Only the beginning
March 4th, 2009 by Manuel BuencaminoDispatches from the Enchanted Kingdom
Only the beginning
An opinion column in another daily made me reflect on Edsa 1.
The column, “GMA wasn’t the only one missing at Edsa rites,” outlined what many believe to be the reasons Edsa lost its glow.
“The most evident reason is that People Power removed only Marcos but not the rotten system in which he thrived….What it actually brought back was the old oligarchy,” the columnist said.
He compared then with now. “As in Marcos’s time, a rubber-stamp Congress allows the powerful Executive to get away with murder, figuratively and literally. So long as they are sated with pork slabs, lawmakers will look the other way as Presidents illegally amass wealth. And as in Marcos’s time, the Judiciary can be bought. Today jurists uphold not the spirit of the law but the ability to bend it to suit moneyed interests. The military is as politicized as ever,” he wrote.
It’s true much is to be desired post-Edsa, but those who are disappointed that People Power did not bring about the downfall of the oligarchy must nevertheless recognize a revolution occurred.
People Power replaced one-man rule with a system based on a democratic Constitution ratified through a free election. Corazon Aquino didn’t have to do it. She could have kept the Revolutionary Government until “the danger of a counterrevolution passed and necessary reforms were put in place.” But she did not. That was a 180-degree turn from what used to be.
That we still do not live in a country where the rule of law reigns supreme is no reason to say the ultimate goal of Edsa was a restoration of the oligarchy, and not the return of the rule of law as the bedrock of our society. If restoration was the intent, then why did Aquino rush the 1987 Constitution?
The conflict between those who see Edsa as a revolution and those who see it as a restoration comes from a divergence of political approaches.
On one side are those who believe that the introduction of the rule of law precedes all development.
They say the rule of law is the tool with which to correct perceived inequalities in our society, that it makes possible an equal-opportunity society where people can rise through sheer luck, intelligence and hard work.
On the other side are those who start with the premise that the overthrow of the oligarchy is a prerequisite to the establishment of the rule of law. They say we need to start from scratch.
I see the transition of political systems, from autocracies to representative governments, as an evolutionary process. As each succeeding generation becomes less ignorant and more cognizant of its capacity for self-determination and governance, the movement toward government of, for and by the people becomes inevitable.
Revolution is the recourse of a people who, having outgrown the status quo, find themselves up against a government unwilling or unable to change with the times. In other words, when governments fall behind, they fall.
Before People Power, revolutions were always marked by violence—before, during and after. People Power changed all that. It proved nonviolent revolution was possible.
The goal of Edsa, the establishment of a society under the rule of law, is the challenge of our time. It requires dedication, hard work and patience. We still have a long way to go, but that is no reason to turn cynical.
People Power was not the end of a process. It was only the beginning.
March 4, 2009 at 1:33 am
We are just tired of EDSAs. One crook is replaced
by another ravenous crook…
March 4, 2009 at 1:47 am
She could have kept the Revolutionary Government until “the danger of a counterrevolution passed and necessary reforms were put in place.” But she did not. That was a 180-degree turn from what used to be
Now we are coming full circle from where Marcos was. Goddam irresponsible oligarchs!
March 4, 2009 at 1:48 am
Of course Edsa 1 was the ending. It was after the ending that the beginning starts.
Back to square one!
After the Edsa 1 we have to start from scratch again!
March 4, 2009 at 1:50 am
“I see the transition of political systems, from autocracies to representative governments, as an evolutionary process. As each succeeding generation becomes less ignorant and more cognizant of its capacity for self-determination and governance, the movement toward government of, for and by the people becomes inevitable.”
Unfortunately, Cory and Sin thwarted our evolution to a better democracy by shooting down attempts to amend or replace the ultimate EDSA product, the flawed 1987 Constitution.
March 4, 2009 at 3:03 am
nice post, mbuencamino. see what you can accomplish when you are serious?
nevertheless, the more i think about it, the more i see that cory’s presidency never ripen into a “de jure” government. she had always been a “revolutionary”, aka, de facto president. the constitition that bears her name was the fruit of that status and, therefore, acquired the same. a spring cannot rise above its source.
it would have been different had cory resigned as a revolutionary president after scheduling a national election pursuant to the laws and the constitution then in effect, run for the office
( to which her election was a cinch) then proceeded to re-write the 1972 constitution.
March 4, 2009 at 5:30 am
Surely I failed to know if there had been revolutions marked by violence before the Edsa 1 and for that matter before Edsa 2. Is that factual or figuratively speaking?
Surely, I don’t at all understand why People Power will always be the beginning of a process. Of course not or for what reason we will always have to begin without a social end reached and achieved?
If Cory did change the Constitution as she must seize that moment, it is not as if the Constitution that precedes that 1987 Constitution is anything but bad, defective or bedevilled. Maybe not at all.
If Edsas booted out Marcos, booted out Erap, it is so because each has been perceived in the level of public opinion as rotten. If they see that the president himself is rotten, they mistakenly think the whole system is rotten when it does not necessarily follow (non sequitur).
March 4, 2009 at 8:20 am
Good post in terms of defining the two competing schools of thought (i.e. ‘establish rule of law’ versus ‘dismantle the Oligarchy’), although i would dispute calling the second camp as ’start from scratch’. The one constant in our history (whether it be pre-EDSA, under Marcos or post-EDSA) has been the existence of an Oligarchy. That is why rule of law has always been defined in their terms. The question is, can we dismantle the oligarchy peacefully?
March 4, 2009 at 1:33 pm
You cannot separate the capture by the technocracy led by doctrinaire practitioners of neo-liberal theology of the policy making and implementation of economic policies from after Edsa I.
They had set the stage for the gutting of whatever was left of domestic policies intended to promote a more balanced economic framework with first establishing a viable agriculture and industrial base.
They were technocrats that believed in the almighty magic of the free market. They more than anyone else caused policies that subsidized an export or die framework that has not led to the strategic necessity of human resource exports.
While the entire world is seeing the lunacy of allowing “quants” to rule the banking industry in the world, we have had our own “quants” actually implementing policy here.
These economic “quants” have made good by working for the multilateral institutions involved in keeping this country deep in debt.
They were less concerned with institutional safeguards or quality of governance in the past.
Taxpayers were always liable anyway for governance misdeeds. Those guys from NEDA from Cory’s time till today should be made to held to account.
They deserve a firing squad more than the crooks in government that their insanity and lunacy has created.
March 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Rule of law post-Edsa is propped up by the superstructure of the oligarchy. Still. Just as it was in Marcos’ era and before. See the Left was right. Still they are. Economists and our leaders with liberal egghead-persuasion should read Marx, LOL.
cvj, right you are! The great big question is if we can dismantle the oligarchy peacefully. Marcos failed via Martial Law because the collateral damage was greater among the middle to lower classes.
March 4, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I’d like to see the true power of people. We have had enough EDSA’s that does not serve its true purpose. So far nothing has changed. Yes, we have the dictator, but with what? Something worse.
If this spiral continues a time will come for
peaceful demonstrations to come to an end. Perhaps, we could resort to something more serious methods. Something that will put shame to our leaders. Something like what the Thai’s did, rendering their airport useless that brought down their leader.
Even Rizal gave up hope on peaceful means. I still look forward to another revolution, in any form, that will ultimately bring our leaders to their senses.
When enslaved beyond comprehension, human nature falls short to reason and resort to force.
March 5, 2009 at 1:16 am
The question is, can we dismantle the oligarchy peacefully? – cvj
Depends, i think, on who – specifically – the “we” you are referring to.
March 5, 2009 at 2:21 am
spot on, vince. we also need a definition of “oligarchy” and who specifically belongs to it.
most of all, who determines who belongs to the “oligarchy” and the “we”?