 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| One Burgis Voice By Antonio C. Abaya Written June 26, 2006 For Standard Today, June 27 issue The 80-some members whose names are included in its full-page ad in The Philippine Daily Inquirer and two other broadsheets last June 22 (which must have cost them some P250,000, at least) identify the new advocacy group One Voice as unmistakably burgis. Among the members are luminaries of the Roman Catholic Church, including Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo, current president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, as well as seven other bishops and archbishops; four other priests, nuns and pastors; 20 leaders from academe; 19 from NGOs and foundations; eight current or former Namfrel officials; six prominent business persons; one newspaper columnist; and one concert pianist. One Voice�s main advocacy is anti-Cha Cha. �We don�t need the proposed Charter Change,� says the ad�s banner head. �We don�t need a Constitution that would a) take away our right to vote directly for the President; b) create a powerful Interim Parliament composed of incumbent politicians that would decide whether the 2007 elections will be held or not; c) create a super-President with additional Prime Minister(ial) powers; d) open the door for those in power to stay on indefinitely; e) weaken the Supreme Court as a check against martial law, abuse of power and violation of human rights.� But, says One Voice, �we need real change. We need a strong social reform program now. We need electoral reforms now.� And the ad lists the areas where reforms are needed now: �safety nets for the poor in the areas of education, food security, health and housing; strict implementation of agrarian reform and environmental laws; a serious and sustained fight against graft and corruption; and increased representation in Congress and local governments for marginalized sectors.� Those who want to read One Voice�s complete position paper are invited to visit their website, www.onevoice.org.ph. I did, yesterday, but there was nothing there except the names that appeared in the full-page ads. The complete position paper was not yet accessible. But this was probably encapsulated in the Inquirer column of June 22 of Manolo Quezon, who seems to be the movement�s spokesman. The Inquirer of June 23 also carried a fairly long write-up of One Voice, quoting its other voice, Christian Monsod, former chair of Comelec. Wrote Manolo: �The public has been clear in expressing what it expects: First that certain political boundaries be respected by everyone. Those boundaries are 1) any solution to social or political problems should be peaceful, non-military and non-revolutionary � in other words, constitutional; 2) confidence in elections as the supreme _expression of the people�s will must be asserted � and therefore elections, to be credible, must be free and fair�� While I respect the burgis values and purity of heart of One Voice, and wish them success in their endeavor, I must quibble with the parameters that Manolo has set for the movement, which, I presume, are their official parameters. Granted that �elections, to be credible, must be free and fair,� when was the last time they were �free and fair� here since the Marcos era? Probably only in 1998, and look at what it brought to power, a criminally inclined ignoramus. Do we want a repeat of that? Elections were certainly not free and fair in 1992. The malevolent genius who masterminded the fraud in 1992 seems to be the same manipulator in 2004. We can also assume with reasonable confidence that the elections during the Marcos dictatorship were neither free nor fair. The snap elections in 1986 were not free and fair either. Ferdinand Marcos was the Comelec-proclaimed winner of those elections, but he was removed from Malacanang by the Edsa 1 People Power �revolution� and replaced with Corazon Aquino who was leading with a small and diminishing margin in the Namfrel tabulation, that was, however, suspiciously stopped after covering only 72% of the precincts. The imputation is that if the remaining 28% of the votes had been tallied � mostly from rural areas where any incumbent government is usually strong � her small lead would have been overtaken and Marcos would have won even in the Namfrel tally. My point is that elections, whether scheduled or snap, in 2007 or anytime after, will not be free or fair, unless the Comelec is revamped first from top to bottom, and the rules of electoral engagement are first re-written. I have written about these needed electoral reforms in previous columns, which can be viewed in our website www.tapatt.org, so I will not repeat them in detail. Central to these electoral reforms would be: the break-up of political dynasties, punitive disincentives against political turn-coatism, and the total banning of political ads from radio and TV. There should also be qualifying exams for all candidates for all elective offices, so that stupid and ignorant people are prevented from entering politics, no matter how popular they may be. And political parties that are tied up with armed groups actively trying to overthrow the government should be barred from taking part in elections, as they would be in any other sovereign country that had any self-respect. Otherwise, we might as well allow ALL political parties to have their own private armies, to intimidate each other and collect �taxes� from each other during elections. Realistically speaking, the possibility of any of these meaningful electoral reforms being adopted in 2007 or anytime soon, is zero, given the present alignment of political forces. Only a revolutionary government, ruling by decree � as Cory Aquino�s revolutionary government did, from February 1986 to September 1987 � would be capable of making these meaningful changes. Without these changes, the same trapos who control our present politics will dominate all future politics, under any presidential or parliamentary disguise. But One Voice categorically rejects any revolutionary solution. It might as well have rejected Cory Aquino�s �revolutionary� government in 1986-87. And it might as well also state categorically that the American Revolution of 1776, the most successful burgis revolution in recorded history, should not have happened at all; the American revolutionists should just have pressed for constitutional reforms under the British Crown. Instead, the American revolutionists declared: �When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature�s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation�..� Under the leadership of an enlightened burgis, the Filipino people can also decide to �dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with the Trapos.� If One Voice is prepared to make that declaration, they have my support. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org. Current articles also in tonyabaya.multiply.com and tapatt.yahoogroups.com OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |