All eyes are on the Lakas-CMD Party and its tea party this weekend:
The Inquirer editorial thinks the President’s playing good cop bad cop with Fidel Ramos.
The news says:
FVR won’t change stand on ‘no-el’, says spokesman (ABS-CBN) but since ‘I won’t step down’: President determined to serve out her term (Manila Times) and, No one-on-one confrontation, just a get-together of 5 (also Manila Times), and Malacañang ready to throw book at FVR (Daily Tribune), presto, the result was:
GMA-FVR meeting ends in compromise (Standard-Today), or put another way, Joe de V asks Ramos to junk GMA-quit call: FVR, GMA meet; row not taken up
Dan Mariano thinks Fidel Ramos is cleverer than people think.
Amando Doronila believes the pressing issue of the day is charter change.
Michael Tan has an intriguing column on omens.
Technorati Tags: Philippines, politics
amazing isn’t it? the way FVR and GMA could meet in person and not talk about FVR’s call for the latter to quit by 2007 as if nothing like that ever happened? amnesia? O talagang pakitaang-tao na lamang?
Yes Dan Mariano made an interesting analysis of FVR.he is smart but in the same breath he does not have the monopoly to smartness.He certainly knows how to hold this cards close to his chest.His obviously keeping a lot of people guessing.
But will he succed making PGMA step down 2007?
Or his FVR “over beleaving” in himself too much?
Sobrang bebib sa sarile?
If FVR is is exploiting survey results that show that there is a relation of the people going for as long as PGMA steps down. I think FVR is doing a great diservice to the Nation.
I think it is a selfish act to connect the issue of charter change w/ PGMA steping down 2007.
I think the people must be guided to understand the pros & cons of charter change & it’s merits because it will directly affect our lives in the long term.
I think it is foolish & irresponsible to use the issue of charter change as a means to make PGMA step down.
If today we are in deep shit it’s because we have always in the past used anything for short term selfish ends.
In a way we have run our democracy to the ground & used it for selective interest.
If today we are drowing in a “messy democracy”. We have only ourselves to blame.
Sorting out our problems are more complicated then ever.
There has to be an end for the penchant or attitude of using anything for sort term gains such as putting conditions to what can make our country competiive in the community of Nations.
The opposition will only support charter change on the condition that PGMA step down.They really could not care less for the merits of the issue.
If this is so then we are declaring publicly the line of reasoning of a “corrupt mind”.The “corrut mind” never does anything for nothing.
Merits are never considered but “what’s in it for me”.
If we say that we are fighting corruption then we are fighting aginst oursleves!!
You’re right Joey, sorting out the issues is very complicated specially since the Garci issue and Charter Change have been conflated. From what i gather, these are the options presented:
(1) Doronila argues that a change to a parliamentary system in 2007 with corresponding parliamentary elections will resolve the festering crisis of legitimacy.
(2) GMA’s & JDV’s preferred option which has everyone holding onto power until 2010. This of course would of course mean that the question of legitimacy remains unresolved for the duration.
(3) If the above two does not happen, and depending on the mood at that time, the planned 2007 mid-term elections would referendum on GMA’s legitimacy with the possible (but not guaranteed) outcome of this matter being resolved. One possible outcome would be the VP taking over, which to many people, presents its own set of problems.
Excluding the truly indifferent, various parties would then have the following preferences:
A. Those who believe in an elite-run democracy and want to inoculate the system against future actors, media personalities or the like would fight for (1).
B. Even if you’re not an elitist, but believe that an inferior democracy is better than none at all, you may also be compelled to choose (1) given the circumstances.
C. The ‘have faith in GMA’ & ‘no alternative to GMA’ crowd will of course choose (2).
D. Those who aim to bring about radical change in the system would, for strategic reasons, want scenario (2).
E. Those who have lost faith in Philippine democracy and want a return some form strong-man/woman rule would live with (2).
F. Those who count on the mid-term elections to help resolve this matter will choose (3).
G. Those who don’t fall in any of the above categories would stick with (3).
Any help in identifying or framing more/different options/preferences to sort things out would be appreciated.
Certainly Ramos did not think he has the monopoly of smartness. It is our labeling and territorial way of thinking of who is smart or who is not. Unlike most Filipinos who have considerable influence and chose to do nothing, Ramos by far chose to express his personal opinion which can tilt the balance of power. While Arroyo is not willing to relinquish power, the opposition favors military junta to unseat her. Ramos is just doing common sense to push the power play back to the table where everyone has the good chance (congress to endorse, people to ratify) to make a determination. That is how democracy suppose to work.
And if the public opinion is the measurement, Ramos is in the right direction.
For now, it is for the congress to the right thing (a wishful thinking since most members would rather have no-election until 2010). People elected their congressmen, so what have you gotten? And then, people ended up complaining.
on the clever fvr going into second childhood:
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
– William Shakespeare
cvj,thanks.It seems to me one of the first things to do is to sort out things.
The legitimacy issue.personaly,I think it is an invented issue that makes things unnesseserely more complicated.Pls. help me inderstand how much attention must be given to material that is totaly illegal.
hard as it may be but until there is serios evidence on massive cheating lat 2004.We should really give it a rest.
It seems the the vote recount in Cebu is going in favor of PGMA.Will this mean that in time she will be vendicated?
We have to put a lid on our “shoot first ask question later” style.
Personaly, I don’t think PGMA should resign.Like it or not she has a constitutional right until 2010.
Unfortunatly for all of us is that we are making conclussion w/o proper evidence & relying on perception.
It seems to me not until we are able to break away from so many things that are bringing us down we will be endlesly creating more problems then there really are.
Yes dodong,I have mentioned it already in my other entries.FVR is presenting himself as a viable opposition alternative to PGMA.He is very well aware that the present “clowns” in the oppossition are totaly unacceptable.FVR is filling-in the void.
Personaly,I think his doing a fair thing w/in the democratic proceses.
having said that,it does not give him the authority to demand PGMA steps down because she also has a constitutional mandate until 2010. By insisting on that does not make him any different from the unacceptable opposition.The faces change but the music is the same.The thing is FVR is also sending a clear signal to the oppostion who is in command.
If FVR is riding on PGMA’s unpopularity based on 2005 events then he is just playing politics over again in a desperate move to mix chacha to a condition.
Who is FVR to tinker w/ a constitutional right?
We really have to put a lid in twisting & adjusting things for convience.
It seems to me in the battle between PGMA & FVR eventualy it will be JDV that will be the winner.
But my position will be always be to work w/in the framework of the constitution.
Actually, we should be more concerned w/ puting in order the election system.because at the end of the day it is our vote that will give the clear message.
We really have to be more concerned w/ making our election credible.Building a house starts from the foundations up & not the roof down.
It’s strange that during FVR’s presidency he would always push for the “win win” solution & today insted his rejecting any win win solution left & right.Why?
It is strange the FVR who has pushed for charter change in his time is today creating conditions for it to succed.Why?
Why did not FVR just dump PGMA in 2005 & insted now presures her to step down even if PGMA has a constitutional mandate until 2010? what’s in it for him?
Joey, while i hear what you are saying that legitimacy should not be made an issue, the fact is, for a lot us, the issue *does* exist, and cannot/will not be ignored. ‘Consistency’ as described here – https://www.quezon.ph/blog/?p=477 compels me not to do so. This rules out favoring the status-quo, much less a no-el scenario.
I also agree with Dodong (in Comment #4) when he says that FVR, by his actions, is at least doing our democratic system a favor. It would be the height of inconsistency for any elected incumbent to favor not having elections. That is patently self-serving and, in principle, would make them no better than the fascist, communist or islamic theocrats who view elections just as a tactical means for seizing power.
cvj, i guess we really do agree w/ dodong that FVR is doing the democratic system a favor.Infact,I have alos said that he is presenting himself as a symbol.Since the opposition is so inept.FVR is taking there place to be a mre viable voice.
Lets face it that even PGMA has democratic right.She has been elected to serve until 2010.It seems to me that we have to deal w/ realities in life.
Personaly.I think we can’t go on always challeging the Law or the Constitution at every instance or at a whim.
Personaly,I’m not really concerned for an election or not.
I think that before we start talking election.Lets first be more concerned to make reforms on our electoral system.while we may be disagreing on that issue.Maybe it’s best that we thing of what will make it credible first.
Maybe another thing we should consider is that,again,like it or not, we are in a “transition” period already.Like it or not we are going toward something that will be new.
In the proceses we have to let go of “old & cumbersome” laugage & “old ways” of thinking.
Elections in our country has been a matter of cource.Idealy it is supposed to bring us certain results.The results seem not to have been very incoureging.After every election we seem to look forward only to the next & so on.
In a way, so what of those 3 years of trasition.Maybe we could weigh things more from what we stand to gain in terms of less political bikering that has always drugged our country down.
Legitimacy issue:it boils down to having solid proof.I think a person w/ solid proof is taken seriously & not anyone who is controled by perception or subjective feelings.In the real world anyone who gives results is rewarded.
If we are to progres we too have to be radical w/ our ways of thinking & making conclussions.
Since it’s a free world anyway.We could always entertain the issue of legitimacy.
The question is though.What will you achive?Will it make you a better person?will it hepl the poor?Will you be better then the others?
I think society should be made of a people who do things to the best of their ability w/ high standards of morality & fairness.
Joey, it’s been good to discuss these matters as it helps make things a bit clearer for me. Here is what i’ve gathered so far:
– On making sure the next elections are credible, everybody is in agreement. Where we differ is on the timing and its role in the larger scheme of things. I view it as an opportunity to help resolve the issue of legitimacy while you consider it’s role within the framework of a transition towards a hopefully better system.
– On FVR’s role in getting the issues democratically resolved, apparently we also agree. What is interesting is your take that by doing so, FVR is trying to present himself as a viable ‘opposition’ candidate of sorts.
– On legitimacy, we differ on the weight of this issue and, more importantly, on who has the burden of proof and explanation.
– On the matter of transition and the transition period, we differ on the details, but i agree with you that it has been unfortunately conflated with the preceding issue of legitimacy. The previous links by mlq3 on the Doronila and Business Mirror editorials demarcates two schools of thought. From your comments, i believe you are closer to the Business Mirror’s position. For me, Randy David’s column today expresses my take on the whole matter:
http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=62984&col=60
– On the role & value of the next election (or its postponement), for you, this is a subset of the issues of transition and transiton period while for me (as stated in the first bullet), this has to do with resolving the legitimacy question.
While the above looks like a loop to me, i think there is value trying to define its contours as it may come in handy during the eventual resolution.
yes cvj, i agree on the value of difining contours,it will certainly help for better understanding.
yes we do differ on the elections or not because i’m of the position of not using an election as an instrument of “withch hunting” so as to push a created issue of ligitimacy.it will only make us all losers at the end.i’m for political peace & to concentrate on the economy that will benefit a greater majority.
on the trasition period issue.i’m not really a great fun of rady david.i’m sorry that i have not read his article so as to be more objective of my responce to you.yes, it is the issue again of legitimacy that is clouding the transition period.
Loren is footing the bill for the recount that for now it seems is favoring pgma.my question is,are the people watching & listening?because the recount is a source of answering the legitimacy issue.but i’m sure that issue after issue will be brought up so as to continue having the legitimacy issue.i just don’t knoew if it’s something in our culture or physcology that defeats are never admited.
yes in a battle of credibility.can you imagine any of the clowns winning against fvr? fvr is playing the lesser evil role.he is just “exploiting” pgma’s delema.exploiting has nothing to do w/ truths.it’s all about oppurtunity.
if there is anything that we should be brainstorming ideas on is how to be able to have credible elections.like i already said earlier.elections are the roots the foundations our the democratic proceses.lets build a house from the foundations up & not from the roof down because of being intangled in so many issue that will fall in place anyway if only we had credible elections.
if i had any wish it will be that we could have the wisdom to sort out things in the most objective ways.and have the courage to know what are the things that help & those that burden.it’s a fact of life that one can never have everything in life in one go.wanting to have everything will only end up having nothing & more problems
anyway,cvj,thanks & i appreciate this exchange of ideas.we may not agree w/ each other but that is also relative.but i guess we are listening to each other & that is a rarety in this days.
As far as brainstorming on how to have credible elections, there’s an interesting sub-discussion on this matter over on the neighboring weblog, particularly DJB’s comment.
http://www.rickycarandang.com/?p=51#comment-736
I’ve also given my two cents on this matter in comment #8 under mlq3’s previous weblog post (‘When the president goes, what then?’).