Can democratic forces make common cause?
It should be a no-brainer, right? It’s right there in the name we use to identify the various groups: pro-democracy. But while preserving what remains of the democratic space is the primary objective, the bitter truth is “democracy” and “rule of law” are not winning messages. Even in the “snap elections” of 1986, Cory Aquino did not defeat Ferdinand Marcos on a restoration-of-democracy message; rather, the message after 20 years of Marcosian misrule was, simply, change. “Tama na, sobra na, palitan na.”
The idiomatic English equivalent, “We’ve had enough, this is too much, it’s time to change it,” lacks the punch of the original, but it has the advantage of reminding us that the last five years of abuse, bloodshed, cruelty, democratic erosion, and failure have brought us back to 1986: We really have had enough of the incompetence; the brutality is too much; it really is time to reject the incumbent.
But, as I argued in “How to take our country back” (1/5/21), “this greater constituency goes beyond being anti-Duterte.” The role of the political opposition is “to help” this still inchoate mass of aggrieved citizens, desperate for governance that is worthy of their sacrifices, their very citizenship, “imagine itself.”
On March 18, a new electoral coalition that spans the ideological spectrum from Bayan Muna on the left to Magdalo on the right, led by personalities who help define the center of Philippine politics, will be launched. I am not involved with 1Sambayan (I cannot be, as I take my limitations as a journalist seriously), but I have touched base with some of the coalition leaders. Their objective, in a word, is to help pro-democracy forces make common cause—by helping form a complete slate for national office. The main convenors, who include former justice Antonio Carpio, former ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, and former foreign secretary Albert del Rosario, pillars of the political center, are working to create the conditions that will help the coalition support common candidates for president, vice president, and a full 12-person Senate slate.
They have conducted exploratory and, from what I hear, truly candid conversations with many potential presidential candidates not aligned with the Dutertes. Some of those candidates may not even wish to claim the mantle of the opposition (in this light, please read my reflections on “Who is opposition?” 2/23/21), but even as I do not personally agree with some of the possible choices, this is what it means to pitch a big tent.
This new coalition bears watching. But it’s not the only one preparing to choose, or position, a presidential candidate as not aligned with the Dutertes. We Need A Leader 2022 released a slick music video yesterday, featuring the iconic musician Ely Buendia singing a catchy (and accurate) critique of the present government (but without naming President Duterte). The video was quickly taken off
YouTube by its creators, but it is clear that the main politician behind We Need A Leader is former speaker Pantaleon Alvarez. The enmity with Davao Mayor Sara Duterte has reached a point where Alvarez is preparing to add his still considerable resources behind yet another candidate from Mindanao. But if he is backing Manny Pacquiao, the question is: Does the famous boxer represent change, or continuity?
* * *
At last week’s news conference by petitioners in the Anti-Terror Law cases (as I have written before, I am also a co-petitioner), a short statement was read by colleague and columnist Ceres Doyo, herself a petitioner. Here are some excerpts:
We are petitioners in the Anti-Terror Law cases, representing different petitions, and we are deeply concerned about the continuing and unprecedented series of attacks on our lawyers. [The previous] week’s barbaric attempt on the life of one of our counsel, Attorney AK Guillen, in Iloilo City, proves that the danger the Anti-Terrorism Law represents to society is not only clear and present; it is happening now…
We urge the Supreme Court to come to the defense of all lawyers. In 2007, in the wake of a series of extrajudicial killings that had terrorized the nation, the Court convened a national consultative summit. Out of that summit, in what the Chief Justice at that time, Reynato Puno, called “a conspiracy of hope,” the Court instituted the writs of amparo and habeas data. In engaging Chief Justice Puno as a friend of the court in the ATL cases, we hope that the Court will be emboldened with the same sense of initiative and purpose, and provide all lawyers with a stronger shield with which to protect themselves. But we also appeal to the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order on the Anti-Terror Law now. Our plea is based on logic; the law legitimizes attacks on critics and their defenders. But it is also based on experience—the harrowing experience of human rights being deliberately ignored by agents of the State, innocent civilians (non-combatants all) red-tagged, lawyers painted broadly with a target on their back. TRO the Terror Law now.
On Twitter: @jnery_newsstand, email: [email protected]
