MANILA, Philippines - If the Original Sin was Hello Garci, the Continuing Crime is the thwarted kidnapping of Jun Lozada. Both offered the administration a chance at redemption; instead, both have led to an ever-widening circle of accomplices willing to sacrifice everything?reputation, integrity, credibility?in the service of the President.
Cory Aquino, Joseph Estrada, Jejomar Binay, Satur Ocampo, Jun Lozada, even Noli de Castro: what do they all have in common?
Aquino represents how President Macapagal-Arroyo perverted People Power, by being the beneficiary of it, and yet once having authority, using every means at her disposal to thwart it once she was revealed as just another crook, but indeed, smarter than others. Aquino represents the dreams of Edsa I and II, which may not have achieved everything we?d hoped for, but left the country better off than what had come before.
She has been criticized over Hacienda Luisita, a formidable criticism if only it weren?t so selectively applied.
The criticisms ignore the role agents provocateur might have played in the killings there; and the role the government played in targeting her and yet ignoring the absence of any corresponding efforts, however feeble (as the Luisita shares of stock system is) on the part of the haciendas of the Arroyos, and their allies, where the peasant unions in Luisita are a far-off dream for the peasants in so many other haciendas, including those of the Arroyos.
Estrada represents how the President perverted our system of justice by reducing the justice system to a political one, involving her haggling over conditions for Estrada?s freedom. Too much focus has been placed on the delaying tactics pursued by his lawyers and his acceptance of a pardon (both fully within his rights as the accused at the time), and not enough attention placed on how the cases prospered despite the equally tactical approach taken by the administration.
Too much focus has been placed on how divisive Estrada?s presence is, in gatherings critical of the President, and not enough recognition is given to his representing a formidable constituency that has every right to demand a role in unfolding events. No one can, or should, ignore that Estrada represents the dream of a significant chunk of the underprivileged to genuinely matter, not just at election time, but in the corridors of power all the time. No one else has succeeded in courting the loyalty of those who have every right to insist that their leader should be in their own image, representing not only their flaws, but also what they consider their virtues.
The question is not whether free citizen Estrada should be at rallies, but rather, whether he understands what he himself represents, and whether his personal popularity should be shared with discredited leaders from the past like the Tatads and Macedas who have never even been held to account the way Estrada has?and who don?t have the benefit of the presidential get-out-of-jail-free card he enjoys.
Binay represents how the traditional opposition, for all its defects, has been persecuted by an administration that respects no limits and will pervert the law to destroy its opponents. He represents officials who have what the President lacks: genuine mandates and genuine authority, instead of the usurped, vicious and warped kind wielded by Malacańang. To be sure, those who want political reforms view the Binays of our political life as part of the problem.
But if politicians are ever-adaptable, then encouraging these politicians to be part of the solution is the call of the times. And while I didn?t vote for De Castro, let me point out he also has two things the President doesn?t have: he has a mandate, and the confidence of a large percentage of the public. Return to the Original Sin, and the Continuing Crime, and ponder whether criticisms of him are even valid.
Ocampo represents how the administration is prepared to cross every line?even lines no civilized, democratic state should even imagine can be crossed?to liquidate its critics. He represents those who have stood by their ideology through thick and thin, and who have dared offer themselves as a genuine alternative to the people: to the extent that they have offered themselves up as an electoral alternative.
That the Left must confront the ambiguity of its position?that it can be half-rebel and half-statesman?goes without saying. This ambiguity is what accounts for the ability of the administration to justify a policy of extermination; but this ambiguity will only be resolved if society at large insists on the widest possible latitude being given to the participation of the Left in our political life. How can we appeal to the Left to abandon violence, if those from its ranks who engage in peaceful organizing are harassed and liquidated by force of arms?
Lozada represents the fixers who are expendable at a crisis? notice, the moment their loyalties to their patrons become questionable. Whatever Lozada says and whatever he thinks are secondary to what he represents: the belief by the authorities that individual lives are disposable, that the law can be subverted, and political office exists to be abused if confronted with the possibility of being held accountable. No official has suffered even a suspension pending investigation, and yet their own testimony has damned them.
At the Makati City rally two Fridays ago, there was a central square, formed at the crossroads of Ayala and Makati avenues. In that square, no flags were allowed, as all the groups came together in common opposition to the President, her people and all their works. On one side were the students, businessmen and religious opposed to the President but also opposed to Estrada; on the other side, the Left; on another side were the supporters of Estrada and of the traditional opposition. Divergent views, some of them antagonistic to each other, but united in terms of recognizing that the Original Sin and Continuing Crime requires taking a stand. That is democracy.
