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.