Moral Ascendancy, Legitimacy and Revolutionary Government
``A revolutionary government! There are two words which sound very strange in the ears of those who really understand what the social revolution means, and what government means. The words contradict each other, destroy each other. We have seen, of course, many despotic governments, -it is the essence of all government to take the side of the reaction against the revolution, and we have a tendency towards despotism. But such a thing as a revolutionary government has never been seen, and the reason is that the revolution-meaning the demolition by violence of the established forms of property, the destruction of castes, the rapid transformation of received ideas about morality, is precisely the opposite, the very negation of government, this being the synonym of "established order", of conservatism, of the maintenance of existing institutions, the negation of free initiative and individual action. And yet we continually this white black bird spoken of as ifs "revolutionary government" were the simplest thing in the world, as common and as well known to all as royalty, the empire, and the papacy!- Peter Kropotkin(1842-1941), known as “the Anarchist Prince”
When the still beautiful widow of the deceased defeated presidential candidate, Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ), and movie icon to millions of adoring Filipino fans, Ms. Susan Roces Poe bellowed ``The gravest thing you have done is that you stole the presidency, not once but twice”, this statement made me wonder what the gist of the political crisis is all about.
While most pundits in the political spectrum imputes the adverb ‘TWICE’ to the Supreme Court’s ruling that have sealed the fate for doomed presidential hopes for the deceased aspirant-candidate, aside from the actual election exercise itself, ‘TWICE’ could have also meant that the first incident could have been the ascension of power by the present incumbent via the EDSA II revolt which ousted FPJ’s dearest friend, the disgraced former President Estrada.
However for both instances, it appears that the underlying motivation for the ‘TWICE’ word has LESS to do about the alleged cheating but rather MORE of as retribution to the personal affront by the couple after having lost the elections, cheated or NOT. In other words, the alleged cheating has been merely utilized as an excuse to expound on their desires for personal vengeance.
Analyst Ronald Meinardus in the Japan Times aptly writes that ``“You either win elections, or you are cheated," is a popular explanation in a country in which electoral fraud and vote manipulation remain a depressing routine.” In Philippine setting, it would be quite naïve for one to believe that election frauds are attributable to a single party who would be entirely culpable for any caper. In the local level alone, elections are usually conducted by the traditional ‘guns, goons &/or gold’ routine by the contending parties. Put differently, the question should not be the simplistic case of ‘if there is cheating’ but rather ‘has there been cheating enough to subvert the sovereign will of people?’
The recent wiretapped debacle underscores this relative conflict of perceptions…for the opposition the tapes represent as the absolute culpability of the Mrs Arroyo that she cheated, much as what was declared by Mrs. Roces-Poe and in the words of a Bishop ``The government has turned itself away from the people. It has lost moral and legal authority...it must step down to avert the imminent bloody confrontation growing out of the people’s sufferings.”
As to the defenders of the administration, to quote economist Solita Monsod in her latest article, ``are adamant in insisting that nowhere in those conversations can we find even a hint of an order from Ms Arroyo for Garcillano to cheat in her favor. Furthermore, they ask: How could the two possibly have been conspiring to cheat when by the time those conversations took place (May 25 and after), all the certificates of canvas, or COCs, (except for seven municipalities in Lanao Sur) had already reached Congress, and were beyond Garcillano's reach? In other words, how could Garcillano alter those COCs?”
It is further argued that the margin of votes between Mrs. Arroyo and Mr. Poe was about 1.1 million, such that even if the entire votes led by the President in
So which is which? Obviously in the perceptions game, the opposition has clearly gained so much ground to undermine the effectiveness of the incumbent’s governance who is left on the defensive, however, does the wiretapped hullabaloo, which is subject to arbitrary interpretations, serve as sufficient grounds enough to overwhelm the previous processes or evidences to justify the call on the administration as illegitimate?
Why has the impeachment case submitted by Atty. Oliver Lozano pooh-poohed by the mainstream opposition as a ‘MORO-MORO’? If it is thus illegitimate why haven’t the proper charges been filed to the courts of law by the mainstream opposition? As the Philippine Daily Inquirer correctly observes, ``The opposition thinks it won't be able to impeach the President because impeachment is a political process, and as far as the political configuration in Congress is concerned, everything is stacked against it. This is a defeatist attitude and foolhardy. Surely the President cannot be expected to chop her head off and offer it on a silver platter to the opposition. We simply have a lazy opposition.”
According to another bishop, ``The basis for [replacing Mrs. Arroyo] should be on legal and moral grounds. If there are questions and doubts [regarding the results of the 2004 polls] then the succession will also be immoral." Does the ‘hallowed representative of the God’ also imply that votes for the 12 senators, mayors, governors, and the local councilors which emanated from the same sacrosanct ballot on May 10 of 2004 be likewise considered as lacking the ‘legal and moral grounds’? What would be the basis for such distinction then? The words of Christ through them?
What if the current ‘consensus perception’, triggered and shaped by mostly emotions, are wrong? Doesn’t it do more injustice than what is called for? What then is morally ascendant? Is the proposed ‘national council’ to be chaired by former President Estrada to take governance once PGMA resigns as espoused by Senator Jinggoy Estrada morally ascendant?
Or what in particular would represent as legitimate, the mere fickle perceptions of the crowd? Wasn’t the 1987 constitution ratified by the overwhelming majority? So why the unjustified aversion towards VP Noli de Castro when he was duly elected in accordance to the 1987 constitution, and has not tainted by the recent wiretapping scam? Why then the clamor for a revolutionary government when the constitutional grounds provides sufficient provisions for leadership changes?
Where at least for President Estrada was delivered a semblance of due process via the impeachment process, what deviates today from then? Because he or she says so?
Former President Cory Aquino’s appeal to observe the constitutional process has been scoffed at by several quarters, mostly by leftist groups, including a defeated presidential candidate who said that even she benefited from it (which means that because she benefited then the opposition should benefit too!). Unfortunately for the evangelist turned politician, it appears that political ambitions has clouded his reasoning such that he promptly forgets that Cory’s revolutionary government was formed arising from the transition from an authoritarian ‘dictatorial’ government to a democratic one. Post EDSA II was likewise an extension of the 1987 constitution. Today, we essentially or technically have a democratic government don’t we? In transition, according to the self-righteous messiahs, to what type of government do we turn to?
Here is what former UP President Francisco Nemenzo has to say about the proposed provisional revolutionary government, “What we really need to do is call for a provisional revolutionary government…We have to reduce the power of the elite. Only then can democracy have a chance to flourish in this country.” Wow, the rule of the proletariat, which is typical of most of the Revolutionary Governments, as enshrined in the Marxist-Lenin doctrine.
Of course, there are some notable successful revolutionary paradigms pre Marxist-Lenin eon such as the American Revolution which was an independence movement against colonialist Britain and the French Revolution which was a movement against the French monarchy of King Louis and Marie-Antoinette, the rest contemporary revolutionary governments were largely anachronisms to economic development such as Sudan, El Salvador, Cuba, Lithuania, Libya and of course, as reminded by a dear client our favorite bugaboo Juan and Evita Peron’s rule of Argentina.
In short, the proposed revolutionary government simply means taking inherently bigger risks for something that does not guarantee the amelioration of our dire economic straits or for the satisfaction of the people but rather for the interests of the select few who intends to lead. Be careful of what you wish for.
As for me, I would prefer that the incumbent, encumbered by too much political baggage to govern effectively, pave way for a new beginning, a healing through the constitutional process and not because of legitimacy or ascendancy concerns which are all perceptions based, unless a dramatic reformation can occur (which would take miracle!).
In the perceptions game, one can do no better than thespian personalities with their histrionic acts who accordingly would move in the pursuit for the betterment of the ‘people’. Previously, they functioned to perk up the crowd for the politicians, while today, they are the country’s self-righteous saviors. This vividly reminds me of ‘two signs of times’ axioms, one, that ‘the Road to hell is paved with good intentions’ and second, Samuel Johnson, as one of
No comments:
Post a Comment