I hope Rom sees my plagiarisation of the title of her latest blog post for what it is, a tip of the hat to the rare gem of sanity she adds to this latest of ocho-ocho circuses.
It can’t get any more elegant than this simple message that I’d also like to direct to those who seek to sow fear in the minds of the vacuous horde:
Get a grip.
The trouble with a democracy in a vacuous society is that it allows a whole bunch of Drama Queens to run around naked screaming “Bloody Murder!” over nothing. For that matter we can do so at the top of our voices in the middle of a major highway all we want. That’s our prerogative as a thinking citizen of a Republic that upholds the right to free speech.
But what then after that?
I’m no political “expert” so my question is, are there legal avenues for reversing what these DULY ELECTED “representatives” did ON BEHALF OF their constituents? Is there a legal way of “recalling” and “replacing” elected officials? If there is one such avenue, then by all means, lets go for it.
But the real point I make remains stuck on the broader reality of the way we regard evaluating and electing our representatives and gov’t officials. It’s ironic that everyone is “shocked” by the behaviour we are seeing in our “representatives”. We feel “surprised” upon finally seeing what kind of principles our elected officials live by. Because last I recall, we did not evaluate them using that criteria when we were in the process of electing them.
Instead, we see lots of people like some “reporters” and political “experts” doing some “analyses” about this and that political party and the who’s who of who’s in these parties. Yet beyond that you find NOTHING in the way of any discussion, analysis, or debate around what ideas, philosophies, and principles these politicians and these “parties” uphold.
And then we act surprised when those less-than-savory principles in our politicians — which we did not evaluate when we had the chance to — suddenly rear their ugly head in between elections such as in times like this.
We can appeal to whatever goodness in their hearts we imagine them to possess all we want after we’ve elected them, but unless there are legal avenues to hold them to that standard under threat of whatever kind of other power we imagine to possess outside of what is constitutionally or legally enshrined, we’ll simply have to live with the reality of what we as the source of “sovereign power” have unleashed until the next election (if there will be one).
The key principle relevant in this latest of circuses is quite simple, really:
By virtue of the popular vote, the people did in fact give these congressman the AUTHORITY to speak and act on their behalf.
The reality is that this thing about sovereignity “residing in the people” being used as a battlecry by self-described “revolutionaries” has not been breached in any way.
And as to this other word — “vigilance” I think it is — that our “guardians of democracy” constantly sloganeer about, well I believe it is not really about whether we are “vigilant” or not. Indeed, with the kind of “press” freedom our society enjoys — the kind that scrutinises the minutiae of trivialities in value-crushing volumes everyday — who needs vigilantes?
I believe it is really about:
:D Whether the right thinking is applied when evaluating candidates;
:D Whether the quality of the “national debate” is up to scratch; and,
:D Whether our sense of accountability over our role as participants in a democratic form of governance is clearly understood.
Thinking.
Quality.
Accountability.
Step back and regard those three simple words and reflect. In the context of those words, what are our thoughts about the kind of society we have become?
When we begin to seek answers to this simple question, we begin to comprehend why we as a people merely stumble from one circus to another year in and year out.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
The question really is how do we evaluate the constituents in terms of choosing and electing public officials. The government is only as good as the constituents.
I prefer that all voters must at least be highschool graduates.
Oh, wait. THAT’S ELITISM!
You’re kidding. The stupidest person I know has a masters degree from abroad. Poor non-high-school grads… each one of them know a lot that I don’t.
Jon, unless you ant to learn plumbing, farming, cleaning toilets, electrical repair and carpentry, you better respect these people. They are at least competent at what they do.
No BrianB, my point is that any point of qualification that we put in the voting process — whether it be income, educational attainment, ability to think critically, etc etc, will be construed as elitism/exclusionism despite the fact that the vote-buying majority are screwing us from behind every single elections.
He he, the middle class are bought, too. How many San Miguel employees vote Nacionalista. I’ll give you three guesses.
Are we talking about the cloistered Ortigas office goers or are we going about the guys who drive the trucks of SMB?
Oh c’mon benny. When you start blaming constituents for the pain they inflicted on themselves, Chuck will suddenly rise from the dead and call each and everyone of us elitist! :P
where is chuck? i haven’t seen him in these parts in awhile.
From what I reckon he pops in and out of Plurk once in a while.
pacifico has been banned, I think. He tried going under a different name and was banned again… a theory.
We’re not talking about Renato Pacifico, we’re talking about CVJ, teh staunchest defender of the poor and downtrodden here in FV.
i’d like to recommend something:
what about blogging about what the smart stand should be about the proposed changes to the constitution. MLQ3 shared a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8735557/Matrix-House-Proposed-Charter-Amendments
This provides an interesting argument on why Flips shouldn’t be allowed to don’t dunnit? Still let’s just end this farce of a Democracy and call this country what it truly is…
the admin has a plan. most of its critics don’t. a half assed plan in many ways is superior to no plan at all. the admin believes things would be saner, more efficient, and calmer if we junked national elections and merged the executive and legislative under a prime minister elected by professionals and not by the public.
unfortunately, most critics of this are ignorant of the flaws of the cozy parliamentarism in other places like malaysia or even singapore, or can only counter-argue on the basis of two tacks: let’s not change anything, or not now (but then, when?) without even proposing counter-proposals. but status quo arguments aren’t very attractive considering if any consensus exists, it’s that the country’s going from bad to worse.
the only counter-proposal to gain ground, methinks, is the institution of run-off elections to finally give the presidency what it needs, which is a majority. there are other proposals perhaps gaining a bit of ground, or attractive for discussion, such as a regionally-elected senate, or block voting. but other ideas like federalism are still too novel to gain wide currency though there are singificant pockets of support.
i don’t necessarily agree with benign0 but i do believe that lashing out ignores the need to inform people of what’s going on or what’s being proposed, in that regard the admin and its allies may actually be more intellectually honest and coscientious in advocating the parliamentary system.
Let’s remind everyone that government is an illegitimate one. We’re all holding our breath for 2010. Imagine an OIC in any organization calling for an overhaul of the system.
hhahahahahah… selecting some few crooks by professional crooks.
a government is only as good as the people running it. it has nothing to do with the form of government. whether you call it unitary government, tripartite, parliamentary, those crooks will remain crooks in any form of government you situate them.
government is an institutionalized brigandage where the perpetrators are called your honors or Honorable Gentleman/Ladies from Cagayan, Cebu, Manila, etc, or your Highness/Excellency, and the victims are called Juan de la Cruz.
a government is only as good as the choice we cast on the people who will run government.
if we keep on voting for crooks, we shouldn’t be surprised if the government turns out crooked.
juan de la cruz is a masochist who enjoys hitting his head with a hammer called government, then wines about being victimized by the hammer.
MLQ3!!! Hallelujah!
A sane voice from the avowed anti-admin camp. Thank you. We don’t need loud voices and street scenes; we need solutions.
I agree with almost all you wrote there.
The key point is that there are real issues, room for various opinions and methodologies for working things out. Trust the institutions…and keep things calm and courteous — that’s what I’d love to seehear/read.
There is a motive in all of this. People, start thinking of motives. They now have a better opportunity than ever. A crime is going to be perpetrated, even if it hasn’t happened yet, all reason points to that it will.
We need loud voices so that people who are sleeping will awaken to the plot that is unfolding. If we are silent, this just emboldens all those who want to stay in power longer that they are given mandate for. We have to stay vigilant. Again reform and debate on what type of government is welcome but it should be inclusive.
and that Rosa, is what Renato Pacifico, Ulong pare, Peter hangslo were doing about before they got banned or moderated – wake people up out of their slumber :lol:
kadalasan, ang pinoy hindi kumikilos habang hindi pa napipikon, gotta push the buttons to get something started :)
I agree mlq3. The call to chaos or half-witted low-thinking-applied “action” some here advocate will merely throw those who oppose the Administration into a moronic mob of clueless fist-wavers that invite even further exploitation by straggler politicos circling like vultures waiting for an opportunity to sieze a shot at relevance.
So far, the ability of Arroyo to survive in the face of unpopularity indicates a conscious tenacity and astuteness not seen in those who oppose her.
if this were a football game – GMA came prepared with players and plays.
the referee has blown the whistle, and the opposition is still quibbling about recruitment of players :lol:
We are the opposition, BongV. And GMA is administration. What are we doing here?
Unless you and benignO are administration too.
if this were a football game – and if you and benignO are neither opposition nor administration – then you two are the hecklers, heheh.
Bert:
every muppet show needs hecklers :lol:
remember these blokes – http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens2197088module11881078photo_1223149346statler-waldorf-muppet-show.jpg
to benign0:
To your question above (in the blogpost body)….
Elections-every-X-years is stock-answer to this: Is there a legal way of “recalling” and “replacing” elected officials? If there is one such avenue, then by all means, lets go for it.
The 1987 Constitution does not even consider this question :
Is there a legal way for the residents of the NCR-region to “recall” and “replace” the elected officials of Leyte?
Precisely. The point being that democracy, by its very nature, needs to be allowed to play out over longer periods — certainly longer than this moronic Patalsikin na, now na mentality of The Horde. It is a self-correcting mechanism that cycles over several years.
You elect an official knowing that you will be stuck with him/her over the period of his/her term. Therefore you choose wisely.
If we want something expeditious, one that delivers instant results and does not require its citizen’s to think, then it is a DICTATORSHIP that we want.
Ironic, isn’t it?
ironic. How long did Marcos stay in power Benigno? Self-correcting mechanism? You want the country to trust and believe that fair play will happen? Once GMA is entrenched in power, we might as well say goodbye to the hope that Philippines will rise up again and welcome a banana republic.
EDSA 1 was the self-correction.
It will be best to do the “correction” while candidates haven’t been chosen yet – by doing due diligence and coming up with well informed decisions – instead of making a “correction” after the damage has been done.
The moment people abdicate their responsibility to hold GMA accountable under the guise of hopelessness, GMA wins by default.
Exactly Bong. Edsa 1 happened only after a martyr died for our country. How long did Marcos rule before that? How much debt was incurred during that time? Should we suscribe to Benigno’s suggestion to not react at this time saying it is our fault we voted for this morons and that we should exercise critical thinking next time? This is exactly giving the powers at be to execute their plans. By that time, we will have DECADES to think and indulge in critical thinking as Benigno is saying. In other words, he want us to play the harp while Philippines is starting to burn.
In other words, he want us to play the harp while Philippines is starting to burn.
there is the possibility of starting to burn, but it’s not there yet.
on the flipside, the voters were playing the harp when they voted arsonists into power – and are now coming to their senses that they will be burned, but are still coming to terms with the fact that THEY (the voters) did vote for these a-holes into Congress.
Shouldn’t that be
Is there a legal way for the residents of the NCR-region to “recall” and “replace” the elected officials of NCR-region?
well, the surveys give us an insight into what’s going on. public opinion is fickle, unless grounded in an appreciation of the constitutional arguments. i’m sure both sides were commissioning internal surveys so here were some findings of the anti-chacha side back in 06 during the first showdown.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8346863/SO20
this was a ppt i presented to some student groups, the findings were interesting. there was actually, at the time, a plurality in favor of charter change, but when you explored the reasons given, they were unrelated to the arguments ostensibly believed in by the admin, for example. one big irony was, a chunk in favor of cha-cha to get rid of the president, for example. or that most people actually favored a snap election to solve the legitimacy crisis.
anyway, while anyone can campaign for whatever changes they want, the survey indicates certain parameters that will be hard to budge. the first is, people are used to voting for the chief executive and don’t want to give up that right -this extends even to those who favor the parliamentary system, which means even many of those for parliamentary government don’t realize its full implications, or prefer a hybrid system (my personal opinion is, marcos was on to something in tinkering with the french model; the popularity of the parliamentary system among domestic politicians may stem simply from the frustration of congressmen in not being eligible for cabinet portfolios). another is, more people still prefer a bicameral legislature. so, the specific advocacy of the administration, a unicameral parliament, is a non-starter.
they might get away with proposing a nationally-elected decorative president with no real power, but they won’t even do that; or go away from the nationally-elected senate (which i always point out was designed with a counterpart measure, bloc voting, to strengthen party influence which is the only antidote to purely celebrity candidacies for national office, which was a danger foreseen by the promoters of a national senate) and get public support for a regionally-elected senate on the jones law model.
but one thing i learned, starkly, during the campaign when the pros and antis went around the country, and this was confirmed by the pros to, when we encountered each other: the majority of the country was clueless, and in the fora i attended in colleges, i spent most of the time explaining the basics of the presidential system, then explaining the parliamentary system, so i hardly had time to push our particular advocacy, which was against cha-cha as defined by the admin.
on the other hand before we get carried away with admiration for cruella, what she discovered is simply the advantages of incumbency, the residual powers of the presidency, much of it cultural and no longer statutory -the fact she has had to tinker with the way things ought to be done precisely stems from vast expectations of the office which, however, the office is no longer empowered to achieve, formally or informally. formally, because the constitutional setup is impractical in many respects, informally because the presidency requires a majority to be followed and given a chance to succeed, instead of doomed to fail from day one as some of the admin’s defenders have properly pointed out. the question, really, is whether, given in many ways a thankless and untenable situation, one believes the president has done the best with the limited options available to her, or crossed lines no responsible leader ought to cross.
also, it is easier to consolidate and manage a smaller force than it is to achieve unity among a broader coalition; particularly when the smaller group has money and rifles to encourage obedience or cooperation.
maybe we should consider a “survey” of how the great majority of filipinos regard politically-oriented surveys conducted by local enterprises for profit. this survey of surveys, if you will, may be taken by truly independent organizations, local or foreign. whose integrity is beyond reproach (if that is at all possible).
as i see it, current philippine surveys are mostly kind of hit ot miss activity. contradictory results of two or more different pollsters, apparently depending on who is commissioning whom, are palpably evident.
in the context that contrived surveys mislead the nation, they are inimical to national interest since they tend to influence the judgment of the citizens, or prevent them from getting that informed consent, in a democracy. crooked politicians are not above purchasing favorable polls to serve their interests.
there are reasons why, despite a never-ending barrage of negative surveys about gma’s popularity and performance, life seems to go on normally, no better or worse than under cory or ramos, and definitely better than under erap.
Simply put, what is happening right now is OUR fault.. :)
let’s pray:
O my Country,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended Thee,
and I detest all my lousy choices,
because I dread the loss of progress and prosperity
and the pains of instability and tyranny;
but most of all because
they offend Thee, my Country,
Who are all good and
deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve,
with the help of Thy grace,
to confess my sins,
to do penance,
and to amend my life.
:D
bongv, in the sense that a country is its people, i don’t believe you can pray to the one who caused it all – the one truly RESPONSIBLE.
bencard:
I agree.
I agree too, heheh.
hey im just arguing in the point of logic here, i mean why prevent them when they are entitled to do so under legal and constitutional rules.
yes, liam, and if they think the action is unconstitutional, let the court say so in a justiciable case. i think all these hyperventilating are a waste of time and energy and serve no useful purpose.
Nobody is discounting the argument that parliamentary form of government may hold some advantages or perhaps a mix of the two (like the French system) but the timing is just so naaah and besides how do can you trust THIS Congress to formulate the changes? A Constitutional Convention is the more apt venue for this rather than a Con-Ass.
madonna, the two last “cha-cha”s were products of constitutional conventions. what happened? are we to create another body of trapos and grandstanders, at such huge expenses to the taxpayers, only to produce an ill-thought of document that serves like an albatross to a long-suffering nation?
Bencard, thanks for bringing up the point. I think what was worth noting was that in the past two cha-chas even if they were done via a Con-Con, the periods were in the midst of either a euphoric revolution (1986) and before that, MArcos’s (1973?) which was patently a self-serving move to allow Marcos to extend his stay in office. Now, with GMA, it’s the just like 1973 redux. That’s why what I’m saying is that timing is important so as if we are going to tinker with our political system, it should be because we are in a sober frame of mind.
i cannot deny the validity of your point of view, madonna, but i was just wondering – when are we going to be in a “sober frame of mind’? what is happening now can happen with any president after gma, especially a strong, effective, but unpopular one. this politics of fear will not stop with “gloria” simply because not one in a field of 6 or more candidates can ever be “popular” and with a clear mandate.
let’s not be overcautious to the point of petrification. we have to change, hopefully for the better, but before we can change, we have to have FAITH.
Ah Bencard, touche. Sorry, you know 2010 is a time of reckoning for GMA, no more, no less. So there, you can’t blame people for being paranoid of whatever our present leaders may have in mind. We have a sordid history of betrayal and usurpation of power. Anything can happen and so to be sitting pretty and be sending the message to this Congress or Malacanang that we are not being vigilant on the side of being paranoid is a sure recipe for disaster. But anyway, as for the plurality problem — I am in favor of run-off elections and which may require Constitutional amendments. If they are indeed going to move within their powers, let it be on the tightest of manuevering due to our vigilance.
Just how do you survey a survey – importing foreign nationals to do it, what is that?
Your Representatives have become Robots of Gloria Arroyo. They are
more interested in CHA-CHA and CON ASS, than any other Bills. They
are making ASSES out of us.
surveys are tools, and part of the problem with the surveys may be that they’re shallowly represented in the media. but as a political tool they have become essential not least because constantly refined because of the times they’ve utterly failed (there’s the famous example of dewey defeats truman). like any tool, in undiscriminating hands they can be pretty useless. but it seems to me that simply misrepresenting surveys is self-destructive or counter-productive for politicians. the same firms the palace assails in public are regularly commissioned by it in public, both sides use the same firms, because both sides know it’s as much about asking the right questions as it is about samples and other fine points of surveys as a statistical method.
all governments regardless of form are obsessed with finding out and analyzing what the public thinks of it. what the government then does with that information of course has to do with the ideological objectives or inclinations of that government. but again, it makes no sense for a government to believe its own propaganda when it comes to gathering data on public opinion and analyzing it.
so you have a reference, a snapshot, never a complete picture but take enough snapshots and you have a bigger picture like those composite images formed from many little pictures. the surveys we read in the paper are not all the surveys and may not even be the most important surveys for either administration or opposition. the survey results for example i linked to in an earlier reply, were never released to the public (at least in full) because they were meant for analysis, in that instance, at the behest of serge osmena whom i personally think is the most focused on mining data for insights into political strategy. and usually, effectively so.
and like i said, the palace regularly commissions surveys and analyzes them for its own purposes, not necessarily for public consumption. and not necessarily with sinister motives: again, it’s a tool and very useful all around.
snapshots from respondents who do not know a cow from a goat will give you survey result that they would prefer a venizon.