself, absorbing into our culture and our way of life the good things from our neighbors and the world outside that will promote progress and prosperity for our country and people. It is constitutional. It stands squarely and firmly on Section 1, Article II of the Constitution that defines the sovereignty of the people from whom emanate the authority of government to govern. Which implies that when the powers of government are used to the detriment of the interests of the people and the State, it is the right of the people to change that government and replace it with one that will effect the peoples' safety and happiness and move the nation toward a progressive and prosperous national life. In view of this, there is nothing more for GMA to discern but to step down. The failure of the lower house of Congress to push the impeachment of the President has emboldened more people to raise their voices in outrage for her to step down from the Presidency. The so-called representatives of the people in the lower house miserably failed to discern the moral value of the impeachment process. Using legal technicalities and "democratic" numbers, they blocked the people's desire to know the truth about GMA's presidential behavior. Whether they succumbed to palace manipulation, as reported in the media, or not, is of no moment. They and the palace will have to share the explosive impact of the people's anger. The general outcry for GMA to step down has deafeningly reverberated across the land. This, despite the manifestations of local executives and of those who would want to maintain the status quo for their personal, business and political interests and who fear the loss of their well-paying jobs should she step down. And the outrage of the people doubly increased against GMA's insistence to close the Garci tapes, Bolante�s fertilizer scam and Gonzales' Venable LLP. In the military and police establishments, the Oakwood mutiny, the Kawal movement, and the Marine stand-off reflected the demoralization, rumblings and plots within the middle leadership and the rank and file that will not subside until definite government action is felt and taken on the findings and recommendations of the Davide and Feliciano Commissions as well as on the much awaited revelations of the Mayuga report. With the economy in shambles, more people wallowing in poverty, hunger and disease, joblessness at all-time high, and corruption stalking all sectors in government, there is nothing more for GMA to discern but to be morally courageous and patriotic enough to step down for the good of the country and people. This is the implication of her call for unity and reconciliation for her to give way to a caretaker government that will clean the dirt of our traditional political system after which a new constitutional government will be set up where she can vie again for national leadership. I firmly believe that this is the best service that GMA can give to the people and fulfill her dream of being a good President. Maj. Gen. Fortunato U. Abat (Ret.), March 30, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Remove the Problem and National Stability Follows Demoralization, rumblings and plotting in the military and police establishments, especially among the middle leadership and the rank and file, will not subside until definite action is taken and felt on the findings and recommendations of the Davide and Feliciano Commissions as well as the much awaited revelations and action on the Mayuga report. Of course, GMA will not tolerate military adventurism because she knows she will pay for the wrongs she has done against the people and the nation. Her alter ego in the defense department should mollify her actions by cautioning her against taking a hard line on the people and against her farther destabilizing the nation to restrain military intervention for a constitutional rescue. The lifting of 1017 is cosmetic because the vindictive spirit has been felt even before it was proclaimed and continues after it was lifted. The war against those that GMA fantasizes as her enemies is intensified. The vengeance to remove the leaders of plots will not solve the national outrage against her because among the soldiers and the people will grow another head. 1017 is out but repression against fantasized enemies continues. Long-term stability will happen only when the national problem causing the destabilization of the nation is removed. And since she is the problem, there is nothing more for GMA to discern but to be morally courageous and patriotic enough to step down for the good of the country and people. I firmly believe that before a cha-cha is effected a caretaker government should be set up to clean the dirt of our trapo system and provide a timelined transition to ferry the people from a dysfunctional governance to a new constitutional order. Maj. Gen. Fortunato U. Abat (Ret.), [email protected] March 30, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The Middle Class: a dangerous class Dear Tony, I wish to thank you for mentioning in one of your columns my modest take on the NRP of Gringo "Qaddafy-look-alike" Honasan. I really look forward to your future research on Ba'athism. On a different but more significant note, my gratitude is in order to you for raising the quality of discourse in the country's media. Your nice blend of sound pragmatic reasoning and informed analysis is really a contrast with much of what's going on with the mainstream - which is either too ideological or too anecdotal. Lately, I notice that you are focusing substantial attention on the prospect and possible fortune of the country's middle class. Whether consciously or not, your emphasis on the 'petite bourgeoisie' has impressed upon me your belief that the middle class is a progressive force for structural change for the 'stupid pilipins' - which I believe is a theoretically well-grounded assumption. Under the label of "Modernization Theory" which somewhat became fashionable during the 1970s to 1980s, such assumption underpinned much of what was happening in the political economy of supposedly Third World post-colonial countries in Asia and Latin America. It was the prevailing belief back then that the Middle Class possessed the ideational, political and social commitments to usher in development and arguably democracy. Examples abound - South Korea, Singapore and a menagerie of countries in South America. I still remember several theorists who propose such reasoning - Lucian Pye, Rustow, etc. But it is also worth mentioning that in many of these cases the Middle Class has also abdicated political power in favor of dictatorship -whether military, civilian or a mutant of both. The danger, my friend, is that this is a Great Gamble. The acquiescence and/or collaboration of the Middle Class in these cases might result in being a success like the economies of East Asia where the political leadership was able to fully utilize state power and resources towards INCLUSIONARY national development, or end up as a brutal military autocracy that will put to shame even the most ruthless Catholic Inquisitors just like in Argentina, Chile and others. Now, the danger, Tony, is that the Philippines is often categorized more like a Latin American society than an Asian one. The country's volatile mix of pop catholicism (that celebrates suffering more than anything), an immobile class structure (especially in the countryside), warlordism/elite politics, moronic media, and the festering insurgency problem will likely produce not an East Asian miracle like Sokor or Singapore, but a burning hell like Argentina or Chile during the military dictatorship. And we have exactly the ingredients to have that - a politicized military, a crop of politicians who will not hesitate to make a Faustian bargain and a gullible middle class ready to default political action and retreat to their little crevice of modern comforts - or immigrate somewhere else safe. Perhaps instead of looking towards East Asia, we should start looking South - and by South, I mean India. It is a strange twist of destiny or possibly a stroke of Provenance that a rainbow society like India is able to sustain its "democratic" SOCIAL CONTRACT and not balkanize into sectarian fragments. The closest thing a dictatorship happened was during Indira Gandhi's time. But despite the inconveniences of the democratic project ( e.g. electing critters, dweebs and morons into Congress), India was able to develop and it is projected that in 2020 India together with the global DARLING China will dominate the global economy and politics. Just ask Dubya Bush who has recently agreed to share nuclear technology with our Indian friends. Wow, China would massacre a million Taiwanese people just to have that ! And coolly, without much hype, India is able to do what many have failed - to combine development with at least a modicum of democratic regime to sustain its own social contract. Of course, India still has its deficits. Income inequality is still high. Environmental degradation is a national threat. But what is clear as sunshine is that we cannot ignore the great Indian achievements. So Tony, when we see Indian loan-hawkers (five-six), let us not be reminded on usury but perhaps of democracy. See there may still be hope for our stupid Pilipins! Jose Khaldun, [email protected] March 30, 2006 MY REPLY. You have a good point there. Except that the present leadership is using the shift to a parliamentary form of government (like India�s) in order to stay in power beyond 2010 and to avoid being held accountable for her misdeeds since 2004. As for Latin America, my sense is that it was the upper, property-owning class who opted for military dictatorships (with US support), while it was the middle class (students, workers) who supported revolutions as romanticized by Fidel and Che. We may have to evolve our own revolutionary paradigm different from Latin America�s and India�s. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Dear Tony- Very interesting and thoughtful piece. An important reminder. Indeed, "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to break the bonds..." On the other hand, revolutions so often eat their children. And then there is the problem of the majority of Filipinos in the provinces. If the current urban middle class and even the poor are slow to mobilize if at all these days, who is going to bring the revolution (and how) from Metro Manila to the trapos, barons, and warlords who rule the provinces where most Filipinos still live? How will the provincial power figures be broken, and who will replace them? (Did your forefathers have the answers to all similar questions when they decided to make a stand at Concord Bridge? ACA) And how many people will be killed in the process? I well remember Ninoy Aquino at a conference in Boston being asked why he did not return to the Philippines and lead the revolution? I no longer have his exact words, but his response was immediate and to the effect that; "I don't want to be responsible for that bloodbath." (Contrary to stereotype images, not all revolutions are bloody. In 1989, people power revolutions swept communist regimes from power in seven East European countries, and hardly anyone was killed, except in Romania. In 1991, people power revolutions also swept communist regimes from power in the 15 republics of the Soviet Union plus Mongolia, and hardly anyone got killed either. ACA) If the revolution is to happen - and people have been predicting it ever since the late 1940s - it is going to require some stunning leadership, a clear vision of what must follow, and a great deal of planning and coordination. Who can pull that off?? (Revolutionary situations have a way of creating their own leaders. East Europe 1989 did not even have any leaders. ACA) David Szanton, [email protected] Durban, South Africa, April 05, 2006 PS If I am becoming a pest, let me know! It�s just that I care (You�re not being a pest, David, and I am glad that you care. Tony) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| I agree with the conclusion. More power! Bert Ada, [email protected] April 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |