The Long View
When our representatives fail
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:59:00 02/24/2008
MANILA, Philippines - The Jesuit Bishop Francisco Claver on Feb. 19 asked this: “In a very true sense then, our problem comes down to this: how to correct the aberration that is the present administration without destroying the stabilizing structure that is our democratic system of government? We keep the structure but correct the aberration? But if the correcting destroys the structure—or weakens it immensely—what then?”
He advised focusing on what People Power was meant to originally achieve: “People Power was born to bring back stability. I think it should be used now to protect it, not to destroy or weaken it. The way things are now, it is being invoked again in the effort to correct what I called above an aberration, but I’m afraid its repetition in the present crisis will only lead to that unwanted world-without-end-series of Edsas.”
And yet, he also warned, “If we do not go the way then of that infinite series, we still are left with what I call the aberration. We haven’t put our heads together yet to see how we go about correcting it without bringing the whole house crashing down on us. This is what we should be doing now.”
Let me try to contribute to the ongoing effort of putting our heads together.
We are a representative democracy: we elect officials, for a fixed term, to govern in our name. We are also a plebiscitary democracy: we have a long-standing political tradition of having leaders who periodically refresh their mandates, by finding means to sound out public opinion when unexpected, but great, issues arise. We have, therefore, democracy that unites these two concepts—of entrusting representatives with the governing power, but reserving for ourselves the right to take away that delegated power—by means of People Power.
Back in 2005 (June 16), I felt that the overwhelming majority of our people wanted the system to work, and were not rash to judge until the system had been given a chance to resolve things. Let the system be given a chance; but should it fail us, then we cannot deny ourselves the option of People Power. I do believe this: the targets of People Power in the past cannot be the beneficiaries of People Power in the future; and also that those who have participated in People Power in the past cannot claim that it should be denied anybody in the future. Most of all: People Power is peaceful, it is disciplined, it is idealistic, and it places the leaders and followers side by side and in the line of fire together.
Last year, I offered up a definition of People Power: it’s a phenomenon that requires certain givens for it to be recognized as such and not considered mob rule. The givens are: People Power must be anchored on moral outrage and moral principles; it must be peaceful; it must have wide support cutting across all classes and barriers of gender; it must at the same time be organized and yet spontaneous.
We know full well that People Power, too, is the instrument of last resort. The only question is not how and when, but rather, if enough of us have come to the conclusion that it must happen.
When the President inoculated herself, last year, from impeachment until this July, she did so with the connivance of the House. A House now dominated by her two sons who are more powerful than the new Speaker. The President herself has admitted that since last year, her entire government has tried to cover up a fact she knew: that the NBN-ZTE deal was a crooked one. So now, she’s willing to sacrifice her underlings.
Save the aberration, but discard the subordinates? Here, then, is why a personality, the President, is the paramount issue.
And this is why I have tried to point out, too, that any political question involves issues and personalities in equal measure. You cannot and should not separate the two.
If you are after accountability and responsibility, it begins with you making the choice to demand them, and insisting someone, somewhere, be held to account. Even as we all recognize the problems are getting deeper and more widespread by the day, which requires institutional solutions, too.
A system may lead people to be criminals but when a criminal is caught, you begin by punishing the criminal and then addressing the factors that lead people to commit such crimes. But to focus on the factors, to the exclusion of the criminals, is to embolden the criminals in our midst.
But we are a fundamentally kind people; we believe in redemption. Many still hold out the hope that our leaders can redeem themselves. I am one of those people.
I called for redemption on June 30, 2005; it has taken time but one by one, that redemption has taken place. Year by year, sectors of society formerly over-prudent have seen that every time they gave the President the benefit of the doubt, she only increased her number of accomplices; and so now, the question has been reduced to this: will you still continue being the President’s accomplice, or not? Because, if any sacrifice is going to be made, it won’t be on the President’s part: she will always abandon her accomplices to try to save herself.
The last group holding out, completely, is our political leadership.
Let’s recognize that an unpopular government has three main weapons: fixed terms, access to the national treasury and guns.
The only arms we have are the kind we link together when we stand side by side. The arsenal of tyranny should only be defeated by means of the peaceful arsenal of democracy: noise barrages, gatherings, marches, a national strike: in other words, People Power or the looming threat of it.
If we do not want People Power to be unleashed, our leaders must redeem themselves; but they are not only refusing to do it, they are pushing the public to consider other options. The only way to call the bluff of our officials is by willing to risk People Power.
|
