Friday, May 18, 2007

An Optimistic Filipino.

I was talking to my colleagues at school this afternoon, and many of us felt, all things considered, pleasantly surprised with the outcome of this election.

I remember talking to a friend of mine last year, and intimating to her that, despite the despair that a lot of people were feeling about the country at the time, I had a gut feeling that the country was getting better. She was incredulous when I said that (this was during the aftermath of the whole Garci debacle), and asked me to explain. I said that I had a mysterious sense that the political crises of 2001-2006 were all a kind of purgation process for the country, the kind of "bottoming-out" experience that the Philippines needed to lay bare the flaws of its political system, before it began to mature, like the bottoming-out experience that an alcoholic has to go through before she begins her process of recovery, I explained, and I cited a social activist whom I respect very much, who had expressed the same.

If you keep abreast with local politics, then you are aware that a quiet revolution has been taking place in local government units across the country. In one town after another, people have been supporting, not necessarily the candidate with the biggest song-and-dance during campaign period, not necessarily the candidate with the hacendero surname, not necessarily the candidate with the private army ... but the candidate who delivers results. In one town after another, traditional politicians, "trapos," have been losing in elections to idealistic technocrats or the progressive intellectuals. This is not to say that there are no longer any trapos, or that political dynasties have disappeared from local politics; however, their hold on power is no longer the impenetrable monolith it once was, or at the very least, their hold on power is conditioned by their ability to produce tangible results.

I do feel that this change that has been taking place at the grassroots is beginning to trickle up to national politics.

In the weeks leading to the elections, I was feeling dismayed that I couldn't fill up my twelve senatorial slots, and many of my colleagues felt the same. (I ended up voting for only six senatoriables last Monday.) But I began to smell the winds of change when I noticed that many of the senatoriable's political ads on television were very different from the ones in previous elections: the new ads actually talked about issues, or highlighted an aspect of the candidate's platform or one of the candidate's legislative accomplishments. I didn't vote for Zubiri, but I was impressed that his TV ad emphasized the Biofuels Act. I didn't vote for Defensor, but I appreciated the discussion of the housing issue. The few ads that focused on personality rather than issues (e.g., Villar's "Sipag at Tiyaga" campaign, and the Kapatiran party's campaign materials) seemed to talk about character traits as foundations of an ideology for nation-building.

And now, as the tally comes in, my colleagues and I look at one another and nod, rather impressed, with the way the results are shaping up.

Of the top fifteen contenders, there is only one that I absolutely abhor. With all the rest in the top slots--even with the ones I didn't vote for, and even with the one other candidate whose victory fills me with real dismay--I can see, at the very least, some perceived quality of nobility or competence which allows me to understand their popularity. It appears that candidates who thought they could win by sheer name recall alone and little else, are going to be disappointed: Cesar Montano isn't going to win; Chavit Singson is not even close; Richard Gomez is barely in the running. Even Manny Pacquiao will be staging his heroics in the boxing ring, rather than in the halls of congress. (Another way of putting it: of Harvey Keh's "Seven Things Which, If They All Happen, Will Make Me Leave the Philippines", only one seems likely to happen.)

Another thing. If reports are accurate, a whopping 85% of registered voters in the Philippines voted. I'm impressed with that. Most Filipinos, it appears, still feel that their votes count for something, and went and accomplished their civic duty. I'm sad that so many youths did not register (something I don't understand; when I was in college, almost everyone I know was registered for the elections!!), but maybe after this election, they will regret not having registered, and will change that in the next polls.

Finally, perhaps it was an indirect way of grandstanding, but in a surprise move, Ali Atienza showed more post-election maturity from a candidate than I have seen in a long time, conceding to Mayor Lim when the canvassing was far from finished. As I told my husband, "Wow, the city of Manila is actually behaving like a mature democracy!"

I'm not saying that all is fine and dandy in the Philippines. Even one instance of election violence is an instance to many, and I was disturbed by every report of violence that I saw in the news. But if the PNP reports are accurate, and the number of violent incidents truly have decreased in comparison with previous elections, then that is something to be thankful for, and I just pray that the next elections have almost no violence at all.

Also, cheating hasn't disappeared, and hearing the reports from Maguindanao, I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, or throw up. But the Maguindanao farce notwithstanding, I really do feel that with this election, the people are making their voices felt, and sending a message to the politicians at the top that they aren't dumb.

To all the Pinoys who spent the last five years groaning in despair, to all those who packed up and left out of disgust and frustration ... friends, give your country (and your countrymen!) some credit. At the end of the day, this is the country that started People Power. This is the country that showed the world that we make miracles happen with enough faith, passion, and willpower. We may not be the smartest country in the world; we may not have the most mature democracy. But we're certainly not hopeless. And you shall see, we are going to get our act together, and we're going to all feel proud of the country that we're building.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

David's Non Sequiturs

I have a lot of respect for Randy David. I feel that he is one of the most intelligent voices in the Philippine public sphere today. I was reading, however, a PCIJ blog post outlining some points he made at a forum last March. In the PCIJ article, Randy David is quoted as having raised the following questions:
  • "If it was right to force (Joseph) Estrada out of Malacañang in 2001 for plundering the public coffers, why is it wrong to oust GMA today extraconstitutionally for an even more grievous offense of stealing the presidential elections?

  • "If it was right for the Catholic bishops to demand the resignation of an incompetent and immoral president and mobilize people to flock to the streets in 1986 and in 2001, why aren’t they demanding today the resignation of a president who has made a mockery of the democratic process?

  • "If it was right for the Armed Forces in 1986 and in 2001 to intervene in the political sphere, why was it wrong in February 2006?

  • "If it was right in 1986 to set aside the Constitution in order to give way to a revolutionary government when such powers are needed to dismantle the structures of authoritarianism, why would it be wrong today to seize the government and set aside its Constitution in order to pave the way for a formation of a truly just and free society?"

I have no love lost for the current administration, but as a philosophy teacher, I am allergic to poorly formed arguments as well. If David had directed those questions at me, here's how I would've responded to some of them:

  • "If it was right to force (Joseph) Estrada out of Malacañang in 2001 for plundering the public coffers, why is it wrong to oust GMA today extraconstitutionally for an even more grievous offense of stealing the presidential elections?"


David begins with a shaky premise. The question, of course, is: WAS it right to force Estrada out of Malacañang?

Lest we forget, the country was divided among three camps in relation to Estrada at the time: those who wanted him to stay on, those who wanted him to voluntarily resign and therefore for power to change according to constitutional means, and those who wanted him to be ousted by any means.

I personally never felt comfortable about the circumstances surrounding Estrada's ouster. I clamored for Estrada to voluntarily (and constitutionally) resign, not for him to be "ousted," and when the circumstances surrounding his act of "leaving Malacañang" became public, I for one was very disturbed.

That having been said, we might say that in relation to GMA, the country is probably divided among parallel camps: those who support Gloria and want her to stay on indefinitely, those who want a change in power through constitutional means (through, for example, her resignation, through impeachment proceedings, or through the 2010 elections), and those who want her ousted by any means.

  • "If it was right for the Armed Forces in 1986 and in 2001 to intervene in the political sphere, why was it wrong in February 2006?

  • If it was right in 1986 to set aside the Constitution in order to give way to a revolutionary government when such powers are needed to dismantle the structures of authoritarianism, why would it be wrong today to seize the government and set aside its Constitution in order to pave the way for a formation of a truly just and free society?"


There are differences among 1986, 2001, and 2006.

First of all, in 1986, the Philippines was not under a true democratic Constitution. The 1973 Constitution was not a true contract that reflected the will of the people; it was imposed by then-President Marcos through dubious, undemocratic means. In the spirit of democracy, then, it could be argued that the 1973 was not binding.

It was only after the 1987 referendum that the country came under a truly democratic, freely chosen social contract among citizens and state, enshrined in the Constitution that was promulgated through democratic process. If a person insists today that we follow constitutional processes to punish and prosecute those who desecrate our Constitution, then it is probably because that person considers himself to be bound to the promise of the current Constitution.

I am sickened by Gloria's shenanigans, but I really do believe that the only way we can reach our dream of a working democracy in this country is by starting now, by allowing our democratic processes and institutions--as imperfect as they are--to work. Some people are impatient, they despair, and would have us throw out all our processes with the bath water, and to be honest, I am sometimes tempted by quick-fix solutions as well, especially given the urgency of our nation's problems to those who are suffering the most.

But at the end of the day, the kind of country I want my children to be living in fifty years from now is one where there is true, lasting democracy, not one destroyed by a series of stop-gap solutions that proved more harmful in the long-run. And global history shows us that democratization is a process, a slow transformation of both institutions and culture.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

An era is ending.

From the very start, I was a Tony Blair fan. I thought, from the very beginning, that he had the heart, the compassion for the oppressed, the fair-mindedness, the openness, and the candidness to accompany his intelligent mind and awe-inspiring communication skills.

In the past ten years, there have been moments when I have been disappointed with Blair. I was crushed that he supported the Iraq War, and annoyed that he didn't apologize, when the mistake became clear, for his error in judgment; in those moments he sounded sickeningly like an American (or Filipino) politician, refusing to admit a mistake--so uncharacteristic of someone who at other times has been so forthright. I was sad that he didn't stand up to the United States more, and exercise the leadership that I felt he was capable of. I wished--and still wish--he'd developed the Third Way further.

But despite the disappointments, and despite the many things I disagree with, I still hold Tony Blair in extremely high esteem for his sincerity, intelligence and thought. I never for a moment felt that he was not trying his best to do his best for a country and a world that he loved.

I fell in love with the England that was under Blair, the England that Blair helped shape. And even if only the three littlest toes on my left foot can truly be called British, I am, as a citizen, Mr. Prime Minister, grateful to you.

Update: I'm listening to Blair's speech at Sedgefield, and again he reminds me why I admire him and will always admire him so much. "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right."

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

The Broken Body of Christ

The president of the Evangelical Theological Seminary in the United States has returned to the Roman Catholic Church.