The American people, all 63 million or more of them hellbent to toss out in a surge ala “people power” eight years of neo-conservative era that has given us the quagmire of Iraq and the near meltdown of capitalism, have (actually) pulled off a revolution – or, at least, a transformational cleansing process for the United States that has turned out an obscure son of a Kenyan Muslim to become the most powerful and the most popular person in the world today.
The movement is however bloodless and, paradoxically, in the same intra-constitutional way the spurned regime had been first installed to power via a velvet coup – through the infamous 5-4 vote, we should not forget, of the five somber shamans in black robe. But if 2000 was a feat of judicial elitism, 2008 is a triumph of democracy.
Now, the challenge ahead of U.S. President–elect Barack Obama is how to translate his mandate to fulfill his promise of building a government for the people (Obama’s compelling victory notwithstanding, according to the election demographic data white protestant Americans, still the power axis in the United States, have rejected Obama by a margin of 65% to 35%).
Obama was then swift and smart during his victory speech in Chicago’s Grand Park, with a quarter of a million people of great diversity in attendance, to temper high optimisms by forewarning America and the world of the “enormity of the task ahead” and that “There will be setbacks and false starts” although he gave more than mere glimpses of what he plans to do.
For instance, on the economic front, he made it clear that “we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers” even as he bared a glint of Reaganesque: “government can’t solve every problem.”
On foreign policy, the president-elect appeared to restate American exceptionalism: “our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.” He did not however hesitate to manifest his resolve of toughness, or resort to the apt use of hard power whenever called for: “To those who would tear this world down: We will defeat you.”
But Obama was also unabashed about his soft and human side: “Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am.”
The multi-dimensional character of Mr. Obama seems to transcend the narrow symbolism of race, ethnicity and class which, as the worldwide euphoria to his successful journey suggests, peoples across the global spectrum identify with or embrace (with only a very few exceptions such those from Israel, Georgia and, unfortunately, Philippines, the home of “people power”).
Now, what should be top on the agenda of the new leadership? Hillary Clinton has two suggestions which appear to jibe with the direction an Obama presidency has professed to take: 1) build a new economy and 2) rebuild America’s leadership in the world.
To build a new economy, the Obama administration must first fight the present recession. On the campaign trail, Obama has been quite transparent about his longer-term strategy to overcome the economic crises. During an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in battleground Florida, Obama was forthright in his extemporaneous response:
. . . I haven’t been hiding the ball on this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China’s doing right now. Their trains are faster than us, their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive 21st century economy and we’re not.
One of the most frustrating things over the last eight years has been the ability of George Bush to pile up debt and huge deficits and not have anything to show for it, right? So, if you’re going to run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our sewer lines, our water system, laying broadband lines.
One of, I think, the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid. Because if we’re going to be serious about renewable energy, I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago. And we’re going to have to have a smart grid if we want to use plug-in hybrids then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that’s generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs, just in new energy.
But, it’s huge projects that generally speaking, you’re not going to have private enterprise want to take all those risks. And we’re going to have to be involved in that process.
x x x
Well, look. I am a strong believer in the free market. I am a strong believer in capitalism. But, I am also a strong believer that there are certain common goods that you know — our air, our water, making sure that people are safe — that require us to have some regulation. Now, it has to be well designed.
But, the financial system is a classic example of a deregulation philosophy run amuck. And now, you see the consequences and ironically, had we had some sensible regulation, we would not have now, actually, a much closer approximation to socialism when it comes to the banking system, than anything that any Democrats have been proposing over the last several years. When you don’t guard against excess, then a lot of times government ends up having to step in anyway, in a much more burdensome way.
On the other hand, to rebuild America’s leadership in the world, the new government must demonstrate right away concrete steps toward ending the war in Iraq.
Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope (2006): “how quickly a complete withdrawal can be accomplished is a matter of imperfect judgment based on a series of best guesses.” This early, the president-elect will be getting top-secret national security briefings from different government intelligence services. The grave responsibility attached to the high office of the U.S. presidency requires that Obama must listen to the experts but that does not mean that he must not continue to hearken to the collective judgment of ordinary people even on the very sensitive issue of ending a war.
Interestingly, how Obama plans to refocus the war on terror was also covered in the Maddow interview:
. . . we can’t allow bin Laden and al Qaeda to establish safe havens where they are plotting to kill Americans and train troops. There’s no dispute that that’s taking place right now. And so, we’ve got to make Afghanistan stable enough and focused enough on controlling its own borders, that we’re not seeing the Taliban and al Qaeda return.
In the meantime, I think the most important thing that we’re going to have to do in addition to adding more troops, providing alternatives to farmers for the poppy trade. Making sure that services are actually being delivered to the Afghan people.
The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.
And, we’ve got to say to the Pakistani people, we’re not just going to fund a dictator in order for us to feel comfortable with who we’re dealing with. We’re going to respect democracy.
The historic Obama movement has succeeded against formidable barriers primarily because of intense commitments (yes, we can) to address the people’s concerns about a sinking economy and a protracted Iraq war as well as the sea of troubles that necessarily flows from these concerns. The honeymoon and celebratory mode will quickly dissipate with the slightest perception of backsliding or flip-flopping on these promises.
So, yes: “We as a people (must) get there.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
obama magic?. nah, not even “people power”. it’s more like the power of $600 million campaign funds and the fannie/freddie meltdown which the liberals in congress and senate helped a lot to come about. a victory derived from that kind of combination is not that great, in my estimation.
omg, when will we get over this “people power” crap.
To be fair, maybe America has not felt this warm fuzzy feeling of community oneness in the last 20+ years or so which Obama now serves up to them — thus explaining the euphoria over there.
But for us in our pathetic islands to presume to commune with them on this? Jeez.
We’ve had our fair share of “people power”, yes, but nothing actually built on top of it (all we are left with is a pathetic hall of shame). Just like everything else, and just like what Bush did, we squandered any form of goodwill stirred up by what had become a shawarma exercise on our part.
So congrats to Obama and America. I’d place my money on the American people actually making something out of this wonderful coming together into a truly collective resolve to change.
As for us and our own gushings about how all that holds “promise” for our little American mini-me nation, well, what should truly humble our take on things should be our own dismal track record of building anything on top of our own (now devalued) versions of what America is experiencing today.
It’s simple, really™
Bencard,
The Obama fund raising was a people-powered operation (and yes BenignO, FV should probably look at this as a potential model) that will perhaps be the envy of political and similar campaigns in the future. Technology Review states that the Obama campaign has “turbocharged old-campaign tools,” integrating online activity with tasks volunteers can carry out in the real world, sending out text messages and emails to get millions to donate money, make calls, write letters, organize networks, etc.
On the other hand, McCain lost because, like you Bencard, his campaign was stuck with old ideological labels (the conservatism/liberalism and Left/Right dichotomies); whereas Obama framed the issues as a choice between “more of the same” and change or simply backward and forward that about 64 million Americans easily understood . . . and of course America also rejected the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac blame-game or the socialist and Marxist epithets.
btw, as you claim you are a Clintonian democrat, I’m assuming that you are not a Republican. Since the Clintons have fully backed Obama, please help us understand your principled opposition to Obama now.
Bencard,
Typical. LOL.
The truth of the matter is that the Obama campaign machine *knew* how to use the internet to reach out to the youth vote, and at the end of the day the huge amount of campaign funds it got were brought about by venues unimaginable to the McCain campaign: internet social networks wherein individuals themselves were able to raise money to support Obama.
No different from internet powered businesses that harness the newfound power of the information superhighway to jumpstart their business. Without it, Obama would’ve lost, IMHO.
Abe,
Bencard’s principled opposition? David Dinkins is black, he sucked as mayor of New York City. Ergo, Barack Obama, being black, will suck as President of the United States.
“We have a faith in simple dreams,
An insistence on small miracles.
We can tuck in our children at night
And know that they are fed and clothed
And safe from harm.
That we can say what we think,
Write what we think,
Without hearing a sudden knock on the door.
That we can participate in the political process
Without fear of retribution!”
Barack Obama
so, what are you gonna do about that, huh limjap? do you want me to give you a lot more circumstantial evidence to prove my point? i’m sure you have not lived in this country as long as i have so you wouldn’t understand where i’m coming from.
abe, if obama had the gushing adulation such as yours by a sufficient number of people, he would not have needed that mind-boggling sums of money to get elected. he was elected by less than half of all the voters who cast their votes, a slight plurality over that of mccain’s, despite all that money and “turbocharged old campaign tools” that you seem to be in so much awe.
i don’t believe in socialism/marxism, so i’ll be watching and trying not to be caught flat-footed.
Bencard,
No, I want you to give me solid evidence, not circumstantial ones, and definitely not circumstantial evidence wherein skin color is the only significant factor, as race is a characteristic of a person that cannot be changed.
As such any argument attributed to mere race or skin color is definitely an argumentum ad hominem, and therefore fallacious.
limjap, i’m gonna give you what i wanna give, not what you WANT. who do you think you are, punk!
LOL, puso mo, manong!
I wonder how many people told Obama this line when he said he wanted to become President? :P
Just an aside, Atty. Ben,
Am I correct that Connecticut voted Obama?
Just asking.
Unfortunately EDSA 1 which enthroned Corazon Aquino and succeeding presidents have tarnished and abused “People Power”. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s enthronement is to date the worst example of the abuse of “People Power”. DJB has written heap about this. We should put an end to this people power idiocy (as abused in the petition mode of amendment) and support changes to the constitution using what it prescribes.
People Power is only preserved within a constitutional framework. This exactly what the Obama rise to the presidency tells us. Without the constitution, people power is tyranny.
America’s constitution worked seamlessly in this recent election.
ding, it seems, the entire east coast (including connecticut) went with obama.
Blackshama, please recall the following exchange at Manolo Quezon’s blog:
People Power has lost its functionality. – Blackshama
People Power is liberal fascism. – DJB
There may be as many critiques of People Power as there are advocates.
As an advocate, what I see as one basis of People Power is the idea that the people collectively establish governments that may rule over people individually; and individuals agree to such an arrangement to be ruled, by obeying laws promulgated by the government as long as the government so established protects the people’s rights.
Hence, if the government abuses its powers or ignores the limitations the people impose on those powers, and existing curative or rectifying process is unavailing owing to the very same abuse of power or misuse of privileges, then the collectivity can empower itself to remove the abusive and unjust government and enter into a new arrangement. The new arrangement may hold on to revere deep-held values or break new paths. No matter.
In a democracy, the wisdom (or folly) of exercising People Power is not subject to any higher authority than the people themselves (a “political question” in the sphere of Constitutional Law). And the fact that only an intense few dare to actualize the manifestation of the power does not militate against the collective sense of the exercise. For a collective decision requires neither a perfect unanimity nor even a numerical majority supposedly determined in the ordinary course in an open tally sheet (as in a plebiscite or a recall process.)
When the government itself ignores or flouts the “rules of the game” under the agreed upon arrangement, such rules as those pertaining to certain essential safeguards ensuring for instance that governmental powers will not be concentrated in one agency or person, collective decision only requires a morally informed consensus among the people, as the principal, on the expediency of exercising People Power. One important caveat however: to be legitimate, the underlying reason behind the consensus ought to get to a continuum deep and wide enough to overpower competing choices including one that may press on to conserve the existing arrangement.
Once a successful People Power is acquiesced in by the people, a new covenant is thereby established which sets into motion the democratic cycle anew.
Now, Blackshama, you say: People Power is only preserved within a constitutional framework. This is exactly what the Obama rise to the presidency tells us. Without the constitution, people power is tyranny.
In the same thread from Manolo’s blog, I have also written:
Recall that on the 16th anniversary of the first People Power, the EDSA shrine was ordered shut by the Catholic Church to political activity. Then, former presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Cory Aquino, two key figures of both the 1986 and 2001 People Power revolts, thought people power could be bad for democracy. Removing unjust or abusive leaders, according to Ramos, should be left to the political institutions in accordance with the Constitution in order for democracy to mature. Aquino, on the other hand, has cautioned against making a habit out of People Power. Other opinion makers, PDI columnist Amando Doronila for one, have also expressed their trepidation about the “excesses of people power.” The fear that People Power is an affliction in the body politic rather than a curative force in our “dysfunctional institutions” is therefore understandable from the standpoint of status quo defenders.
One of my contentions has been that the challenge posed by People Power to dominant beliefs, value systems and institutions is comparable to the threat of a rival ideology such as communism or authoritarianism or as real as the menace of terrorism.
In a larger sense, I see People Power as representing a bellicose movement that has impacted a broad spectrum of the civil society asserting its misgivings with inefficient and ineffectual institutions in our version of democracy and with the rank subservience of those institutions to the dominant segments of our society.
In a narrower legal sense, People Power is now an insert into our constitutional order as a result of EDSA I. It finds support in a number of express provisions in the 1987 Constitution (see for example Article XIII, Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution defining the role and rights of people’s organizations separately from the right peaceably to assemble or to petition the government for redress of grievances as well as in Article VI, Sections1 and 32 in relation to Article XVII, Section 2 reserving to the people the power of initiative and referendum.) The philosophical consultative character of the governance system under a “people powered” constitution thus informs a continuing consensus proceeding from the first enactment of People Power.
My thesis is that People Power serves the fulfillment of the democratic dreams even if broader participation does not necessarily produce better decisions whether in the electoral process or in ordinary policy matters except maybe in terms of educating the people in civic consciousness as was seen in the impeachment trial (of Estrada) that had been precipitated by the various crosscurrents of People Power.
People Power conceivably creates the perception that it delegitimizes traditional institutions such as one that protects the accumulation process. So, we are often wont to react with the anti-ideology that citizens should be retarded into passivity and participation reduced, in order for “market” and “democracy” to work. To some status quo defenders, “stability” for the wealth-creating process to thrive (a salutary end in itself) is more important than the rhetoric of participation and therefore restoring and preserving the “governability of democracy” require the depoliticalizing of the citizens. (Although resolving economic scarcity could be the sine qua non for a successful program of universal education towards attaining a “democracy of the educated.”)
Even serious partisans of deferential politics, who set themselves apart from the “irrational mob,” are thus exposed by their fondness for social “control mechanisms,” subservience to hierarchy and hence, their hostility to democratic ideals and practices. This translates into an unabashed distrust of the people’s capacity to protect and govern themselves, despite professing that the powers of government are derived from the people. As People Power will continue to uncover the pursuit of such a political myth is anti-democratic, plain and simple.
And I offered these musings:
. . . in advanced democracies already rendered sanitized of populist traditions, extra-constitutional checks and balances, perceived as liable to produce out-of-control public rage, is considered as “excess of democracy.” In such a mistaken perception, passivity creeps in, followed soon by self-disenfranchisement, thereby debilitating “legitimation.” U.S. President George W. Bush, along with his most recent predecessors, elected by only a minority of the popular votes of an apathetic electorate, is weighed down with this problem. Bush needed two wars to secure his legitimacy, the ideologically partisan stamp of his election by the Supreme Court exercising procedural checks and balances notwithstanding.
With People Power, the Filipinos have taken a different route, which, if served well by living room politics and allowed full sway, could open up a whole lot of possibilities. If fully empowered, Filipinos as active participants in some genuine democratic processes could explore alternative political styles of thought or arrangements outside the range of the elite consensus. Without rocking the boat, the possibilities could be infinite . . . (including a reexamination of) the supposed virtues of “market-democracy” with its promise of opportunity to save mankind or putting to the test People Power itself in some other contexts than as “parliamentary of the streets” . . . if only to find out on an on-going basis what works and what doesn’t.
On the other hand,
. . . public policies brought about by courtroom statecraft [and the Court does often legislate and set policies] have as much far-reaching consequences as those engendered by television or living room politics. Just as reciprocal checks and balances within government are required in a procedural democracy, so also are social checks and balances (upon governmental decisions) within the larger society in People Power democracy. Hence, a decision even by a court of last resort is final only when society acquiesces in it as a well-reasoned one. It goes without saying that when it comes to the exercise of People Power, the people has the last and final say.
More exchange ensued:
The only lasting effect (People Power) leaves on society is government instability – mindanaoan
I have actually argued that the exercise of People Power serves as some sort of pressure vents to release inbuilt people’s grievances trapped in a hothouse and that the Filipinos are just about to master the phenomenon of People Power to a point of making it predictable. This is how I’ve explained it in older posts:
1) Historically in the Philippines, the volcano theory has been delusional at best, sometimes cast unwittingly to justify the clamor for societal changes that directly affect the health, safety, property, liberty and general well-being of those ensnared in the hothouse. At a closer look, those political and societal anxieties thus trapped are no more of those who have something to lose than of the shirtless, toothless and shoeless. But as long as they don’t start preaching armed revolution, such a clamor could only be taken as earnest attempts to maintain order, not to sow anarchy, and therefore similarly tranquilizing. (That seems to demote People Power advocates here to pseudo-revolutionaries if judged against one of America’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who believed “Every generation needs a new revolution.”)
2) On the other hand, James Madison believed that if unchecked, the majority, that is, the uneducated and the unpropertied Americans, would tyrannize the minority – the privileged, the wellborn and the wealthy, like him.
Madison and his colleagues feared People Power (of the American revolutionaries who had vanquished the British a decade before the Philadelphia convention), believing that human nature is essentially depraved by the thirst for power.
By instituting procedural democracy including the legal disenfranchisement of the propertyless Americans (not to mention the native Indians, the blacks, and the women), Madison preserved the power of the few in America.
The legacy of American constitutionalism to the Filipinos in 1935 was similarly contrived in the Madisonian fashion. In that vein, Philippine democracy was equally of spurious character – well, until the success of two People Power revolutions that have proved the Madisonian thoughts wrong.
In both historic events, the Filipino people have shown no ambition or greed, no thirst for power or wealth that Madison and his colleagues feared. Filipinos have just been too conscious of their civility they have balked to exercise the full force of their authority when apropos to do so.
Somehow, by some divine guidance they know, even in the most perilous of moments, the line that divides People Power and mobocracy. Filipinos are indeed too politically sophisticated they can discern quite easily in their unconscious if the exercise of the sovereign power is genuine or not. This is uniquely Filipino.
Isn’t constant calling for people power every time we had a problem with our elected officials a status quo? – rego
We should not call on People Power every time we have a problem with our elected leaders. We should only invoke the power when the problem with our elected leaders is so grave it strikes at the core of our democratic ideas, practices and institutions such as for example when our president cheats in an election or compromises our territorial integrity and the institutional process to hold him accountable is flouted by those charged to make it work for the common good.
At bottom is the proposition that the purpose of all political actions is either the preservation or change of the status quo. Conservatives who fear a change for the worse will opt to keep the status quo. Transformation agents desiring for the better will aim to break new paths. Indeed, neither has the monopoly of the good thoughts for the attainment of the good society.
Abe, . . . “As People Power will continue to uncover the pursuit of such a political myth is anti-democratic, plain and simple” . . . whose point of view that idea is coming from? – justice league
The political myth I am talking about is the Platonic and Aristotelian political philosophy (the basis of the Western political tradition) probably best exemplified by the Madisionian thoughts above, extolling the rule of the high-minded elites (or the philosopher-kings).
but regardless of the nobility of its cause, no one can discard “the fact that only an intense few dare to actualize the manifestation of the power.” to claim collective decision without going through an open tally sheet (as in a plebiscite or a recall process.) is not the path to democratic dreams but the avenue to liberal fascism. - mindanaon
The American Revolution for example, like many revolutions, was a minority movement. During the revolution many colonists sat on the fence, were apathetic, and went on doing their daily routines.
Obama magic?. nah, not even “people power.” – Bencard
The Obama movement, as a people power movement, is a majoritarian as well as potentially a global movement.
abe, good of you to string up together all those points of view. however, conspicuosly missing from it is an exact definition of “people” in your “people power”, beyond a sweeping label “collective” or “collectivity”. who is it determined by and how?
remember both edsa 1 and 2 were carried out by a relatively small fraction of the population coming from a small fraction of the philippine territory. strictly speaking, i don’t think the subsequent “acquiesence” through silence and inaction by the rest of the country, without judicial validation through application of the rule of law, is sufficient to establish a de jure government.
btw, you are not advocating a complete and absolute gutting of the existing order everytime a group of individuals decides to to do so, and the setting up a “new” one from its ashes, are you?
Bencard,
Up N had asked similar questions before and this is how I replied:
One should not lose sight of the fact that the mere warning snarls of People Power had already resulted (before the planned interfaith rally at the Rizal Park on Dec. 17, 2006 took place) in deterring the duplicitous scheming of the majority in the Lower House and some Palace operators (to cha-cha) .
As a form of external checks and balances, the resurgent movement not only cut through the illogic of blatantly numeral ratiocination of the people’s representatives that had attended the two abortive impeachments against President Arroyo but also preempted the slow if measured pace of the power of judicial review when invoked in the normal operation of procedural democracy. In this recent exhibition, the successful check was external but not extra-constitutional, which means that the institution of People Power has proven that it can operate within the rules of the game of the system in place.
It is well understood that the rules of the game allow political competitions of many sorts such as among political parties, and even inter-chamber contests. But often, these competitions do not guarantee the political choices of the majority although they have the effect of stimulating the vibrancy of the minorities (civil societies).
The preferences of the intense minorities, when communicated in an organized way, must be taken into account by the minority (the political and economic elites) in making political decisions. For, when People Power is institutionalized (and I do believe that since the Spirit of ’86 that had ended the Marcos dictatorship, People Power has ensconced itself as an institution in Philippine politics) the elites may only ignore at their peril the choices of the intense minorities.
I then explained my ideation of People Power democracy to Up N by posting an old post:
People Power democracy . . . is the exercise by the people – the Civil Society – of the republican principle of the last say which may result to replace (as in People Power I) or keep (as in People Power II) the existing system. It does not decide particular issues for that would notionally be direct democracy. The triumph of People Power democracy should be measured not upon its physical manifestation that successfully brought about the immediate change desired, which is an end in itself, but when the consensus formed by civil society or civil societies – those politically informed, active and diverse minorities groups such as the business sectors, political alliances, labor unions, religious organizations, and the like – is brought to be reckoned with by those formally vested with policymaking. It is thus a continuing transformative citizenship. Whenever civil societies are marginalized in the governance process, the result could either be the rule by the privileged minority (or the oligarchy) or by the multitude, irrespective of the agreed upon formalities of governance.
In my view, in a true democracy, the people (the multitude) and the minority (the oligarchy) do not rule; the minorities (civil societies) do.
i don’t know about upn but i don’t find your response satisfactory. your “civil societies” is euphemism for interest groups that don’t necessarily represent the desires of the nation as a whole. anyone can form a group of militant activists and call it by a catchy acronym. can it speak for the people? how many of these would suffice – ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand?
i don’t think the “civil societies”, by themselves alone, ended marcos’ dictatorship. i think his own restraint in choosing not to fight it out in a fratricidal conflict, coupled with the u.s.’ irresistible persuasion, carried the day.
contrary to your advocacy, a rule by the minority is only feasible in a totalitarian system of governance. in a democracy, the ruler is the law, carried out by the representatives of all the people who are chosen by them according to the law that they (the people) created and established.
Bencard, first, do you agree with DJB that, getting down the brass tacks, the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines is nothing more than an NGO, i.e., a civil society group?
Now, do you agree with Alexander Hamilton who more than two centuries ago defended the existence (not necessarily of totalitarianism but) of the elite thus:
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the masses of people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right.”
Abe: There is a huge difference between people power and “People Power” the brand.
These words — for the people, of the people, by the people — have very strong appeal. “People Power” the brand less so.
Go back to your history and you would have seen as early as 2 weeks after a People-Power-Philippine-style, many people comment “… this is not representative democracy, this is mob action”.
abe, the catholic church is a non-governmental organization by constitutional mandate, consistent with the secularization of democratic governments in 16th century as propagated by america’s founding fathers. the separation of church and state is an established principle in modern democracies.
i maintain that the philippine clergy, catholic or otherwise, has no business meddling in government affairs, except to participate in the election process.
the church and the ordinary, run-of-the-mill “civic groups” may be both ngo’s but they both don’t necessarily represent the political
interests of each and every filipino.
btw, your quotation of alexander hamilton supports what i always argue, i.e., that the voice of the people is not always the voice of God, as shown by the clamor of the multitude to crucify Christ and to set the cut-throat bandit barrabas free.
UP n,
If you are referring to EDSA I as a “mob action,” well, it is one that, except for the diehards of then the exiled dictator Marcos, has enamored the world. Remember that when Cory Aquino came to address the United States Congress, US senators and congressmen fell over one another to have their picture taken with the world famous woman in yellow. Which history are you reading?
Bencard,
I don’t agree with DJB’s claim as a matter of fact because the Roman Catholic Church, which includes its hierarchy in the Philippines, is I believe the only other remaining superpower in the world after Soviet Union’s collapse (hence, if the Church is an NGO, it’s a superpower NGO). I’m not sure if you can then demote the Church’s hierarchy in the Philippines as “a group of militant activists” with some “catchy acronym.”
Bencard (and UP n),
Here’s the point: the reality is that the majority (the masses, in general) in a large-scale democracy never really rules (ergo, per Hamilton, the voice of the people is not God’s); the minority (among whom are the people’s representatives claiming to speak for the people) does.
In the Philippines, for example, if we say that the masses rule (and note that an overwhelming portion of the population in the country is impoverished) how come they are powerless to expropriate the properties of the wealthy for redistribution (as in a real land reform, for instance) or replace the whole system, to improve their lot? Doesn’t this tell us that the idea of mobocracy or the tyranny of the majority is false? If so, do you then agree that even in a democracy, tyranny is carried out, more often than not, by the minority?
What I’m basically saying is that if the multitude is essentially without power, it is then the organized actions of the minorities (meaning the civil societies) that serve as the external checks to the minority (the elites or the oligarchs).
Now, you will note that the power of the minorities is either actual or potential. It is actual when civil societies in fact succeed in translating their preferences into policy or law. It is potential when it serves as a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the powers that be. The latter (as a collectivized power of the Civil Society) is the nature of the People Power (in Lockean sense) institutionalized in the Philippines.
In the case of the Obama movement, it appears to me that his election to the presidency, posing as a challenge to the prevailing consensus (i.e., a predominantly white America should be ruled by white) is more or less a “popular” rather than minorities preference, so to that extent it is a “surge ala ‘people power.’”
let me just state my disagreement about people power. you have to separate the historical moment when a regime falls, from what follows. that being said, i do think what we overlook is that people power is the instrument of last resort, and that it is an altogether different instrument from armed revolution, two different ways to topple a regime. but two kinds of revolution.
therefore the problem is not with people power but with trying to confine people within the parameters of constitutionalism. doing that as djb argues, leaves an illogical and messy situation: how can you invoke the basic rights of a population or a portion of it to rebel and assert their fundamental sovereignty, and then declare the whole thing within the ambit of a constitution and its institutional frameworks of delegated powers?
much of the criticism of edsa in 1986 was that the revolutionary period was too brief, and too conservative from the get-go. my personal criticism of people power in 2001 was that it was not allowed to lead to its logical conclusion: the scrapping of the 1987 constitution and the proclamation of a revolutionary government.
every effort to contain people power oriented popualr action since then within the confines of the constitution has hobbled people power from the get-go, too.
as adams observed with the american revolution, all revolutions are minority achievements. in 1776 onwards, according to adams a third opposed britain, a third remained loyal to britain, a third tried to muddle along and not get caught in between. the rebels beat the loyalists with a lot of help from the french. but as with any regime change, silence implies consent and the legitimacy of the new american order was assured.
the same could be said of 2001, one of my arguments with djb: messy and unsatisfying as the resolution was, it was validated by the majority accepting the results, and ratified in the 2001 and was going to be ratified further in the 2004 elections. just as the 1987 and 1992 elections were an implied referendum on edsa and what followed.
since 2005 when everything has been up in the air, we have had a stalemate and in all such stalemates, the advantage is with the defender, in this case, the president. a significant portion either by conviction or conservatism, does not think any radical move is worth it, and has insisted on limiting any political action within the framework of the constitution.
it will be interesting to see if, with the entire constitutional framework poised to be changed, whether the current battlelines will remain static or not. the palace thinks, with good reason, i think, that it is finally poised to permanently secure the upper hand.
Its NOT people power ,stupid and thers is no magic either.
Unlike Bencard, I became an Obama admirer after the second presidential debate. (I dont like him during the primary and I was rooting for Hilary). And was one of those people rooting for him in Times square.
I just cannot agree that his winning the election is people power and magic. To me its all about running a very effective campaign, excellent oratorical and debating skills, managing and projecting himself very well in public, working hard, very strong organization skills, creativity, getting the right people to manage the the campaign and of course developing a presidential character and personality and goodluck.
There is really no magic in it!
in politics, oratorical and debating skills is the magic. that is, if you consider emotion and inspirations as a magical thing.
“Am I correct that Connecticut voted Obama?”
Yes it did and so does the rest of tristate, New York and New Jersey. Its not surprising because these states is traditionlay democrat. But what is really amazing is that it went heavily for Obama, there are some areas that went as high as 98precent for Obama, like Fort Greene where there are high concentration of white upper class people.
abe, i really don’t care what djb has to say about the catholic church. all i am saying to you is that, in the philipines, it is a monolithic organization and it is not part of the secular government, by specific prohibition of the constitution.
i hate to think you are skirting the real issue that i raised, i.e., that in our government system, as well as in any modern democracy, the ruler is the LAW, not some powerful group, minority or otherwise. we’ve been through this a lot of times before in some other blog, and yet you go back to your mantra (about how a dominant minority of the people can replace an existing order any time it gets dissatisfied with the current leader) again and again.
whatever problems you or djb have with edsa 1 or 2 are of no moment, i think. they don’t detract from the fact that ours is a government of laws and not of men. any and all violations of the law do not render it null or ineffective, for it has the necessary mechanism to sanction the violators according to the processes it prescribes. needless to say in the application of the law and its processes, there will be winners and losers. civility requires that when all is said and done, the losers have to accept defeat, not insist on changing the rules to alter the result of the contest. at the end of the day, there’s no need to throw away the baby with the bathwater, as you and like-minded commenters here seem to insist.
to rego: Abe Margallo seems to be on this mission to label “People Power” (with caps — as in Edsa 2 or Edsa 1-Cardinal Sin/Radio Veritas or Edsa 3) as a solution to many Philippine ills. I see this post as his attempt to ride the Obama coattails — Obama having won the Nov2008 elections. What I see is Abe inserting the two words “people power” into the Obama win (even if I don’t remember the two words “people power” (small caps) in any of the Obama political ads or position papers). Abe’s intent (in my opinion) is sleight-of-hand, because 30% of those who associate thw vanilla words people power with Obama-2008 may just associate the brand-”People Power” with the Obama win.
Side-topic:
People wanting to see Manila of 1938, click on this youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpbsyNcI3I
mlq3: let me just state my disagreement about people power. you have to separate the historical moment when a regime falls, from what follows. that being said, i do think what we overlook is that people power is the instrument of last resort, and that it is an altogether different instrument from armed revolution, two different ways to topple a regime. but two kinds of revolution.
Abe: I agree. Indeed, a revolution can be peaceful or violent. Thomas Jefferson also described his election to the US presidency as revolutionary.
A revolution is also a process and an (immediate) outcome. And here’s how I put it before: While People Power I and People Power II were successful peaceful revolts, they were however intricately linked together as a continuing and unfinished revolution of the Filipino people. Arroyo herself appeared to recognize the distinction post-People Power II. “The fight is not over yet,” she declared. (She was however an unwilling rebel, a Mary-come-lately and, of course, what has happened thereafter is another story).
mlq3: therefore the problem is not with people power but with trying to confine people within the parameters of constitutionalism. doing that as djb argues, leaves an illogical and messy situation: how can you invoke the basic rights of a population or a portion of it to rebel and assert their fundamental sovereignty, and then declare the whole thing within the ambit of a constitution and its institutional frameworks of delegated powers?
Abe: That was the deep hole the SC got itself into. By declaring People Power II as intra-constitutional (meaning there was no revolt, Pres. Estrada simply resigned), the Court exposed Gen. Reyes, VP Arroyo and spouse Mike, Davide et al to being liable to the commission of various political crimes against the State (insurrection, sedition, tumults and other public disturbances, disloyalty of public officers, etc)
mlq3: much of the criticism of edsa in 1986 was that the revolutionary period was too brief, and too conservative from the get-go. my personal criticism of people power in 2001 was that it was not allowed to lead to its logical conclusion: the scrapping of the 1987 constitution and the proclamation of a revolutionary government.
every effort to contain people power oriented popular action since then within the confines of the constitution has hobbled people power from the get-go, too.
Abe: Amen.
mlq3: as adams observed with the american revolution, all revolutions are minority achievements. in 1776 onwards, according to adams a third opposed britain, a third remained loyal to britain, a third tried to muddle along and not get caught in between. the rebels beat the loyalists with a lot of help from the french. but as with any regime change, silence implies consent and the legitimacy of the new american order was assured.
Abe: Silence also means acquiescence.
mlq3: the same could be said of 2001, one of my arguments with djb: messy and unsatisfying as the resolution was, it was validated by the majority accepting the results, and ratified in the 2001 and was going to be ratified further in the 2004 elections. just as the 1987 and 1992 elections were an implied referendum on edsa and what followed.
Abe: The SC had no choice (the Sword of Damocles in play) but let Arroyo rule. Allowing the return of Erap to the Palace would have been disastrous for the country.
mlq3: since 2005 when everything has been up in the air, we have had a stalemate and in all such stalemates, the advantage is with the defender, in this case, the president. a significant portion either by conviction or conservatism, does not think any radical move is worth it, and has insisted on limiting any political action within the framework of the constitution.
Abe: Very well. To add to it, here’s how I weighed in on this score before:
If the events that have led to People Power I are any guide, revolutionary uprisings go through certain levels (of consciousness): First, the underlying belief by a sizeable segment of society that the rulers and certain institutional arrangements have lost legitimacy; second, certain intense participants or change agents have gotten around their sense of powerlessness and come to realize they have the power or capacity to effect the needed changes; third, the disaffected members of society have more or less formed a consensus as to the nature and or scope of the changes they desire to occur in lieu of the illegitimated rulers or arrangements, whether be it about a total systemic overhaul, a “regime change,” an extra-constitutional overthrowing of a corrupt or immoral government, etc.
My sense is that People Power III has already reached the first and second levels of consciousness described above. However, before the Great Beast (yes UP n, as in People Power with the upper cases) “could take care of itself” today it has yet to hurdle the third level of consciousness.
mlq3: it will be interesting to see if, with the entire constitutional framework poised to be changed, whether the current battle lines will remain static or not. the palace thinks, with good reason, i think, that it is finally poised to permanently secure the upper hand.
Abe: They’re probably thinking what’s hanging over their heads is gossamer.
Bencard,
Ours is a government of laws and not of men.
But laws are made by men.
My proposition is: More often than not, these laws are made by the minority unless resisted or changed by active minorities as I have defined both terms above. In this relationship, the majority often comes out empty handed but whenever collectivized and asserting its primacy, it can choose to change the entire legal order itself.
Cmon guys, get over this People Power thingie. People Power is for replacing dictators who rule with iron fists. I must say equivocally that Dubya is and was not a dictator, though some of us will say that he’s a warmonger.
Obama Magic? I don’t believe so. He was just lucky. If not for the economic meltdown over the last few weeks of the campaign, I bet that we would have a President-elect McCain instead of Obama.
Abe,
I think I agree with MLQ3 that your characterization of the Obama victory as “people power” is not right. If by People Power one means Edsa Dos, which I herewith strictly distinguish from Edsa One in the fact that no new Constitution was ratified by the people and therefore Edsa Dos cannot be classified as “revolutionary”–even if both were peaceful regime changes.
I am as usual struck by the triteness of Bencard’s take on this from the relative safety of the principle that we are a govt of laws and not of men. To this day I am truly not sure whether he supports the 2001 regime change as being within the parameters of a lawful, constitutional transition. Or whether he might actually have the imagination to think that perhaps, just perhaps, the Supreme Court had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction in swearing in the vice president whilst the president was undergoing Senate impeachment trial. My “take” on Edsa Dos has always been from the ineradicable impression of a grave abuse of discretion by the Supreme Court into a proceeding in which the Constitution is crystal clear: trying all cases of impeachment is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate. The authorization to swear in Gloria was, is and always will be illegal, since it was based on a falsified claim: that on Saturday, 20 January 2001, President Joseph Estrada was “permanently incapacitated”. He obvious was not, is not, or ever will have been permanently incapacitated when Davide magically appeared at a clearly partisan political exercise with a hooting throng in front of a religious shrine, and inexplicably swore in the Vice President, without any pertinent legal case before him other than the Senate Impeachment Trial, in which he never even had a vote.
It was later claimed that Erap had actually resigned, though he has denied this vehemently since that first illegitimate date of GMA in the office of the President.
This stuff that happened at Edsa Dos and in the subsequent SC rulings, is so bizarre that Bencard’s invocation of “a govt of laws and not of men” is senseless drivel–even to freshmen law students who will tell you that what happened and what was later decided by the High Court are simply not right, and fly in the face of what their textbooks say about constitutionalism, separation of powers and the whole business of impeachment.
To be perfectly clear, it is my simple layman’s understanding that impeachment is a power solely and entirely owned by the Congress, since it is also the only branch of the govt without single impeachable officer. There are exactly 31 impeachable constitutional officers, none of them members of the House or Senate. The verdict of a Senate Impeachment Court cannot be appealed, reviewed or even so much as be stared at by the Supreme Court.
The People Power demonstrations led by the Catholic Church and Cardinal Sin that attended Edsa Dos were just cover and props for what really happened– a conspiracy among the Vice President, the Chief of Staff of the AFP (Angie Reyes–6 time Cabinet secretary) and Hilario Davide (safely on the cocktail party circuit at the UN in New York)–a mutiny and judicial-executive coup d’etat that took Erap out and swore GMA in.
They did this because after the Craven Eleven tipped its hand and revealed that the Senate was virtually sure to acquit Joseph Estrada, they had to do something.
But to this day, the sheer illegality of what Davide did at Edsa Dos — which was quintessentially to establish a govt of men and not of laws by violating his oath as CJ and as Presiding judge of the impeachment trial and the follow on decisions–will stand long as the nadir of Philippine constitutional jurisprudence and professional and personal ethics among Justices. I cannot point to clearer example of a violation of the very impt principle, a govt of laws and not of men.
For in Edsa Dos we see direct negation of the Constitutional provisions on presidential succession executed by the Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and done not to benefit or obey the Law, but to rid the country of Erap and install GMA.
Erap would’ve been acquitted at the Senate trial if Davide had instead done his duty and reconvened the trial So what?? We would’ve survived 3 more years of Erap. Then in 2004, GMA might not have had to sell her soul to the Devil in order to be elected President.
But there was no “People Power” at Edsa Dos. It was a coup d’etat of the most seamless, clever and inconspicuous type.
DJB,
Re PP II, the SC would have an easy way out of its dilemma if only it had chosen to shut its mouth and treat the revolt/coup as a political question as the Court had done in PP I.
Unfortunately, as in the MoA-Ad case the Court had succumbed to its penchant for loquacity and then settled for a “constructive resignation.”(In the MoA-AD case, President Arroyo was well within her executive prerogative to negotiate for peace in Mindanao but wisely backed off because of political pressure, hence Arroyo was legally correct but politically wrong; therefore, the case was not only moot but presented a political question).
The matter of the “craven eleven” was a classic example of “tyranny of the minority,” although within procedural democracy, the “majority” being the collectivized Civil Society demanding Erap’s ouster, and PP II whether an insurrection, a coup, a “people power” or a confluence of all, simply acted as an external veto of the tyrannical act.
What’s probably relevant to the main ideas of this piece is: Whether what has taken place is a yellow “people power,” a blue Obamania or a Jeffersonian revolution, there’s always a time lag between a revolt as the immediate outcome and a successful revolution. For example, the Jeffersonian revolution (for a populist democracy) was I believe completed by Andrew Jackson.
Now, the yellow revolution of PP I (after the successful revolt that ended the Marcos dictatorship) had a broader mandate than the Obama movement has despite Obama’s general rhetoric of hope and change.
Cory Aquino, except maybe in the sphere of civil and political rights, has I think wasted for the most part her goodwill to transform the Philippines (read: the “minority” prevailed). My take is that Obama must translate his magic (his personal magnetism, among others) into something that’s policy-relevant on two fronts (which will involve compromises with the minority): ending the Iraq war and overcoming the economic crises, before his movement of change could take deeper roots.
Btw, I agree with you that impeachment cases are outside the purview of “judicial review” that would be anchored on the so-called expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the SC.
djb @ 3:30pm, i’m sick and tired of debating these issues with you interminably. if you want, just go back and re-read all the exchanges we have had on this subject in mlq3′s blog and here. you can wallow in your own brand of constitutionalism and legalism (backed by your authorities, including 1st year law students) to your heart’s content and i will not care one bit. against your “layman’s” homespun rationalization, i’d put my bet on the jurists and justices of the sc, anytime.
abe @ 12:00pm, true, laws are made (and changed)by men but only through PROCESSES that were pre-ordained by the required MAJORITY (not minority) of the PEOPLE. these processes include, inter alia, elections, plebiscites, referenda, constitutional conventions, legislations, judicial adjudications, and law enforcement.
how in the world does the “majority” ever come out “empty-handed” without first defining what that majority is? and where is this “rule of minority” coming from?
you know, just for the record, the greatest lingering mystery is what i distinctly recall hearing as we listened to the radio in the vicinity of malacanan. the edsa shrine inauguration stopped the march on the palace dead in its tracks. and i recall the then-vice-president announce, “i hereby swear that i.. as *acting* president of the philippines…”
soon after all audio and video evidence of this vanished. no judicial notice was taken of it. even the media seems to have forgotten it.
incidentally for the lawyers an interesting question: let’s say one day the sc declares it actions in 2001 were not constitutional, which means at the very least we had merely a de facto government from 2001-2004. what happens to all the laws and executive issuances during that time? does presumption of regularity merely make them de facto legitimate?
Abe,
I’m sorry for giving the impression that I am debating these issues with Bencard. It’s your post after all, and he hasn’t yet had much too say, beyond bland if insistent generalities, on the central conceptual issues, which I find unfailingly material and relevant to the issues of today (including the 4th attempt at impeaching Arroyo, the Neri/ZTE/NBN deal, the MOA-AD and Jocjoc Bolante. And most importantly, to the status of Separation of Powers and checks and balances, without which we always have a govt of men and not of laws.
As you say, only time will tell, but I will go ahead of you to predict that Obama represents a cultural revolution for America. His triumph is not however a “black victory”. Paradoxically it is in fact even more of a white victory, a brown victory, a yellow victory, a red victory, for it proves that we, the rest of the People, have judged a candidate for President, not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character–imbued with an inspiring intelligence, a calm but steely temperament, and a genuine belief in the foundational ideas of America, of which he is a singular product and beneficiary.
As Colin Powell once said when asked how he felt as an African American at the prospect of a black president, “We are Americans first and foremost…”
I think the label “People Power” as we know it in these parts is “too small” for the phenomenon of Barack Obama.
MLQ3,
The case that was filed by Saguisag at the SC on Monday, 22 January 2001, became “Estrada v. Arroyo.” That was the wrong case to file. It should’ve been “Estrada v. Davide” because if there was a crime committed at Edsa Dos, it was Davide’s abandonment of the impeachment trial and his entirely illegal, unfounded act at Edsa Dos. The case ruling on Estrada v. Arroyo must be read as a defense of Hilario Davide’s and the Supreme Court’s actions on Saturday, 20 January 2001, when they established a fact –later falsified– that on that day Erap was “permanently incapacitated” and that therefore it was legitimate for the Veep to take over. Later we got “constructive resignation” — without which the Supreme Court Chief Justice and the CS AFP and the Veep look like they were involved in a coup d’etat. What People Power? The demonstrators were merely props in a judicial military coup d’etat.
A future SC could and ought to find Davide guilty of something. My layman’s knowledge fails me at this point because it is all legal terra incognita. He deserved to be impeached, but we all know what happened with that.
BTW, Amando Doronila’s book, The Fall of Joseph Estrada, contains much of the detailed timelines of events, statements, documents that I use to reflect on that seminal event of our faltering democracy.
The illegitimacy of the Arroyo regime goes back to Day One. But not even the Almighty Supreme Court can undo the evil that has already been done–most of it enabled by them!
Bencard,
The majority are the many who are ruled by a tiny few, the minority, who rule.
We would like to believe – those schooled in the formalism of the law above all – that in democracy the majority govern. The reality however is that between one election and the next, the mandate of the majority could get lost in the translation or be entirely ignored and the individual particle that forms the majority’s will may not have effective recourse in the interim but through the vigilance and proaction of the civil societies, the minorities, i.e., the media (old and new), religious organizations, student movements, labor unions etc.
When the lives of the many are shaped by how a handful of people shape public policies that reflect the latter’s values, I call that the rule of the minority.
mlq3,
Please take note further that the letter faxed by then VP GMA to the SC says that President Estrada was “permanently incapable of performing the duties of his office” as a result of “his permanent disability.” And then the letter proceeds in this manner:
“In view of this, I am assuming the position of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. Accordingly, I would like to take my oath as President of the Republic before the Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., today, 20 January 2001, 12:00 noon at Edsa Shrine, Quezon City, Metro Manila.
“May I have the honor to invite the members of the Honorable Court to attend the oath-taking.”
Very clearly,the letter shows that not only did VP Arroyo not talk about resignation of President Estrada, she also assumed the presidency BEFORE her oath-taking.
Re your other question about the effects of the SC declaring its actions in 2001 unconstitutional in the future (which is not likely to happen), what would most probably apply is how we have dealt with the Marcos experience. As you know, many of Marcos’ presidential decrees have been given full legal effects; in fact there are Marcos PDs that are still in force today. The acts of the Arroyo regime will be similarly considered as “operative facts” under accepted legal doctrines.
DJB,
Every American of any color or persuasion should be proud of America today.
Also, if Cory and GMA did not fail People Power, the PROCESS, it should be as big as Obamania. And don’t forget, Obama has yet to deal with the minority to carry out the mandates of the majority.