Deconstructing EDSA I

 

 

By his own admission, President Noynoy Aquino sought refuge in Cebu when his father, the late Senator Benigno Aquino II, was assassinated in 1983. It was also in Cebu where his mother, former President Corazon “Cory” Aquino, took shelter from the political turmoil in Manila during the February 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution that eventually deposed the dictator Ferdinand Marcos from power.

 

Now on the 28th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution, President Aquino is making a revisionist historical claim that it was in Cebu where his mother Cory planted the seed of civil disobedience against the Marcos regime. Thus, why the President was in Cebu to celebrate the anniversary of the EDSA revolt as he emphasized the role played by Cebu in the initial stage of the revolution. As President Aquino said, “If the last part of the protest happened in EDSA, the first part started in Cebu.”

President Noynoy Aquino contemplates the legacy of his parents,
democracy icons former Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. and former
President  Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino on the 28-year anniversary
of  the EDSA I People Power Revolution.

Everyone who knows full well the roots of the people’s protest in EDSA is aware that President Aquino was wrong in claiming that his mother planned the protest while she was in Cebu. Cory Aquino was in Cebu at that time for her own safety just as her own son took refuge there when he was a young boy during his father’s assassination.

 

The people’s protest in EDSA was the tipping point in the civil society’s struggle against the oppressive Marcos regime. Long before EDSA, the Filipino people had already been waging their battle to depose Marcos from Malacañang. Thousands had been killed and imprisoned by the Marcos dictatorship in its effort to remain in power, but EDSA became the critical moment in the people’s movement against the repressive regime. It was in EDSA where the people’s protest reached a critical mass.

 

But whether Cebu actually played an important part in the EDSA revolution only downplays its significance. What is more important is for us to grasp the true meaning of the EDSA uprising, and whether it has accomplished its purpose.

 

EDSA was successful in driving Marcos into exile, but the landscape of political power was never altered. The so-called restoration of democracy in the Philippines in 1986 was simply a transfer of political power into the hands of the oligarchic elite. There was a change in the characters on the political stage, but the play’s storyline remained constant.

 

Twenty-eight years have passed since the EDSA revolution. Income inequalities continue to intensify despite growth in GDP because the economic gains meant bigger profits to corporations and mainly benefited a few wealthy families. The so-called economic growth under the Aquino administration did not translate to higher and gainful employment, thus worsening poverty among more than 25 percent of the population. In short, the quality of life for many Filipinos either worsened or remained unchanged.

 

On the political side, political power remains the monopoly of a handful of family dynasties. The Marcoses were driven into exile by the EDSA uprising but it did not prevent them and their followers from coming back to regain their political influence. Now, the Marcos family is in the political picture again, and if unchecked, it may spring its biggest political comeback by capturing the presidency in the very near future, relegating the EDSA revolution to a sad and insignificant footnote in the country’s history.

 

Public corruption has become a way of life for politicians, making politics the most lucrative of all careers. With its “daang matuwid” mantra, the incumbent administration promises to clean the government of corruption. Yet, looting of the public coffers remains rampant from congressional pork barrel to the President’s own presidential pork barrel, both disguised as earmarks for development assistance.

 

Notwithstanding the return of democracy and restoration of political and civil liberties after the EDSA uprising, repression of political dissent continues to a point where it is allowed as a permissible culture of impunity. While the Philippine press has been bandied around as one of the freest in the world, journalists continue to be easy prey for government repression. The Philippines had the third most number of journalists killed last year and has continued to be among the countries where press freedom is imperiled.

 

In an interview with reporters, President Aquino said that online libel is justified since it constitutes equal protection for those who are aggrieved by information through the Internet. It is easy to understand why President Noynoy Aquino would rather protect those he believes could be criminally libeled on the Internet than preserving the lives of journalists and their right to freely express themselves. Journalists scare Aquino because he does not want to be criticized. To President Aquino, protecting him and others from criticism either on the Internet or on traditional media trumps the right to freedom of expression. Thus, it is acceptable for Noynoy Aquino to punish critics for criminal libel rather than to protect and preserve the rights of journalists and other critics to their life and freedom of the press.

 

This is not to say that no remedy should be made available whenever one defames another. Libel has already been decriminalized in many jurisdictions because the civil court has proven to be capable of providing appropriate remedies for damages rather than imprisonment. Why is it difficult for the Philippines to follow the trend towards decriminalization of libel, but for the very thin skin of President Aquino, Senator Tito Sotto and others who are easily offended by fair criticism?

 

President Aquino’s disquieting aversion to criticism also demonstrates his lack of human compassion to empathize with the oppressed and the poor. Take for instance the victims of super Typhoon Yolanda when they recently travelled to Manila in order to air their grievances for the government’s slow response to their plight.

Survivors of Typhoon Yolanda joined the People Power celebration at the EDSA
Shrine to press their call for press relief for their fellow victims in the Eastern
Visayas region, and tied violet ribbons in many places at Ground Zero to protest
their plight. Photo by Manny Palmero.

Instead of meeting with the protesters, President Aquino snubbed them for coming to Manila. The President said: “To those who are saying that we have been slow in responding... it seems to me that if they are capable of attending to their trip to Manila, perhaps they can also attend to their livelihood.”

 

Aquino’s Social Welfare Secretary Corazon Soliman agreed with the President by saying “instead of coming here, they could have used the money to help themselves.”

 

Even much worse was the reaction of Rehabilitation Czar Panfilo Lacson who denied that the government had been slow in responding to the needs of the calamity survivors and dismissed the protesting typhoon survivors as pawns of communist agitators and leftist groups who wanted to destabilize the government. Here we go again with red-baiting which was a ubiquitous aspect of repression during the Marcos dictatorship.

 

Certainly, this is not the kind of heartless government we wanted after the EDSA revolution. We threw out a repressive regime but coddled another cruel government that suffers from a lack of consideration and empathy to people’s problems. And if we don’t agree with their demands, we call them communists, as if the end of the Cold War in the 1990s did not already erase that stigma of communism.

 

People in high echelons of government like President Aquino and his cabinet should be more sensitive to the needs of the people. If people criticize the government for being slow in responding to their problems, like the victims of Typhoon Yolanda, the best thing for the President or his staff to do is to sit down and listen to them, not to scold them for coming to Manila. After all, these people are also part of the constituency the President calls his boss. Unless, calling the people his boss is just another insincere publicity stunt.

 

The protesters who gathered in EDSA in February 1986 came in droves, armed only with the courage of their words and songs to show the genuineness of their intent and spirit to revolt against repression. They all knew full well that in the event of gunfire, their cause would be lost in a matter of minutes. But the dictator’s minions dithered and avoided the risk of action, in the end betraying their own loyalty to the cruel regime. In a few hours, the Marcos dictatorship crumbled without firing a shot and the entire country and the world begun to embrace the idea that a peaceful revolution was possible.

 

That was the essence of EDSA I, which was lost in the years of succession from one president to another. The only trouble is that every president after Ferdinand Marcos tried to outdo him, to become better or even greater. They all failed, even the current one.

 

Instead of transforming the narrative of the peaceful revolution of EDSA into a story of the making of a new country, a new constitution, a new world—every leader after Marcos emulated the dictator’s predilection for punitive action against the voices of dissent, for rewarding his capitalist cronies and members of the oligarchic elite, for reinforcing political dynasties, and for committing petty and grand corruption in all levels of government. The ordinary masses who persevered in the struggle for a better life actually never figured in the country’s democratic renewal after EDSA. They were victims of the old society under Marcos and they have continued to be the sacrificial victims of one regime after another of excess, extravagance, and small-mindedness.

 

Is it any wonder that those aching for the return of another Marcos in Malacañang are never in doubt that this reality is not any further away? This is a brutal simplification of history after EDSA I, but the fallibility of our memory makes the upcoming narrative almost frightening.

The path of least resistance

 

 

If we are to construct a hierarchy of excuses for the dismal performance of those candidates whom we would have liked to win in the last May 13th elections, on top would be “the idiots” who voted for those not supposed to win.

 

These are the masses, the ordinary people who are not educated to vote according to Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. Yet, these are the same people that traditional Filipino politicians woo (or buy in most cases) their votes every election time.

 

We always blame the poor masses, because it is easy to point out their inability to choose wisely and their vulnerability to material inducements. Candidates from political dynasties take advantage of their families’ fame and the legacy of those in their families who did well in politics, movies, business and sports. Particularly in the election of senators, popularity and money are all the candidates need in order to win.

Results of the 2013 Philippine elections showing the 12 winning senatorial candidates from the
major political parties and political dynasties.

It is not the masses who are at fault. Rather, it is the politicians and the oligarchic elite they represent who have made elections a meaningless popularity contest.

 

Why do we elect senators nationwide, in the first place? They don’t represent a basic constituency. Besides, only those with money, power and name recognition could win. The results have always been the same ever since senators were elected nationally.

 

No senator, for instance, has ever been elected on the basis of job competency and integrity, except for a very few like Jovito Salonga, Jose Diokno or Lorenzo Tañada.

 

The likes of Teddy Casiño, Risa Hontiveros or Ed Hagedorn have virtually zero chances of winning despite their impressive political credentials compared to Grace Poe, Nancy Binay, Cynthia Villar, JV Ejercito Estrada or Bam Aquino who all relied on the magic appeal of their family names.

 

In 1946, Luis Taruc, former Hukbalahap Supremo and five of his fellow candidates for the Democratic Alliance decided to run for Congress. They abandoned their armed insurgency against the government and chose to take the path of least resistance. But once elected, all six members of the Democratic Alliance were prevented from attending Congress to vote against an important legislation such as the Bell Trade Act and an amendment to the Philippine Constitution that would grant United States citizens equal economic rights with Filipinos, particularly in the exploitation of natural resources.

 

Many Filipino nationalists including those in the left like Taruc and his colleagues in the Democratic Alliance opposed giving parity rights to American citizens. But the US government stipulated in the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946 that payment of war damages amounting to US$620 million was contingent on Philippine acceptance of the parity clause.

 

Taruc and his fellow elected Democratic Alliance representatives were denied their seats in Congress on cooked-up charges of fraud and violence during the election campaign, which left them with no other choice but to dig up their arms and resume the Huk rebellion. In a similar vein, President Noynoy Aquino this time wanted all his candidates for senators to win in the last elections to secure a docile majority in Congress so he could easily shove his pet project, the Bangsamoro Framework Agreement, without stiff opposition.

 

The next time militant candidates would venture in electoral politics was during the post EDSA-elections of 1987 through the hastily-organized Partido ng Bayan, which fielded a senatorial slate that included former New People’s Army chief Bernabe Buscayno (Kumander Dante), National Democratic Front chair Horacio “Boy” Morales, Kilusang Mayo Uno leader Rolando Olalia, labour leader Crispin Beltran, newsman and publisher Jose Burgos, peasant leader Jaime Tadeo, and beauty queen-turned-activist Nelia Sancho. Partido ng Bayan also fielded 36 candidates in the congressional race and supported allies in the local elections.

 

Those in the Left found themselves painfully dancing with their enemies in the latter’s domain and the ensuing result was a miserable failure with all its senatorial candidates losing in the elections. Partido ng Bayan would soon disband after their disastrous foray in the political arena.

 

The legal Left would rejoin parliamentary politics in 1998 using the party-list system in entering the elite-dominated Congress.

 

Under the banner of Bayan Muna, the Left won three seats for party-list organizations in 2000 that surprised even some hardcore members of the underground movement. In 2004, Bayan Muna expanded its electoral base with additional party-list seats for the peasant and worker-based Anakpawis and the women party-list Gabriela. It added another seat for the youth-based Kabataan in 2007.

 

To further expand its influence, Bayan Muna and other leftist party-list organizations formed a broad alliance called Makabayan. It entered into a tactical alliance with mainstream political parties that would help improve the chance of its prospective candidates at winning in national elections.

 

In 2010, Makabayan fielded Bayan’s Satur Ocampo and Gabriela’s Liza Maza, whose terms as party-list representatives were ending, as senatorial candidates in an uneasy coalition with presidential candidate Manny Villar of the Nationalista Party. Villar’s senatorial slate also included Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., son of the late dictator and it meant that Ocampo and his Makabayan alliance would have to grudgingly campaign for the younger Marcos. Both Ocampo and Maza failed to win.

 

In last Monday’s May 13 elections, Makabayan fielded Teddy Casiño as its candidate for senator but Casiño failed miserably in joining the magic 12 by finishing in the 22nd spot. So with Risa Hontiveros, candidate of the social democratic party-list Akbayan, but at least she finished a notch higher than Casiño.

 

Why have the progressive and leftist groups not learned their lesson?

 

The biggest problem with Philippine electoral politics is that the system is rigged in favour of the candidates of the oligarchic elite.

 

Most, if not all, national and local positions are in the hands of powerful political families who also represent the interests of those who control the country’s economy. A combination of political and economic power is lethal. Traditional political parties or their coalitions can easily run roughshod over candidates fielded by the progressive and militant sectors of society. They have the machinery, the money, and their famous moniker.

 

To be successful in parliamentary politics, progressive organizations, including those in the Left, should not rely on elections alone. It’s probably their biggest mistake to aim at winning seats in the Philippine Senate which is anathema to real democratic representation. A better alternative is for civil organizations to return to the parliament of the streets by demanding the abolition of the Senate and the establishment of a unicameral legislature where its members will be elected by districts on the basis of proportional representation. This would be a long and protracted process, but it is still a better shot than fielding candidates for senators who have no realistic chances of winning.

 

Real and meaningful democratic reforms must start with the implementation of the democratic provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution such as the party-list system of proportional representation, prohibition against political dynasties, citizen initiative to amend the Constitution, people’s referendum to enact legislation, and the right of citizens to recall their representatives and elected officials who have failed to meet their expectations. This would entail a massive dose of political will by our elected leaders, but still attainable if civil organizations, the Left and other progressive groups, would mount continuing pressure on Congress to enact the necessary enabling law to implement these democratic provisions in the Constitution.

 

Many continue to clamour for the role of education in effecting social change as if education is the answer to everything. That the masses need to be more educated so that they should know who to vote in office, whether it be the president, member of Congress or city mayor. But that is short-sighted and places a heavy burden of responsibility on the masses when they are not to be blamed for our political malaise in the first place. For as long as the country’s mainstream political process continues to be wedded to a false ideology that democracy is all about elections, the oligarchic elite will always find it easy to dominate politics.

Ousted Philippine president Joseph "Erap" Estrada elected as mayor of Manila during the
May 13 elections. Photo by Associated Press. 

After almost twenty years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino people have regained their democratic foothold by deposing the dictator and dismantling the institutions he had put in place to shore up his illegitimate government. The adoption of the 1987 Constitution augured the great promise of democratic renewal but successive leaders after Marcos forgot this potential to restore and rekindle democracy in the Philippines. Instead, the post-Marcos years until today restored and reinvigorated the old oligarchy and the results of every so-called democratic election confirm the re-entrenchment of the oligarchic elite and their families in the political system.

 

There is always a disruptive alternative to the path of least resistance when all options have been exhausted. But how much more would the ordinary Filipino people bear and persevere with a political system that has continued to deny their voice in the democratic process?

Country of crabs

 

 

The city of Baltimore is world-famous for its crab houses, not to be mistaken for pubic lice or “crabs,” a common form of STD. Freshly-steamed blue crabs have been very much a part of Baltimore tradition.

 

But in the Philippines, the kind of crustacean that is the most well known is the two-legged variety that lives on land – Filipinos with a crab mentality.

Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keezDubex_w to view 100% Pinoy Crab Mentality.

Only a few weeks before the coming May 13 elections, putative topnotcher of the senatorial candidates and re-electionist Senator Loren Legarda was accused of not disclosing her condo apartment in New York’s tony Park Avenue in her SALN (Statement of Assets and Liabilities Networth). The accusation triggered off potential comparisons with former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona whose downfall from the highest court in the land was caused by inaccuracies in SALN reporting. Senator Legarda must have felt the tremors from the ground up there in the stratosphere where she has been coasting along as the top senatorial candidate since day one.

 

Senator Legarda was charged at the Office of the Ombudsman with five counts each of graft and non-declaration of a property in the United States in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth from 2007 to 2012 as required by law.

 

Crab mentality arises from a situation where crabs in a bucket find it difficult to escape because the other crabs grab at each other and prevent the other from escaping. The analogy is extended to human behaviour where some members of a group pull down any member who has achieved success over the others, out of envy, jealousy or competitive feelings.

 

While popularly ascribed to Filipinos, this particular mentality is not endemic to Filipinos. It’s a universal individual and social dynamic, ubiquitous in almost every other culture. Among Germans, for instance, there is an attitude called schadenfreude which means taking pleasure in the misfortune of others and can be understood as an outgrowth of envy or jealousy.

 

When Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz was asked if Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney should release more of his tax returns during the last US elections, he categorically answered no, implying that those who wanted to see them were just jealous of Romney’s wealth and success. “He’s the kind of guy I want to be president. He actually knows how to turn the economy around,” Chaffetz added.

 

So this crab mentality of pulling down someone because of his or her advantages is a common thing. Most people are naturally insecure or unsatisfied with where they are in life, so they take the opportunity to try to hold down others. We see neighbours defaming neighbours, reporters inventing stories about celebrities, businessmen cutting corners to beat their competitors, and professionals dislodging fellow professionals, which are all common varieties of crab mentality.

 

In politics, crab mentality is intuitively germane in the dynamics of rivalry or competition. Politicians by nature attack their opponents for their failure to deliver their electoral promises of honesty, good government, jobs growth or better social programs, or simply for the purpose of putting them down in the eyes of the electorate. They pull down others who don’t follow their line. It is because of this incessant tug of war and mudslinging between politicians that there is a perceived general failure in government.

 

It’s rather disingenuous, however, to hear allegations from the opposition party that crab mentality is driving a member or some members of the administration’s roster candidates (Team PNoy) to prevent Senator Legarda from finishing on top of the senatorial contest. “Somebody wants to be number one ahead of her. Is that the kind of people you want to be elected in the Senate?” asked senatorial candidate Richard Gordon of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA).

 

“It is saddening that Loren’s fellow Liberal Party candidate is the one initiating the black propaganda against her. Behind the ‘daang matuwid’ (straight path) is a mix of personalities who put ambitions over principles,” UNA secretary general and campaign manager Toby Tiangco noted.

 

Talking about ethical principles is something very strange to hear from politicians. They better check the reflection on their personal mirrors first before they open their mouths for they could also be sorely lacking in ethical scruples.

 

Yet, it is more refreshing to listen to Nancy Binay’s candour when she expressed disapproval of what Senator Legarda’s fellow candidate in Team PNoy was doing to pull her down. “We are helping each other to improve our chances. In the last three months of campaigning together, we are becoming closer to each other and we are already like sisters and brothers and one family. Our relationship as friends and as UNA candidates is becoming more strong as the elections near,” Nancy Binay said.

 

Very comforting and honest words from a candidate who seems not to know why she’s running for senator in the first place. But this is closer to reality, to the kind of remarks expected from contestants in the American Idol singing contest – praising the closeness and camaraderie they have developed among them, and the expression of collective angst that one of them could be thrown out because one of them is secretly pulling another down. Doesn’t Ms. Binay sound like a contestant in the American Idol show?

 

Instead of crying crab mentality, spare the blameless crabs of their complicity. If a candidate has a spotless record as a politician, what then is she afraid of attacks against her? Don’t blame it to our cultural predilection to pull down those who are ahead. Tell the truth and it shall make you free.

 

Ms. Binay and Mr. Gordon are both running for senators on account of their parents’ political legacy. At least Mr. Gordon has proven himself in the past. In the case of Ms. Binay, it’s all about name recognition. All she carries is her father’s name. She’s as empty as a vacuum, who is willing to engage in a debate with the other candidates, but only after the election is over.

 

Both Ms. Binay and Mr. Gordon are scions of famous political families, just like Bam Aquino, Jun and Mitos Magsaysay, Jack Enrile, Allan Cayetano, Sonny Angara, Tingting Cojuangco, JV Ejercito, Cynthia Villar, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Koko Pimentel, Jamby Madrigal and others who could all trace their political fortune to their ancestors and are all banking on the magical appeal of their names. Even Senator Legarda hails from a political family, her husband was former governor of Batangas and member of a political clan.

 

If we want to involve the crabs in this election, then let’s emulate them: we might as well pull down all these candidates and elect instead people on their true merits and political principles they stand on. There are a handful of aspirants among the 33 senatorial candidates who are not from known political families and are running on political platforms worthy of the people’s support. Teddy Casiño stands tall among these candidates for his unwavering crusade for nationalism, democracy, and the rights and welfare of the people at all times. But the major political parties, including the media, are portraying Casiño as a leftist because of his advocacy of the rights of workers, farmers, and the poor and oppressed. As if electing one candidate from the left will shake the entire Congress and bring the government down. At least, in electing Casiño, there would be one member of the senate who represents a new perspective, a fresh point of view instead of the usual exchange of senseless political tirades and one-upmanship that have typically characterized Congress.

Makabayan Platform. Click link to view Miting de Avanse ng Makabayan,
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTFCTwlv7J0&feature=youtube_gdata

But because of crab mentality again, this time by those on the conservative right fearing of a Teddy Casiño-led uprising of workers and peasants, they’re going to shoot down Casiño’s candidacy. They will keep portraying Casiño as the leftist arsonist, who will burn Congress to the ground if elected. If necessary, they will push politics back to the Hobbesian state of nature where political envy and jealousy are the primary passions of the day.

 

Forever under the spell of crab mentality, Congress has become a big bucket of crabs, each member trying to outdo the other while some members keep pulling down the others. It’s a brutal race to the top, and victory always belongs to the one whose political genealogy is rooted to a powerful family dynasty. Just look at our past and present leaders, Estrada, Arroyo and Aquino – all family dynasties, and their minions are still growing.

 

Let’s rally all the crabs in the country to put these family dynasties down for good. At least, this way we can make use of the crab mentality we are known worldwide in dismantling a significant obstacle to the democratization of the political process. Like the popular crabs of our culture, we will claw them back and stop them from reaching the pinnacle of political power.

Saving democracy without elections

 

 

Under American colonial rule, the Philippines had its first taste of what elections were really about on July 30, 1907. This was made possible by the Philippine Bill of 1902, also known as the Cooper Act, which allowed Filipinos to elect delegates to the Philippine Assembly two years after peace and order had been established in the country. The Americans had already defeated the Philippine insurrection, and in 1906, US President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed that the country was now ripe to hold its first elections.

 

It was an issue-driven election unlike any other. One of the major parties, the Nacionalista Party, wanted immediate independence from the United States while the other party, the Progresista Party, campaigned for eventual independence. The Nacionalista Party won overwhelmingly, taking fifty-nine out of the total 80 seats of the National Assembly. Thus, the people, by voting for the candidates of the Nacionalista Party, chose to have independence now, and not later. Of course, it would take several years more before this aspiration of independence could be realized: the first Commonwealth was inaugurated in 1935 as a transition government preparatory to independence, then the three-year Japanese war interrupted the Philippine democratic experience under American tutelage, and on July 4, 1946, independence was finally granted by the United States.



50th Commemorative Stamp celebration of the Anniversary of the 1907 Philippine
 Assembly featuring a vignette of Sergio Osmena, the first speaker (right) and
members of the Assembly. Click link to view The History of Elections in the
Philippines, Part 1,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMzrrx-BYMc, by the
Institute for Political and Electoral Reform.

We were a small country then, with 7.5 million people based on the first-ever conducted 1903 census under Governor William Howard Taft. Today, the Philippines has a population of more than 100 million. Imagine how crude and rudimentary our electoral process was in 1907 compared to the automated elections we have now.

 

Before, our people voted to resolve political issues such as national independence. Today, people march to the polls under duress, threats or the influence of bribe and corruption. Now, voting seems to be just a meaningless ceremonial rite of suffrage. People today don’t vote on issues, or don’t care about issues. Similarly, the candidates don’t run on a comprehensible political party platform; there are no ideologically distinct political parties, but only coalitions around fleeting and non-perennial causes. Name recognition, association with prominent families, and entertainment or movie credentials, these are the things that matter now.

 

In this coming May 2013 elections, more than 33 senatorial aspirants and 133 party-list candidates are on the official ballot. Only 12 senators and 58 or 60 party-list representatives will be elected, along with provincial, city and municipal officials throughout the country. Amid all the displeasure and criticism of the election technology chosen by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), it appears that the aforesaid technology is inadequate to allay fears of massive cheating and a potential unfair election outcome.

 

The Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines that will be used in the coming May 2013 synchronized national and local elections are under fire from the Automated Election System (AES) Watch which has questioned the readiness of the automated polls system.

 

Based on the experience with the same technology adopted by Comelec during the last 2010 elections, AES pointed out that many problems and issues remain unresolved such as ballot rejections, transmission failures, inaccuracy of the vote count, election returns and certificates of canvass not digitally signed as required by law, among others. Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes Jr., however, is undeterred and confident that the automated system will work. Boasting that the PCOS machines cannot be manipulated, Brillantes is even offering a reward to anyone who can hack into the PCOS machines that will be used in the May elections.

 

As established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the will of the people expressed through periodic and genuine elections shall be the basis of government authority. Elections are at the heart of the democratic process. But to realize the democratic potential of elections, they must be honest and fair, genuinely transparent, and on a level playing field. The irony, however, is that most election events are conceived and held outside their broader political context. Instead of being the democratic solution, oftentimes, elections are as much a part of the political problem.

 

Philippine elections are a case in point. After the campaign for independence from American colonial rule, elections were simply occasions to change political leaders through some revolving door, as in the case of the presidency. Ferdinand Marcos was the first president to be re-elected, breaking convention and tradition, although by all accounts, his re-election only happened because he manipulated the election results. When he declared martial law, elections became a farce, and like any other despot, Marcos used elections as a veneer of democratic legitimacy. With the downfall of Marcos in 1986, Corazon Aquino restored the old convention of electing presidents for one single term, even if Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo tried to circumvent the historical practice but failed.

 

The only genuine political issue that was presented upon the Filipino electorate was immediate independence from the United States as soon as the colonial rulers decided it was time to experiment with democracy in the Philippines. But after the establishment of the first Commonwealth, the only option left for Filipinos was to vote for their president based on persona, not the ideology or party platform. Manuel Quezon was elected first president because he was able to project himself as the one responsible for getting the independence the Filipinos wanted. Sergio Osmena succeeded to the presidency when Quezon died while Manuel Roxas was elected president in 1946 when independence was finally granted by the U.S. Congress because Osmena at that time was too old and sickly to hold on to the presidency. The rest of the next presidential successors were elected not on the strength of a political platform but merely on how well the candidate framed accusations of graft and corruption against the incumbent or his political opponents. Henceforth, every presidential candidate would be running on the mantra of eliminating graft and corruption, with President Noynoy Aquino’s “matuwid na daan” being the most recent version of this national fixation against government corruption.

 

The election of senators and members of Congress is largely a popularity contest. People really don’t care except who ends up number one in the senatorial contest. Since senators are elected nationally, name recognition and fame are important. An offspring or descendant of a prominent family, particularly from a political dynasty, virtually has clinched a spot in the elections. Fame from acting in movies or in sports makes the candidates appear bigger than life, so the lack of political experience is not a liability for as long as one is a marquee candidate or married to a famous movie celebrity.

 

Thus, all this talk about Comelec’s election technology being inadequate to count the people’s votes is nothing but a convenient diversion from the genuine issues that really matter. An honest public discussion of the real political issues is sorely lacking, such as widespread poverty despite the government’s claim of growing economic prosperity, dependency on export of cheap labour, continuing violations of human rights, disappearances and extra-judicial executions, or the entrenchment of political dynasties in power.

 

Yet, the Comelec and its critics keep on missing the point: does modern technology in counting the votes make us a better nation than in 1907? Or are we really that fully independent from the United States considering that their powerful navy and special military forces can go in and out of our territories as if our waters and lands still belong to them? Or why would Filipino expatriates in the US easily jump into the South China Sea dispute to rally behind the current government’s claim over Spratlys, but remain silent on the Sultan of Sulu’s historical claim for ownership of Sabah? Aren’t these also relevant issues the people would like to hear from the candidates?

 

We often blame our political system for the personalities that run it. But this is both unfair and misleading since politicians are morally little different from anyone else. Perhaps, we should not lay too much blame on the individuals, but on the system in which they operate.

 

The self-evident truth is that our political salvation lies not in more elections or in modernizing the technology of counting the votes. Elections are necessary to establish democratic governance and the legitimacy of government, but we don’t need sham elections as frequent as we do just to elect clowns in government and in Congress. If elections have limitations, then what is the alternative?

 

There must be some viable alternatives for the people to assure that we have a flourishing participatory democracy. As a matter of fact, the present Constitution of the Philippines allows actual rule of the people, instead of simply relying on elected representatives. The 1987 Constitution allows the holding of a people’s initiative to enact legislative reforms by referendum or plebiscite. In 1989, Congress has passed Republic Act No. 6735, “The Initiative and Referendum Act,” which empowers the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, and to enact laws, ordinances or resolutions, through a system of initiative and referendum.

 

The system of initiative and referendum has been a popular tool in advanced democracies in enabling the people to directly enact legislation, especially on issues that are quite urgent but unpopular and controversial, or issues some may find radical in nature. Several states in the United States, for example, have passed, through their respective referenda, laws allowing same-sex marriage and the use of marijuana. Plebiscites are another form of alternative political method of expressing the voters’ will on matters that are vital to them and to the nation. So far, the Comelec has held plebiscites only for the purpose of ratifying the creation of new barangays and conversion of municipalities into cities.

 

Voter turnout during national elections in the Philippines from 1946 onwards.
Photo by wikipedia. Click link to view The History of Elections in the
 Philippines, Part 2,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YoBu3B0mKI
by the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform.

The democratic provisions of the Philippine Constitution will remain nominal and aspirational at best if the Filipino people do not dare challenge Congress and the Comelec to enforce them. This is the only way we can save our democracy without resorting to unnecessary elections, to allow the people to exercise their constitutional right to directly enact legislative reforms rather than wait for their elected representatives to act.

Then and now

 

 

In an earlier blog, I made a reference to a quote attributed to Philippine Senator Miriam Santiago that majority of Filipinos are “not educated for voting.” Senator Santiago gave the example of movie stars getting elected in Congress because of the “ignorance of the Filipino electorate.” She probably spoke the truth.

 

With the pervasiveness of poverty in the Philippines, it’s not unimaginable that more than a majority of the Philippine population have actually attained a level of literacy that would enable every Filipino to vote without being told what to do. However, the lady senator obviously forgot that there is a historical explanation for this conundrum of the Filipino masses not educated for voting.

U.S. Governor-General William Howard Taft addressing the  First Philippine
Assembly in  1907. Photo from Wikipedia Commons.

In an article, “The Philippine Muddle,” for Harper’s Magazine in 1926, William Howard Gardiner, who also worked as a consultant to the U.S. Navy and State Departments, wrote that mostly Chinese and Spanish mestizos were able to absorb the new emphasis on English, academics and American political history in the school curriculum at the time. The great masses, the common tao, who were children of peasants, virtually were left out uneducated and uninstructed in anything that would help them live their peasant lives more effectively. Among the more ambitious mestizo children, the aim was simply to get a “distinguishing diploma rather than a useful education; to be freed from future work rather than to be better equipped to work.” From this half-educated class of mestizos would rise what would locally be known as ilustrados, “whose one ambition is to be, first, political henchmen, and then affluent leaders.”

 

These mestizo politicos would eventually lord over the wretched millions of ordinary people who were ruthlessly exploited and forced to be absolutely subservient. Assisted by politically-appointed justices of the peace and fiscals, or magistrates and prosecuting attorneys, these mestizo politicos would hold the common folk in servile bondage, while the chief politico in each barrio would tell them how to vote. While it was the result of natural mestizo cupidity, Gardiner wrote that “it has been possible only because of the political incapacity of the tao millions and because of American neglect and ignorance of Philippine conditions. But as the power to prevent or to correct is ours, we Americans and not the natives, whether politicos or taos, are at fault.”

 

That early on, the great masses of Filipinos were deprived by an educational system that was geared mostly for the members of the upper social class. This pattern continued as the ilustrados became more politically and economically powerful. Election as the hallmark of democratic politics became the monopoly of the wealthy elite and their families. No wonder that Filipinos today are not educated for voting.

 

Quite contrary to the thinking of Conrado de Quiros, a columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, universal suffrage unhampered by the lack of education did not really amount to reforms or change in government or in society at large. Had the right to vote been limited to those who have education, de Quiros writes that “wealth and power would have remained with the landowners, the slave-owners, the gun-owners, the caciques, the compradors, the owners of fabricas and companias, with no end in sight.”

 

Mr. de Quiros is in denial of the great promise of democratic elections. The only change elections have brought was the circus of personalities playing musical chairs, a perpetual cycle of rotation of elective public officials among members of political dynasties. The material conditions of Philippine society never did change, the poor are still mired in poverty, and political power remains in the hands of the wealthy few.

Some members of the Philippine political elite. Click link to view "Political Dynasties in the
Philippines," http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=FXYK4fKlkIM



On the other hand, Senator Santiago is also equally and utterly wrong in belittling the lack of education that hinders the Filipino voter to choose wisely. Hers is an elitist position that echoes the contempt of the powerful over the misled masses. As a lawyer and a constitutionalist, Senator Santiago has forgotten that the Constitution she has faithfully sworn to uphold does not impose literacy, property or other limiting requirements on the exercise of suffrage. In fact, the Constitution mandates Congress to ensure that the disabled and illiterates can vote without the assistance of other persons.

 

Many of us Filipinos have been led to swallow hook, line and sinker that the United States was an altruistic colonizer. Gardiner’s article on the early years of American colonial administration in the Philippines is very informative, at least for two reasons: one, that the American Manifest Destiny to save the Philippines from its barbaric state was already failing at its earliest stage, and two, the American colonizers acquiesced in the creation of a native autocracy of mestizo politicos for their own particular profit, and it was America’s fault, not the natives, whether politicos or taos, in not preventing it. Instead of presiding over the evolution of a sound popular self-government, American colonial rule established the foundation for patronage politics which engendered the formation of oligarchic elites.

 

Gardiner’s prescription was to simply correct the political situation in the interest of the Philippine masses. First, he suggested to end the tragic farce of pseudo-popular self-government, then develop the material, first; second, the cultural; and finally, the political circumstances and capacities of the native population. The colonial administration of the Dutch East Indies made an impression on Gardiner. He had observed the orderly conduct of affairs, high state of development, and consequent contentment of the natives in the Dutch colonies which were in sharp contrast to the conditions in the Philippines, especially in view of their basic similarity and natural conditions.

 

But when the Jones Law, the organic law for the islands, was enacted by the U.S. Congress, a congressional system of government with separation of powers was transplanted on Philippine soil, an imitation of the American system without considering local conditions. With the establishment of the Philippine National Assembly, Filipinos were selected for their subservience to the chief politicos rather than their ability to serve. Such virtual control over every aspect of the government enabled the mestizo politicos to perpetuate their power over a politically-incompetent electorate.

 

What happened then is also happening now. After years of American tutelage in self-government, the Philippines is still attempting its best to acquire the material foundation and political maturity that are necessary for a real self-government to flourish. Successive Philippine governments and the Congress simply attempted to compromise the existing political conditions by adopting partially palliative measures, such as the 1987 Philippine Constitution which contains important democratic provisions like the party-list system of representation, the prohibition of political dynasties, and the people’s initiative to enact legislative reforms by referendum or plebiscite. But all these constitutional provisions remain nominal and aspirational at best without the operative and enabling legislation that would ensure the fulfilment of the purpose of the drafters of the Constitution. The reality is, the stranglehold of political power by the oligarchic elite is adequate insurance that such lofty purpose would never be achieved.

 

Senator Santiago may not be speaking in a time warp when she ridicules the Filipino masses for lacking the education to vote. Our political conditions in the past have not changed a bit, we have the same mestizo politicos like Senator Santiago and members of political dynasties whose glib assertiveness has entrenched them in our local autocracy. On the other hand, we also have people, especially politicians of the yellow kind, with the naiveté to continuously believe that our present leaders in government have already shattered the glass ceiling that excludes the masses from the political process.

Meet the Aquinos. The Aquino name crops up again and again in Philippine politics.
Benigno Aquino lll is the current president. His grandfather, Benigno S Aquino Sr,
was vice-president in the World War ll Japanese collaborationist government - his father
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr.  was a senator. He was assassinated in 1983 and his wife,
Corazon Aquino, became president in  1986. The current president's cousin, Bam
Aquino, is running for senator this time. Photo courtesy of AFP.

The horrible truth is time has probably stood still. From the colonial days to the present, Philippine politics continues to remain largely a preserve of the wealthy elite, with our present leaders in government being drawn from an entirely different economic class than the people they purport to represent.

 

Wealth above all shapes our political debate and determines its outcome, and special interests stand in the way of public policy and what is in the best interests of the people. No wonder we have voters not educated to make intelligent choices, for what is the point of it all when your voice doesn’t count.

 

PLEASE VIEW AND SIGN PETITION "POLITICAL DYNASTIES MUST END NOW" AT: http://www.change.org/petitions/end-political-dynasties-now

 

Bring back power to the people

 

 

The Filipino family is the most enduring political unit in Philippine society, according to American anthropologist Brian Fegan in his book, An Anarchy of Families. It is considered almost customary in preserving political continuity to allow the transfer of political power among family members. Rivalry between families is very common during election time and as soon as they get elected, these families tend to entrench upon themselves a permanent right to political office.

 

Any talk about political theory is one thing, and political reality, another. The 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits political dynasties to guarantee equal access to opportunities in public service. Obviously, the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to level the playing field. But the Philippine Congress has not enacted the enabling legislation that will define and restrict wealthy politicians and their families in establishing their monopoly of political offices.

 

We have to look back at our history to fully understand why the wealthy have entrenched a dynasty over political offices. When the Philippine Commission established the national assembly in 1902, William Howard Taft, then Governor-General of the islands who also became U.S. President and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, identified affluent Filipino politicians to become members of this assembly. Taft also wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines wherein he concluded that Filipino politicians had yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government. He wanted the Philippine Assembly as a training ground for self-government. Eventually, this assembly became the Congress of the Philippines and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

 

The American colonial government planted the roots of oligarchy in the membership of the Philippine Congress. While the Americans trained the Filipinos for self-government, they did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuate their hold on political offices. Since the oligarchic elite also controls the economic levers of the country, passing political power to and between members of their families became almost as natural as bequeathing their fortune to their heirs.

2013 Senatorial candidates. Guess who's related to who? Click link to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXYK4fKlkIM "Political Dynasties in PH."

In the beginning, political dynasties were mostly limited to scions of the wealthy oligarchy. But with the enactment of term-limits, political dynasties have become a family affair. Thus, when a member of Congress is forced to step down after three terms, the wife, husband or child or cousin can run for office as successor while he or she runs for the governor of the province or the city or town mayor. After the end of the three-term limit, the vicious cycle of political succession among family members resumes again and there has been no end to it. The Filipino family, as Fegan has said, is thus the most enduring political unit.

 

Just look at the composition of today’s Philippine Congress. You see father and son, or mother and daughter, one a senator and the other a member of the lower house. Or siblings sitting together as senators. Or children of their once-famous or infamous father or mother who also sat in Congress before them. Point a finger to an individual member of Congress and you can trace his or her family connections: the Aquino-Cojuangco family, the Macapagal-Arroyos, the Ponce Enriles, the Estradas, the Rectos, the Osmenas, the Marcoses, the Cayetanos, and the Angaras— almost everyone is related to each other, whether as a sibling, a parent or a distant relative. Go down further the government pyramid and you see governors, mayors, and barangay chairmen and their councils who are related to each other, either by blood or affinity.

 

Even the party-list system, which is supposed to promote proportional representation in the House of Representatives, has been held captive by wealthy and influential families. In fact, party lists are being financed by the already-entrenched political elite to ensure access to Congress by their relatives.

 

To level the playing field of the political arena and to prevent public office from becoming the monopoly of influential families and clans, there is now in Congress a bill that will give force and effect to the Constitutional prohibition against political dynasties. The proponents of the bill believe that it will remove the damaging effects of the extended Filipino family system on the Philippine political structure or on how the government is run.

 

But the proposed law will not alter the political landscape. Monopoly of political power and public resources by entrenched political dynasties will continue for as long as they can hold on to their economic power. With their unlimited economic means, they can continue to bankroll their elections or those of their relatives.

The Marcos family - political life after Ferdinand. Click link to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hV5Xra6f0s "Dynasties in Democracies:
The Political Side of Inequality."

If serious reform of the political structure is being envisaged to cause dramatic changes that would equalize access to political office by all, then what seems logical to do is to overhaul the entire government. Not by an armed revolution or another EDSA People Power, but through a revision of the Constitution by the initiative of the people. It is unlikely that the present members of Congress would pass any legislation that would curtail their influence and their families’ political succession. That would be like asking them to bang their heads on a stone.

 

The current Constitution allows amendments through a people’s initiative. A petition must be initiated by at least twelve percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters. How this works will depend on Congress which shall enact the enabling legislation for the implementation of the right of the people to amend their Constitution through initiative.

 

Forget Cha-Cha through a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly. The Filipino people cannot rely on their elected representatives, so they must exercise their initiative to bring out the necessary reforms. So, let’s begin this process by petitioning our representatives and senators in Congress to pass a law that will implement this people’s initiative.

 

A people’s initiative to amend the Constitution may also be a big blessing in disguise for President Noynoy Aquino if he needs to ensure that the Bangsamoro Agreement he signed with the MILF is constitutionally valid.

 

What could a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution likely entail? Let’s look at one possible scenario.

 

First, abolish Congress. Replace it with a unicameral legislative assembly that will be composed of representatives elected directly by their constituents by electoral districts or wards, which shall not be more than 100,000 registered voters. Assuming the total registered voting population is 5o million, the assembly will consist of 500 elected members.

 

Second, abolish the Senate. The present crop of senators, although directly elected nationally, does not actually represent a natural constituency. Besides, there is no need for an upper house which could be the cause of legislative gridlock. Electing senators nationally gives the advantage to those who have the money and popularity.

 

Third, limit campaign financing to one peso per registered voter, which by our example would cost 100 thousand pesos. This would make the election more accessible to all. Personal or private donations to campaigns will be strictly required to be disclosed. All donations over and above the limit of 100 thousand pesos per candidate will escheat to the Commission on Elections, which in turn shall equally apportion the total collections to each candidate for additional campaign expenses such as television, radio or print advertising.

 

Fourth, continue the election of the President and Vice President at large, but no President shall be declared elected without getting the majority of the votes (50 percent plus 1). This may require a second or third run-off election if there are more than two candidates running for office.

 

And fifth, provide for implementing law for the recall of representatives who fail to meet the expectations of their constituents.

 

A people’s initiative may sound wistful to many, but why the heck do we have this provision in our Constitution if we cannot avail of it? There is no better time than now to make use of this initiative. Besides, this mode of amending the Constitution seems far more democratic than anything else inasmuch as the people will be directly making the proposed changes. Not our Congress or our elected representatives when the people have obviously lost their trust in them.