Carl, a regular commenter at quezon.ph, rebukes Manolo Quezon (mlq3), the indispensable Pinoy blogger, quite harshly:
That’s exactly the problem with Manolo. He is such an apologist for the elite. Manolo belongs to the more liberal and democratic section of the elite, which is more devious because this section of the elite hides behind moral platitudes to disguise their sense of entitlement and self-importance.
Like the so-called civil society and other elitist groups like the Makati Business Club, Manolo brushes aside other opposition candidates. After all they have already found their champion, their Arthur, to lead their Camelot. Unity within the opposition can only come at their terms. As Manolo puts it, their group has put the unifying factors in place. Hence:
“The unifying factors are a presidential candidate who already has integrity and honesty, and who is pledged to an administration marked by transparency and accountability.”
That presidential candidate is, of course, Noynoy.
Another commenter, Cusp, points out however that Manolo is merely rather nostalgic of the two-party system that the “people power” Constitution has done away with, the result of which is a presidency without a true majority mandate as the norm (and a potentially lessened presidency as a further consequence). Ignored is Manolo’s other point that the coalition that had ended Marcos’ reign failed to unite (in ideological terms) with a view to engaging in bold experiments for democratic reforms that are extractable from the new Constitution. The coalition has let itself slide to being a reactive force rather than active change agents.
To follow Manolo’s logic, without an engaged citizenry old politics dominates the political process. Although only very recently, the same force has been reenergized by a “Great Awakening,” the passing of the preeminent symbol of its (Yellow) revolution, and yet hounded by the fact its next choice for the presidency, given the multiparty structure, would still be without a true majority, hence the potential for yet another diminished presidency. Noynoy might have changed the equation.
But where Cusp differs with Manolo is also where I differ from him for Manolo did not say “that all our problems began with GMA’s assault on democracy in 2005” (the Hello Garci tapes scandal) whereas he states that “the problem is more systemic” in fact. Manolo only says that 2005 was “the dividing line” and I will not preempt Manolo’s explanation of this line. But I guess the timeline is correct.
2005 marked a breach of an “implied promise,” the promise on the part of GMA to take the moral high ground after Erap. The coalition then suffered from “relative deprivation” because of such a grave breach enough to generate a new EDSA. However, the surge did not materialize with many blaming FVR’s intervention. The movement has failed to gain momentum since then and therefore has remained deprived.
I believe what we are seeing today could be a groundswell of collective pent-up emotions entrapped within the same force that now finds a champion in a presidential candidate it perceives to possess “unifying factors” – those of “integrity and honesty, and who is pledged to an administration marked by transparency and accountability,” as Manolo acceptingly articulates it.
But note how Manolo qualifies himself: “Unity is possible on the basis of a common platform and a guiding set of political principles that can unite candidates with volunteers, leaders with followers, according to common goals. In this sense, policies will and should trump personalities.”
If we care to examine certain legislations sponsored by Noynoy as also reflected in the LP platform, I believe we are seeing a presidential candidate in Noynoy with a “guiding set of political principles” that trumps personality politics. And also essentially seeking to uplift the underprivileged and promoting social justice (and hence anti-elitist), it somehow sets Noynoy apart while possibly uniting him in ideological terms “with volunteers, leaders with followers, according to common goals” towards certain far-reaching changes in our economic and social practices.
For instance, Noynoy’s legislative initiatives include Senate Bill No. 1370, or the Workers Productivity Incentives Act of 2007, which requires businesses to grant annual productivity incentive to all workers in the private sector amounting to no less than 10% of the company’s net profits before taxes and Senate Bill No. 2036 which amends Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act, to increase the penalties for non-compliance of the prescribed increases and adjustments in the wage rates of workers.
Here in FV, I have underscored “that the LP platform has dared to take a very strong and conspicuous stand on some highly sensitive socio-economic issues such as the promotion of ‘industrial democracy’ (or the idea that postulates for example that workers may co-own the enterprise, elect the management via a democracy in the workplace and have a say not just in matters of wages and benefits, but also as far as maybe in deciding product pricing and organizational design) which not even the Democratic Party under Obama would touch with a ten foot pole without being called un-American.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
Jeez…
You “believe“, do you?
Why should we voters be content with trying to deduce some sort of “platform” from a bunch of breadcrumbs left by a candidate for us to scrounge around for?
I say we go beyond that and DEMAND that said candidate CATEGORICALLY STATE his platform so that there will be no ambiguity nor any need to for “expert” like you to subject us to your no-results “expert deductions”. If the platform is in our face then we will spend less time on guesswork and more time on an INDUCTIVE approach to evaluating what the future holds for us under whatever bozo politician we plan to personally support.
I’ll bring up again a previous comment addressed to you:
=========
Here is the “platform” section of Noynoy’s website (shout a little yodel into the page and you might hear an echo), and two recent articles (here and here) published by the PCIJ describing his background, not to mention that on-line CV Beuencamino built for his manok (he calls it a “track record”). I wonder why the word “platform” is nowhere to be seen there in all of those. Hey wait! Perhaps it is because they are all no more than descriptions of, well, track records and backgrounds, and NOT really the elusive platform that everyone is holding their breath for.
=========
My question is quite simple, dude:
Why would you ASSUME that Noynoy upholds the LP “platform” when he maintains his own platform section in his website with NO REFERENCE whatsoever to anything to do with the LP?
That’s the trouble with your “expert” approach. At the end of the day it’s just all speculative.
Filipinos deserve better than this. But people like you have all but convinced them that it’s all they’ve got.
Please do your homework, benigs. The website you are referring to has apparently not been updated in three years. To deduce, assume, believe or otherwise speculate that what’s not there does not exist is “vacuous,” if I may borrow from your lexicon.
Correction: on the contrary, the LP platform upholds Noynoy because his actual legislative initiatives apparently precede the Party’s delcaration of political intent.
Abe,
A web site left to languish is soooooo typical of the gap between having an idea and implementing it responsibly, like putting up buildings with no maintenance budget in original financials or putting out web sites unrefreshed for three years. Not a good representation of a practical achiever.
Joe
JoeAm: Peek into Noynoy’s business mind with this bill.
http://www.pcij.org/resources/noynoy-bills/2035.pdf
It is the “Privatization of Infrastructures” bill which requires all government infrastructure contracts to be for the entire economic life, from construction of an airport or highway and maintenance for entire economic life — winner take all.
SB2035 says “how much will you charge us so you do the maintenance tasks that need to be performed 25 to 30 years in the future”. I will pay you now (by raising VAT or borrowing from China).
Up n Grad:
Given the protectionist nature of the Philppine constitution, guess who will be operating the privatized infrastructure – same o same o families – Cojuango, Lopez, Ayala, Zobel, Tan – Kamaganak Inc is salivating :D
And the vacuous remain oblivious. :D
to bongV: a Chinese entrepreneur **easily ramped up to billionaire-status (US-dollar, not Hongkong dollar) tapping into the goldmine of “infrastructure privatization”.
[**"Easily" means the business-model can be replicated. Billionaire in less than 15 years. The model is legitimate (it is not Ponzi and it is not looting) -- it is not making "taga" from a super-huge ZTE-nBN contract. It is not work for geeks. The more the connections, the less the competition and the lower the interest rates, the faster to the billion, but one can not skip doing the work. One can, but one should not do substandard "puwede-na-ito" or things blow up. "Pretty boys" not willing to work on weekends or being seen with local warlords wearing tsinelas can't do it.]
UP:
I have no doubt he can get to billionaire status – the question is – who will award the privatization contracts – and the strings that come with it.
Am sure, to will be above board legally – but the hidden barriers to entry – will mean it will be the same o same o players – Cojuangco, Lopez, Ayala, and Tan.
UP n,
Thanks for the reference to the bill written by Mr. Aquino. I will read it in its entirety before commenting.
Joe
UP n.
I read Mr. Aquino’s bill. I have a different take on it than yours. One of the unattractive features of the Philippine urban landscape is the deterioration of buildings, roads, bridges and other structures. I suspect that it is often the case that the “financial plan” that went into the proposal to do the construction was weak, and omitted the need for maintenance. The economics supported building the structure, but not maintaining it. So it deteriorates physically, then financially, and eventually becomes another blot on the landscape.
What Mr. Aquino is doing is requiring that maintenance be included in the original scoping of the project. It is no longer necessary to go back to already strapped budgets to find maintenance money piecemeal, thereby delaying or skipping needed repairs.
I think it is a good bill, viewing a structure as a lifetime investment that must be maintained properly to guarantee that the original construction money is not wasted by deterioration.
Now, the culture of corruption may include kickbacks over the life of the project, or payments to the Bureau of Maintenance, or whatever . . . But that will happen no matter what, as long as the people who manage things accept kickbacks from the maintenance companies. So cleaning up corruption is an issue no matter how maintenance is funded.
Joe
JoeAm: SB2035 is anti-small business. SB2035 is “winner-take-all”. Only “big guys” can play.
UP n,
Interesting, I didn’t read that, but I can see how that can be an outcome.
Okay, who builds a better bridge? These are major, national projects, right? Little guys can build little bridges, eh?
Joe
Joe:
It’s all about connection.
The trapos have mastered the art of the dummy corporation. Versus a know small business that has capacity for systems integration versus a dummy corporation fronting for Kamaganak, Inc – guess who wins.
Tell your manok then not to publish anything that he does not plan to KEEP UPDATED ON A ROUTINE BASIS. Otherwise, he merely insults the intelligence of the people who take the trouble to visit his “website”.
Intelligence or diligence?
Intelligence – refers to the site’s visitors.
Diligence refers to the site’s owners.
The lack of diligence of the site owner is an insult to the intelligence of the site visitors.
Capicce?
this is the 3rd or 4th posting of abe margallo on the subject of his “manok” in very few days interval. noynoy is in danger of being over-exposed and FV is beginning to look like a noynoy propaganda machine with the likes of manuel buencamino, caffiene sparks, cocoy (although somewhat guardedly), nick (?), etc., singing praises of the man. fortunately, every time a pro-noynoy piece is posted, it seems that, judging from the comments that ensue, the weakness and deficiencies of the candidate is highlighted. the campaign season has not even began, yet noynoy seems to be cut, sliced, diced, and salted like a malnourished pig.
excellent job, abe, for putting aquino to public scrutiny.
As the blogger named Mawe points out
***
Moreover, the LP declares Roxas as the standard bearer, then switches horses via horsetrading, instead of having a runoff or a caucus – sure tells you a lot about how the LP operates – balimbing and…. anything but.. democratic..
looks like perception of “goodness” vs. a record of “evil”. fantasy versus reality.
Bencard,
That’s what FV is all about. We debate and argue as part of important political decisions, e.g., to elect a new leader for our country. As long as we keep the discourse rational, we have done our part. The process keeps its salutary value whenever for instance a post perceived to argue for a particular political choice invites various counter-arguments from those of different persuasions. That way FV cannot be used as a “propaganda machine” by anyone.
Your observation that Noynoy “seems to be cut, sliced, diced, and salted [like a sweet santol fruit]” (to use a more appropriate metaphor) this early, reminds me of a Bicolano saying: Aram mong matamison an santol kung perming pinagtutokdul (You know how sweet they think is the santol fruit when it gets poked for harvesting the most.)
con ma-alsom an santol, pig agi-agihan sana.
bert, aram mo ‘tol, igua man santol na magayon sa luwas pero maalsom pag kinakan. iyo ito si “manok” ni abe.
I don’t know how anyone can possibly insult Benigno’s intelligence.
The LP “industrial democracy” platform will turn the Philippines into a Venezuela but without the oil reserves or an entertaining Hugo Chavez. Now Noynoy is no Chavez, nor is he entertaining!
That simply won’t work since the highest form of Socialism is Capitalism as long as the benefits reach the masses and this requires a competent managerial class. The Capitalist Party in Beijing does not run China the way the Liberals think the Philippines should be run.
The Democratic Party has the sense not to touch the idea.As usual the Liberals here are stuck in the mid 20th century!
Blackshama,
As a leftist pinko commie socialist radical who likes that other leftist pinko commie socialist radical Obama, I agree with you. Like, man, voting for managers is the blind leading the blind. . . more of what you’ve got now, but worse. Loopy baby, loopy.
Joe
blackshama,
21st century economies adopt various aspects of industrial democracy to enhance productivity and as a means of avoiding or minimizing industrial disputes. It’s also known as “co-determination” in Germany or “team-working” in The Netherlands and United Kingdom. Toyota as well as a number of US companies practices it too as “participatory management system” or “workplace democracy” as opposed to the 19th century “master-servant model” or the 20th century “Fordism” for instance.
If there is a pattern to be noted here, it is in the way the “experts” get reduced to delivering one-liners when the questions start to become too hard.
:-D
Benigno creates straw men that he believes are real monsters who must be defeated.
Oh for sure, Mr. Buencamino, a platform will not win or lose an election — not in societies that cannot think their way out of a paperbag. In fact I never put forth such a concept. My purpose in highlighting and harping about platforms is that they are something different — stuff that were NEVER much of factors in recent Pinoy elections (if ever they even were in our earlier history).
My point therefore is that perhaps by doing something differently the way the next six years post 2010 will play out may turn out differently. The last thing we need is the last 30-40 years of our history repeating themselves. Platforms — more specifically the non-existent role they play in the field of Third World Democracy — are one of those lowest-common-denominators that I believe account for the banal sameness of everything about Pinoy politics over the last 30-40 years.
Noynoy happens to be the unfortunate and ironic epitome of the quintessentially Filipino trapo: heavy on the artefacts of the past — credentials, pedigree, and feudal rent-seeking — and THIN on anything that has to do with THE FUTURE.
A platform represents
(a) the EASIEST way for a politician to gain some equity around the latter. It can be done in four easy steps; and,
(b) an alternative focal point for The New Breed of Filipino Voter — one who is tired of the all-too-familiar banter around personalities, speculation, and stand-for-nothing platitudes, slogans, and symbols.
The choice is quite clear — at least for those who fancy themselves as TRUE AGENTS OF CHANGE.
Benigno,
Lahat ng partido at lahat ng kandidato ay tumatayo sa isang platoporma. Magresearch ka bago ka magsalita
I did. But I came up with zilch.
:-D
hehehe.
may platapormang – halos walang laman – tulad ng plataporma ni noynoy.
at may platapormang – nasubukan na,at ginamit yung mga best practices at industry standards – tulad ng kay nick perlas. siyempre, yung hindi exposed sa development work, hindi maarok ang pamamaraan ng mga community organizers na aktibo sa araw araw na pakikibaka.
BongV,
The big problem with Nick Perlas is he has no chance of winning in 2010. It takes years to get known outside one’s community and to set up an organization and perlas did not attend to those things before he declared his candidacy. If he starts organizing now maybe he can be a contender in 2016.
Perlas represents a dramatic change from our current politics and if he were winnable he would be worth a second look. However, the reality is we are left with candidates that do not go as far as Perlas. So the choice is between a candidate who will make incremental changes or who will persist in more of the same. I think a practical person will choose incremental change over no change at all.
Those who will vote for Perlas should think carefully about the consequences of their actions. Remember Nader in Florida in 2000. The progressive vote was divided between Nader and Gore so Bush, with a little cheating included, won and the rest is history.
I think the best route for Perlas is to endorse a candidate who is closest to his advocacies and then start preparing for 2016.
MCB:
as to the question of winning or winnability – one needs to transcend the issue of winnability and redefine it as
“will the country “win” if _____ is the candidate I choose?”
instead of
“this candidate has the best chance of winning therefore, I vote for him.”
in my book, the latter is intellectual dishonesty and reeks of a sell-out.
Moreover, the conditions in the ground as far as the progressive vote is concerned differs. the The US has a substantial progressive vote. The Philippines has a very small progressive vote. There is no progressive vote to split – it is more of one camp of jologs versus another equally vacuous camp of jologs.
BongV,
I speak not of voting for the most winnable. Perlas, who represents dramatic change and a very sound environmental program, does not count for more than a symbolic vote in this election. So sadly, in this election, the choice is between incremental change or no change at all.
Inasmuch as I would vote for Perlas if he were a serious contender, I will not vote for him now because by doing so I might just help defeat a candidate who might make incremental changes.
Will the country win if I vote for Perlas?
The answer is the candidate farthest from Perlas’ advocacy might win.
So I’ll vote for the one closest to what he stands for.
MCB:
I vote for the best man for the job – not for the purpose that the worst man may win.
When one takes that line, the competents have no chance of winning – and ensures that the mediocre and incompetent win.
It’s a sell-out in my book.
No BongV, it is not a sell-out. Ted Kennedy used to say you take what you can get and keep working for what you want because something is better than nothing
MCB:
That’s not a surprising statement from the man who gave you Chappaquiddick.
Kung Pinoy candidate yun, incidents tulad ng Hacienda Luisita, dedma, pakapalan ng mukha. :D
So far the only platform I’ve seen as an aggregate of everything they say is this: we are against everything that GMA is for. Thus, the platforms have no real substance. No really good platform exists.
Mar Roxas had the most detailed platform… but then he said “education with the native (or was it national) language.” Anak ng teteng, you going to teach rocket science in Bisaya? I would be glad if the national language were English.
Chino: Which of the anti-GMA’s have offered different approaches to OFW-labor-policy (foreign countries for Filipino professionals/workers to obtain jobs), rice self-sufficiency or infrastructure (highways, airports, phone and internet)?
Over past 8 years, many have ranted (and for good reason) against government corruption. GMA – Talsik diyan! “Elect me!!! I am against corruption!!!” But has Nonoy, Fernando, (and Erap — what does Erap say?).. has any candidate identified what they will do about corruption? Who has offered an approach different from GMA practices to reduce kotong-cops and other mid- and upper-level corruption?
And benign0 would say “… the candidates do not even say if “reduce corruption” is in their top-3 platform issues.”
I guess corruption is so much an accepted part of the system and culture that it’s hard to speak against it.
I wonder if they’ll make last-minute, photo-finish platforms. In that case, Pinoy talaga sa ugali. hahaha.
True true.
Once Noynoy wins the election through making himself look good at the expense of GMA he’ll just probably hang around wondering what to do next.
I think it is a classic strategy of antagonizing to win people’s affection. Pa Hero-effect. We should realize that being a leader is not about hating enemies but more on loving the people (unlike some countries). He should stop pandering on people’s discontent and steer to a more constructive path.
I agree with Mar having education in native language and even in laws. There is a very simple system that teaches using english technical terms along with Filipino. I know its hard but its worth it. Learning will take lesser time and I believe that through constant use our language will evolve to be able to keep up with new terms. Besides language is the centerpiece of culture. If you put it away say goodbye to Philippines. I’m even a bit confused at FV being in english hehehe. Filipino Voices –> English. @_@
Edward,
I disagree with you and Mr. Roxas. Tagalog is a language of isolation. English is a language of economic opportunity, the language that cuts across all 114 Philippine dialects, the language of the country’s laws. You (the Philippines in general) cannot build the Philippine economic foundation by remaining isolated. You must compete globally. You can’t compete in Tagalog (or Visayan, or any of the other 112 dialects). Can you imagine requiring Americans and Chinese and Europeans to read Tagalog to understand Philippine import or export requirements? Or always issuing precise legal language in TWO languages?
Disaster city, man.
To change, you have to change. Tagalog and other dialects can be preserved if people want to put in the energy to preserve them. They can become “classic” languages of history, as classic Greek and Latin have largely become.
But don’t hold the Philippines back because you can’t “let go”. There is a psychological term for that, but I’d rather not use it.
Joe
Edward,
Almost all Pinoys think that the Japanese progressed by using Japanese only, but that it actually extremely wrong.
During the Meiji Restoration – the thing that started Japan’s ascent into modernity – bright Japanese were made to study European languages such as English, German, French, and Italian (minor degree), depending on the field of endeavor one chose. Those pursuing a science and engineering track chose English and/or German, those studying Finance and Business did English, those studying international diplomacy went with French, and those who were music majors took Italian.
As for those pursuing a military career, most of those who went into the IJA (Army) studied French (initially, their Army advisers were French) then later this was shifted to German when they shifted to having Prussian military advisers. Those who went into the IJN (Navy) studied English, because the best naval instruction manuals were by the British whose Navy was the best in the World.
In fact, the textbooks used in Japan for science and engineering and many other disciplines during the Meiji and post Meiji era were overwhelmingly in German or English, and most gifted students were sent abroad to perfect their craft.
It was only later when the Japanese were relatively economically successful, to the point that they had by then become the most economically powerful Asian country and were relatively respected by the Westerners “almost as equals”, that the Japanese decide to use Japanese as the primary language of education.
The Japanese succeeded economically not because of “Cultural Nationalism” and “sticking to their mother tongue.” They ended up with “Cultural Nationalism” and could afford to stick to their mother tongue only because they first succeeded economically very very rapidly. And in fact, this economic success was pretty much a result of the Japanese almost rejecting their own culture in favor of copying the West in everything: clothing fashion, architecture, etc, and most importantly, in getting educated in Western languages.
Most Pinoys think that the Japanese modernized or developed after World War II – which was a time when they weren’t anymore too keen on using foreign languages amongst themselves. But their first “great leap” was during the Meiji Restoration, and that period involved the heavy use of foreign cultural influences and foreign languages in Japan’s transition from a feudal country to a modern industrialized one.
If we are to speak in absolute terms, the claim that Noynoy is pro-poor and therefore anti-elitist simply do not make sense.
Why?
The citation of only two Senate bills which are actually co-related to each other, since they did not end up as legislated laws is surely not enough basis to draw conclusions whether those who author or co-author these measures can be classified as pro-poor or anti-elitist in this case.
Besides, by its very nature, it is hard to deduce that Noynoy is the only author of these cited Senate Bills and therefore it rests on a mistake to single him out.
That said, we can still do some backtracking by trying to really examine whether such bills really amount to being anti-elitist. In economic terms, it is only fitting and proper that workers in the Industrial Reserve Army also partake of the fruits of their labor in terms of what are called ‘social dividends’.
So, there is just no jumping the gun on Noynoy in this regard.
Primer, I’m a bit disappointed because this is rather benignOish – critiquing something before a “conscious and deliberate thinking through.” If you read the proposed law, you will at least know that it is not at all about “social dividends” but a bold measure to distribute business “profits” to workers by force of law. Who among the presidentiables that you know have dared to sponsor a similar measure?
Btw, it would seem that Noynoy had initiated the two measures by himself without any fanfare before he possibly entertained any immediate plan to make a run for the presidency.
SB 1370…
It will be the end of the world if that gets passed.
Political tactic for politicians is pro poor. After the election,
the poor remains in the same condition. It is just a ploy to get
votes.
Kept poor so they’ll feel dependent on the politicians. Too obvious to state I guess.
you belong to a party, you subscribe to the platform. for example, gilbert teodoro helped write the npc platform, perhaps more than other he can claim ownership of that platform -as a co-author- but it would also be safe to assume in the absence of anything else, that affiliation with the party includes affiliation with the platform. a politician can have a personal platform or working principles, too, a good example is magsaysay who subscribed to np platform but also put forward his famous credo as a guiding set of principles for his presidency. the question then becomes, is the personal credo a substantial deviation from the party platform, or a supplement? the same way a party platform has to be fleshed out by a legislative agenda.
benign0 is correct in pointing out that an existing platform may not be enough as people look for not just guiding principles, but a guide to action for a president. whether or not a first 100 days checklist is possible demands as much on voter demand as what a candidate can expect in terms of the coalition that will come into office with him -and that can change, depending on the actual results of the election.
in another sense benign0 is correct. if we had a system of elimination rounds before parties actually settled on their candidates, the platform for the previous election would be revised at the party convention where the final candidate was selected and the party partched up its internal quarrels and geared up for the main campaign. although more informally done, the various factions coalescing will probably do the same thing.
the rule of thumb is three stages in a campaign: introducing yourself, then explaining what you stand for, and finally convincing people to support you based on the first two. so far we’ve only seen the introducing part; by law the platform part comes with the formal filing of candidacy papers. this year i’m under the impression there’s a weird gap between filing of candidacies and the formal start of the campaign -in february 2010. the interval is the perfect time, as the candidates are set, for the candidates to set their coalitions, each component of which will want its advocacies/interests reflected in what the candidate stands for.
in noynoy’s particular case we might see the lp platform under pressure or even superseded, as his candidacy takes on a “people’s campaign” identity as mentioned in the press by people like butch abad. in which case people will want to have input on the final document. it could be an opportunity to follow the practice one commonly sees in the west, where the various grous that gravitate towards a candidate push for the insertion of specific planks designed to appeal to their constituencies. a campaign with grassroots elements would then have to include the various reform agendas floating around as well as reassurances to certain sectors: for land reform, against outright confiscations, for example, and the ability of a candidate to husband the process becomes a kind of test of the capability to lead and create consensus.
of the main candidates, the liberals have a platform, the frankenstein coalition has a platform, the npc has a platform (but i understand escudero will unveil his own platform if he announces for the presidency on october 10), i haven’t seen one for the nacionalistas or estrada. but the best we can expect is that these existing platforms will at least be supplemented if not replaced/modified outright after the contestants are finalized on november 30 at the latest.
Very enlightening comment, Manolo. And I just really hope that voters will make their choices based on Party platforms rather than on “sound bytes.”
As it is, even our resident Joe Am (a very intelligent and politically engaged individual) admits seeing the “bickering” written out in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party 2008 platforms for the first time when I’ve provided the links to our readers here in FV, confirming in effect his previous admission that he actually voted someone to the most powerful office on earth based on gut (in fairness, Joe has qualified his answer later).
I wonder then if those surveyed who’ve given Noynoy a prohibitive lead this early even cared about any platform at all. Of course the benigs, the BongVs, and the BenKs, as you and I, do.
Nonetheless, I do believe the May 2010 elections will be decided not by the “intense minorities” like us in FV who prefer to debate the issues rather passionately but by the “great majority” who will rely, just as Joe Am of 2008, on their guts.
I just got word from MB (see Philippine Commentary) that Noynoy’s website will be updated soon. So, just a little patience more.
“Nonetheless, I do believe the May 2010 elections will be decided not by the “intense minorities” like us in FV who prefer to debate the issues rather passionately but by the “great majority” who will rely, just as Joe Am of 2008, on their guts.”
this shouldn’t be the case tho, right? there is still hope about voter education?
GabbyD, that “hope” lies largely in those who are in a position to influence people in great numbers. And usually people who are in such positions are those who have the brains to comprehend certain concepts — even concepts that lie outside of their comfort zones.
Evaluating based on platforms — though a no-brainer for me, for example — turns out to be a concept too radical for some old fogeys here. And that’s where the whole problem with our society lies. Those who have much responsibility to educate are seriously MIS-EDUCATING those who need education the most.
And that’s how the Eraps of the world win – based on “gut”.
Doing the same thing and expecting different results? :D
GabbyD, benigs, and BongV,
Should you guys really worry about trusting your gut?
Well, let me tell you . . . as far as I can recall now, I might have chosen my wife based on gut too.
She’s still my better half after more than a quarter of a century – which means she gets the better half in terms of power-sharing most of the time haha . . . and on occasions you even get the feeling someone invokes “emergency powers” so often you would wish benignO’s matrix was available when the critical choice was made (more haha).
Even so, didn’t I have a “package deal” i.e., an imperfect deal for sure (or one with pluses as well as minuses on a well-designed matrix); but still if it’s not the best deal by far, it’s one I could live with for the most part (fingers crossed and haha one more time).
You chose based on gut? Really?
you didn’t check your:
* compatibilities?
* shared visions of the future?
* share values?
* liked your spouse?
i would bet – you did – which makes your statement – based on gut – incorrect and misleading.
@abe
is this a serious answer? are u trully proposing junking voter education on gut voting?
Manolo,
The reason why platforms take a backseat in the Philippines is precisely because the Philippines uses a Presidential form of government, which is an extremely personality-oriented system. Numerous commentaries in Europe (esp. in Britain) have raised the question as to why personality is so important in America’s elections, but less so in Europe itself – with the main exception being France.
Those commentaries have unfortunately not mentioned one major correlation: Most European countries use a Parliamentary System, while the USA and France are Presidential Systems where their “Head of Government” (who is also the Head of State) is elected at large.
To be fair to both the USA and France, though, these two countries have a political culture that still has a bias towards looking at policies and issues as a key determinant for whom to choose and look at platforms as their way to determining how candidates will formulate policy and treat issues. It’s just that the personality aspect of their candidates play a more heightened role in the selection process, than they normally would in countries that employ the Parliamentary System.
It is thus important to note that the Presidential System is inherently a personality-biased system because voters choose the person whom they want to be President.
In contrast, a Parliamentary System is a very Party-oriented system, as elections are geared towards constituencies choosing candidates from the Parties they want to win. Ultimately, the Party (or coalition) that gets the highest number of seats gets to determine who becomes the Head of Government. However, technically speaking, the use of the term “Parliamentary System” actually means that it is the PARLIAMENT itself that is governing the country, not one person. The Prime Minister or Chancellor or Premier or Presidente del Gobierno (as in Spain’s case) is merely the Primus-inter-pares or “first among equals” who facilitates the proceedings of Parliament, and merely controls his own party/coalition, which in turn – due to its majority position – can influence the entire Parliament’s ultimate decisions.
In other words, whom do you choose?
Parliamentary System: You choose a party –> Like the Platform, like the Party
Presidential System: You choose a person –> Like the Personality, like the Person
How do you distinguish the different parties that are competing to win majority in Parliament within a Parliamentary System? Simple: Through their platforms. Since voters in countries using the Parliamentary System CANNOT choose their Head of Government (Prime Minister/Chancellor/Premier) by directly voting for him/her, they have no choice but to choose the MP’s who belong to the party of their choice. Ultimately, countries that use the Parliamentary System are extremely platform-oriented, and personality-politics, while still not entirely absent, is reduced to such a small degree.
How do you differentiate the different “persons” who are running for President in a Presidential System? In the developed West, where people are a lot more mature and bit more serious about policies and issues, the USA and France choose their “person” based partly on the platform he/she advocates as well as his/her overall personality.
But in the Philippines, since Filipinos are generally simple-minded (lack of quality education and are dumbed-down by media) and prefer to discuss (or gossip about) people (and people’s personalities), the inherent personality-orientation that is already embedded in the Presidential System gets extremely magnified so that platform really does get relegated to the dust-bin.
While the USA and France, being countries that directly choose their Presidents, still emphasize the importance of platforms even if the personality of the candidates for president does play a role in determining who wins, Filipinos – especially the ordinary people – don’t care much about platforms and elections really are just a popularity contest: witness the overused term “winnability.”
It’s an unfortunate fact, but the only real way to move away from too much of the personality-orientation in Philippine politics is really to reject the personality-oriented Presidential System and replace it with the more inherently “Platform-oriented” Parliamentary System.
But of course, we’ve all heard that stupid rhetoric about ‘the shift to a “Parliamentary System” being one that is made for the perpetuation in power of .’
Thanks to all that, we are stuck with our sub-standard Presidential Elections that are ultimately based on personality (that’s what the simple-minded masa goes for right?) and the platforms and policy advocacies are largely just decorations for the aesthetic consumption of the razor-thin intelligentsia.
What’s your stand on shifting to the Parliamentary System, Manolo?
Don’t you agree that it’s the right thing to do, or do you prefer to just stick to this lousy Presidential popularity contest we have?
Edward,
Very interesting overview. I think US politics is migrating to an odd form of party system because the partisan pressure is so high for all to think and act alike, within the party. Nonetheless, the debates are fun to watch. Loved Ross Perot, and the entertainment of Dennis K. and Ron P. They make a lot of sense, except for the impracticality of getting from A to Q.
I also think it is not necessary to be parliamentary or presidential, or dictatorial. Hong Kong is, I believe, run as a corporation. I’d say that model is what the Philippines needs . . . but will never get, due to lack of “creative pro-activity”.
The only thing that is not reactive here is the graft.
Joe
Joe,
Who’s Edward?
By the way, Hong Kong and Singapore are run similarly: like Corporations. HK & Singapore, both having formerly been British, have a parliamentary bias to how they’re run.
Now think about the following:
The Parliamentary System most CLOSELY RESEMBLES the corporate share-based determination of which shareholder calls the shots.
In a corporation, the most clear-cut way for a shareholder to call the shots is for that shareholder to have more than 50% of all available shares.
However, it’s also true that you yourself don’t necessarily need to own more than 50% of the shares in the company to have control, but YOU CAN CONVINCE OTHER SHAREHOLDERS to “join forces with you” and form a bloc. This is actually similar to the coalition-building dynamic found in certain countries’ parliamentary systems which are not based on a two-party system.
In a huge corporation, thus, even if you merely hold 20% of the entire number of shares, but you’re so good at making solid plans and have a good vision for the company, you might be able to convince 3 other major (not majority) shareholders each with, say, 15%, 13%, 5% of the entire number of shares, so that all of you, in total, end up with 20+15+13+5 = 53%.
As 53% is over 50%, you automatically have “majority.” And in that situation, you now have control (you’re now Chairman of the Board) and can now shakeup the management structure of the company to either retain the current CEO (and just convince him to do your bidding), or remove the CEO and you, being the guy who initiated the shakeup, can take his place (and be both Chairman of the Board and CEO) or assign another CEO.
In the situation above, we’re talking about “shares” owned by shareholders.
Translated into the Parliamentary System, change shares with Parliamentary SEATS, and change major shareholders into PARTIES -> parties, who are ultimately placed in there by the voters, who are themselves the country’s “shareholders.”
The “bloc” then changes into “coalition.”
It’s a real no-brainer now, that if this kind of structure IS HOW CORPORATIONS ARE RUN (and so far, this system based on who holds the “majority of the shares” or “who has formed a majority bloc of shareholders” is the most efficient and fairest way to determine who has control of the company’s destiny, where more shares = greater ownership; Have more than 50% = effective control of decision-making), then this structure should be used for Government as well…
This structure is already being used for government in certain countries: it’s called the Parliamentary System.
Real Deal,
Hah, “Edward” is an echo, a short circuit of the synapses of my creaky brain, rather like me calling my young son by his big sister’s name.
Thanks for the perspective. I appreciate it. And also for the prioritization of your presidential candidates on another blog thread.
Joe
Just in case Noynoy proceeds with meeting Cardinal Vidal and other officials of the Church regarding his stand on the RH bill (though I do have concerns about it); should it go badly, maybe my advice below might be of some help.
If they are to part diffferently; maybe he should ask the good Cardinal and other officials of the Church if they will pray for his soul and that of his supporters.
When he comes out and people ask him what happened; he can always say “Ayos. Pagdadasal nila kami”!
Or “Ayos. Pagdadasal nila tayo!”
Platform is a contract with us, and a checklist of what he or she will do. We must know what we are getting into.
It has never been in Philippine politics. Because, voters did not
demand it. All the previous candidates do in the past: popularize
empty slogans; boring speeches and rhetorics; and bring Showbiz
personalities in the campaign. The Showbiz people took the hint.
We elected a Jueteng Lord President Erap Estrada and his actor
son Jinggoy Estrada. Some became Governors like Vilma Santos.
This is what we got…incompetent showbiz people!
There has never been an election where parties did not have a platform. The problem has always been living up to the platform
I think its the reverse actually
pro-elitist and anti-poor.
In his case, the elitist being his friends and relatives and the poor being the farmers who serve is feudal estate.
Once he wins (if he wins), the elitists who pushed him to run would be asking favors back. Saying its because of them he won. They are right btw since they are the ones helping him gain popularity.
Noyonoy: manok ng mga elitista.
That sounds even more altruistic Edward.
At the surface, it is intended for political grandstanding to project an image otherwise a mere put on. This blurs the line between what is true from what is mere pretension, condescencion if you will.
Noynoy belongs to the ‘upper middle class household’ or traditional oligarchs (the Cojuangcos) and it is hard to believe, along Marxist’s line, that he betrays his own class beginnings.
Edward and Primer
This marxist class war rhetoric is old, tired, and based on assumptions that no longer hold true. Our society is not the static system protrayed by marxist analysis.
Manila’s four hundred has grown exponentially. We cannot attribute this growth to the overactive loins of the so-called traditional elites. The fact is the elite has grown is proof that there is upward mobility in our society.
Sure there are still a lot of poor people in our country and their ranks swell but it’s also true that the elite rank, as in “can afford”, has grown.
There are other factors besides that now imaginary oligarchy for the gap between rich and poor. Look at the Forbes list of richest Filipinos and you will find that most of them rose up from the ranks in the last fifty years.
As Chito Madrigal said,
“As for high society, which took much of my time in the past, I must say that its days are over. Finished. Society, as we knew it in the 1950’s till the 1980’s is dead. It has been killed by new contending forces and has sunk without a trace. The rise of new classes, a drastic change in public ideology and the social contract, the expanding economy have done it in. It’s almost as if there had been a revolution. The detritus is the new cafe and club society we see parlayed and hyped up in the lifestyle sections of the press today.”
Get off the class war game it’s an outmoded way of analysis. It does not apply to the Philippines. You’d be better off analyzing things by looking at the “weather weather lang” dynamics between politics and business
MCB:
Au contraire,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism:
MCB:
With the recent recessions, Marx has actually been enjoying a resurgence. :)
Denying the class antagonisms and class-based conflict does not make it disappear – much as denying Hacienda Luisita makes it disappear.
That class war analysis only works in static societies. But when you have a society that has new rich and new poor coming in all the time then it does not apply. Your oligarchy is always changing so your class enemies change too. Does a poor man who wins millions in the lotto become a class enemy? Does he become am oligarch? Whenever you have a new president a new oligarchy emerges, sure some stay on top for a long time because their businesses are solid enough to withstand political winds, but for the most part wealth and power changes hands with every new administration.
The individual moves from one class to another – that’s not hard to understand.
moreover – while there is presumption that members of the class will protect the privileges that come with the class – there is also conflict within the class as one party tries to gain ascendancy within the class. but that misses the point -that “The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs. But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. ”
What you are seeing is an intramural within the landlords and oligarchs – pedigree vs pedigree. :D
Abe,
I don’t blame you to think of me as worshipper of the benignoistic cult as I find that to be a crass diminution.
To the point, gentleman, if I may oblige.
In either chambers of Congress, be it House of Representatives or the Senate, there is just no monopoly of ideas. Ergo, there is no monopoly of bills or resolutions. In fact, there can be two exactly similar bills by two different authors and for that matter, co-authors since such act does not violate any particular law or protocol.
In the case at bar, it is not true that there no similar bills as there are such bills. Or refer to HB 345 in the case of the House and SB 2497 in the case of the Senate of the 13th Congress.
If you want a similar bill in the 14th Congress in so far as the Senate is concerned, we can point to SB 2179 authored by Sen. Revilla which seeks a daily increase in wage of P125 for workers or personnel in the private sector.
We cannot anymore beg the question if Noynoy filed those bills you cited even before he has the presidency in sight. Point is, he is not the only one.
Truth is, there is no such thing as fanfare in filing bills or resolutions – that is a very dangerous game, matter-of-factly.
Neither of Aquino’s Senate bills that you cite has become law. They are good ideas, not achievements, and in fact might be construed as evidence that he really can’t get things done, all good intentions aside.
Ben K,
“in fact might be construed as evidence that he really can’t get things done,”
Or they can be construed as evidence that this regime has complete control of Congress and any bill aimed at curtailing corruption, human rights violations, and the powers of the Executive will never see the light of day.
well.. that’s a good explanation about the botched CARP – the Aquinos and Cojuangcos had complete control of Congress and any bill aimed at genuinely redistributing land (not a piece of paper) will never see the light of day.
Someone wrote here the other day, “If you put a kitten in a den of snakes, you will not emerge with kittens.” I was referring to Mr. Aquino’s mother, who did not “turn the country around”.
Now, Mr. Aquino might be a kitten, or a panther, depending on his inner strength, but it is still a den of snakes.
Which reminds me of the cobra we found atop the trash pile a while back, hissing and spitting at the gardner, who was gamely trying to whack him with a rake whilst begging permission to retreat to her home some 2K away . . .
We all retreated. At least Mr. Aquino authored bills that had the right idea . . . maybe as president, he can charm snakes . . .
Joe
One needs a gang to get the den of thieves to behave.
So worrying about the inner circle isn’t enough….
one has to wonder who are the gangmates that Noy hopes
will be in Congress should he get to malacanang.
Same question — who form the inner circle, and who are
the gangmates who will be on Villar’s side.
Or Teodoro or whoever becomes Lakas standardbearer.
===========
But getting answers can wait until December or even later.
Cardinal Vidal is playing dirty pool by focusing on Noynoy. He should ask all the candidates their position on the RH bill first before he opens his mouth and lays down the gauntlet on Noynoy.
Two different this’es, but the sentences are:
“I won’t vote for you, and I will tell others not to vote for you, because I feel strongly about this.” — Cardinal Vidal says.
“I will vote for you, and I will tell others to vote for you, because I feel strongly about this.” — Gov Panlilio says.
Also a different “this” — Panfilo Lacson to Erap : “I won’t vote for you, and I will tell others not to vote for you, because I feel strongly about this.”
Just listen to the answer from Senator Jinggoy Estrada to see if the “this” can affect your may2010 vote.
http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=7259
abe,
There shall be no debate how Congress serves as a mere “rubber stamp” of Malacanang through this conduit route called “bills certified as urgent” by the Palace.
However, I still sustain my intellectual reservation as when you claim that the Marxist’s dialectical materialism does apply only in static societies, for to begin with, you failed to define what are static societies?
Unless it becomes classic begging the question, I am sure that Marxist’s theory is a “perfect theoretical model” and to this day, it has never been debunked. Or ask Alex Magno, my teacher.
Primer, it’s MB who has raised the issue that “for the most part wealth and power change hands,” suggesting in effect that the projected polarization of capitalist societies into bourgeoisie and proletarians has been debunked. The suggestion has some validity. For example many FV commenters I suppose do not feel exploited in the Marxist sense.
But let me point out however that Marx works still informs critical theorizing and remains a viable intellectual tradition. In essence, Marx postulates that capitalism is sustained by the exploitation of labor power through the capitalists’ appropriation of the surplus value of the goods produced by labor. Marx thinks that this situation will first lead to profits and production declining while unemployment and monopoly control of production are increasing and ultimately mobilize the proletariat for an inevitable revolution.
There are today many intellectuals and progressives who are attempting to resurrect the Marxian tradition stressing the humanist aspect of it – the elimination of inequalities and exploitation, sans the predicted revolution.
Primer,
About Noynoy’s legislative initiatives, Senate Bill No. 1370, in particular, you will probably appreciate better the grave implication of such a proposed legislation mandating the distribution to workers of ten percent of the company’s profit before taxes on a yearly basis if we put it in this perspective: if SMC’s profit in 2008 for example is P20 billion, SMC will be required by the law sponsored by Noynoy to give P2 billion to the SMC employees. If SMC doubles its profits this year, the share of the workers will increase to another P4 billion.
The profit the company is required under the proposed law – it covers “any company and business establishment” – to share to the employee will be in addition to regular wages and other worker’s incentives. This measure is not at all the same as setting a legal minimum wage, the subject of HB 345 and SB 2497 that you cited, which is rather a typical occurrence.
Obviously, it is the kind of piece of legislation that will not pass muster, abe.
But for all intent and purpose, bills that promote economic welfare of workers would be the same pie.
At FV, I don’t think there is anything that approximates Marxist tradition of “diametrically opposed views” – just nothing. It’s tamed – no ‘class struggles’ between the intellectual bourgeouis class and the intelectual proletariats – just nothing but suppression of critical rationalism.