 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Revolutionary Government: why not? By Antonio C. Abaya January 10, 2002 Simultaneous with the current buzz about an impending coup d�etat by the usual macho men to topple the government of President Arroyo is a simmering unease among the middle class that our present system of government, inherited with all its warts from the American model, is not capable of cleansing itself of endemic corruption and is equally incapable of generating the rapid economic growth that almost all East Asian countries have experienced in the past 30 or 35 years, the Philippines being the humiliating exception. . I have voiced this unease in my postings of December 12 (2001: Have We Learned Anything?) and December 26 (2002: Don�t Cry for GMA, Argentina). I have argued that the trapos and political dynasties now in power will resist any effort to cleanse the system from which they derive their power and fabulous wealth, and that only a revolutionary leader and government, unfettered by the niceties of legalisms, can make the sweeping changes needed to replace our hopelessly rotten system. Those who want to cling to the present flawed American-style liberal model, on the grounds that it is �democratic� or that �we fought for it in EDSA 1�, should contemplate the following likely scenario in 2004: President Arroyo will definitely run, and it is futile criticizing her for wanting to run. But so will Raul Roco as the candidate of his miniscule party, Aksyon Demokratico, and so will Fidel Ramos for Lakas, which Teddyboy Locsin often refers to as �the party of thieves.� And, who knows, perhaps Serge Osmena, Loren Legarda, Mike Velarde, Miriam Santiago; this country has never lacked for ambitious men and women. And challenging all these tired (and tiresome?) faces will be the determined Panfilo Lacson. Determined because in June 2000 he had been designated successor to Erap in 2004 by the power brokers of the Erap court (Mark Jimenez, the Chinese Mafia and the Estrada family), a trajectory interrupted by the Erap impeachment trial in December 2000 and EDSA 2 in January 2001.It is unlikely that these little inconveniences have caused him to abandon his overwhelming ambition to be president. Very popular in his own right, Lacson will run in 2004. But Joseph Estrada will not. Instead, he will use his own popularity with the squealing masa to campaign for Lacson. For his own continued health, Erap will not dare renege on his designation of Lacson as his successor: Lacson knows too much about Erap for Erap to double-cross him at this late hour. Besides his political sense must tell Erap that a united opposition has the best chances of recovering Malacanang and all that that implies for his and his extended families� fabulous wealth. Even in the unlikely event that Lacson and Erap are convicted before 2004 of the crimes they are accused of, they will appeal their conviction all the way to the Supreme Court. Under our liberal, American-style jurisprudence, they are technically innocent until the Supreme Court rules with finality that they are guilty, which could take months and years beyond 2004. In the meantime, Lacson will be eligible to run for president, and Erap will be free to campaign for him, both from the comfort of their jail cells, and win. Legally, the case of Romeo Jalosjos � a convicted child rapist who won re-election to his congressional seat while in jail waiting for the Court to decide on his appeal � has set a precedent. Technically, with the advances in communications at hand, it would not be hard for Lacson to campaign from his jail cell � and for Erap to actively support him from his. Their incarceration during the campaign could even be made to work in Lacson�s favor by underlining his being the underdog: the Aping-Api Syndrome has tremendous resonance with the squealing masa and should not be underestimated. (In Malaysia, where the state is not enfeebled by American-style liberalism, the conviction and incarceration of Anwar Ibrahim, erstwhile deputy and later challenger to PM Mahathir, for alleged corruption and sexual misconduct, has disqualified him from running for re-election and thus ended his political career.) Another factor that will work in favor of Lacson will be the multiplicity of his opponents. If past elections are any guide, no appeals to reason, patriotism and divine intercession will discourage President Arroyo, Raul Roco or Fidel Ramos and possibly others (Columnist Teddy Benigno is said to be assembling a Third Force) from running in 2004, thus splitting the �decent� middle class vote at least three or four ways, while Lacson, alone, rides the crest of a tsunami that threatens to crash against the ramparts of middle-class respectability, as did his erstwhile mentor, Erap, in 1998. Even on the purely animal level, the lean and mean Lacson cuts a more imposing figure than The Little Girl, or The Senile Old Man, or The Pot-Bellied Pol. It may be that he is not brainy as any of the three, but then when were Philippine elections ever a contest of brains? ***** To repeat, those who want to preserve the present system on the grounds that it is �democratic� or that �we fought for it in EDSA 11 should consider if and how, in the scenario above, it can possibly cleanse itself. Keep in mind that neither EDSA I nor EDSA 2 was �democratic� or �constitutional�. In the meantime, my call for a revolutionary government, preferably headed by the incumbent under certain conditions, has drawn reactions on the Internet: Gras Reyes: �As you have it put it so well, the system is flawed and Filipinos live under neo-feudalism. How in the world can GMA be the revolutionary leader if we have to elect her under the flawed and neo-feudal system? It looks like a real revolution is necessary, something that will completely overhaul the whole system. But then, will Filipinos change in character?��� Vic de Jesus: �I fully agree with (your) analysis. I am however surprised (you) would ask if Gloria could be our savior. She is no different from Erap in their basic tendencies except that Erap is the grotesque monstrosity of all that is warped with our politicians. Could it be Davide? He is so honest and so stingy with public funds the rank and file in the Supreme Court are ripe for revolution�.The right man has yet to emerge. Perhaps Victor Corpus if he can reinvent himself and have the cunning and intelligence of Marcos (without, of course, FM�s moral vacuity)�.� Tony Roldan: �More than a revolutionary leader, the Philippines needs a revolutionary government to bridge the Great Divide between the haves and have-nots, which is the root cause of insurgency and secession�You are right, after squandering the wealth of this country and all the opportunities given to them, we cannot expect any revolutionary leadership from all past and present presidents and their trapos�.� Noel Flores: �Running for public office does cost humongous amounts of money. The office-holder�s desire to recoup this investment does provide impetus for subsequent corruption�. I agree with you that expensive elections help generate a culture of corruption�.� ***** This article appeared in the January 28, 2002 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine. |