Comments on: Only the beginning

By: Bencard

Bencard — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:21:47 +0000

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”?

By: vince

vince — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:16:13 +0000

The question is, can we dismantle the oligarchy peacefully? – cvj

Depends, i think, on who – specifically – the “we” you are referring to.

By: brian jay

brian jay — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:17:49 +0000

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.

By: Madonna

Madonna — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:30:34 +0000

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.

By: J_AG

J_AG — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:33:12 +0000

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.

By: cvj

cvj — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:20:55 +0000

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?

By: karlpopper

karlpopper — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:30:14 +0000

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).

By: Bencard

Bencard — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:03:43 +0000

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.

By: blackshama

blackshama — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:50:05 +0000

“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.

By: Bert

Bert — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:48:43 +0000

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!