Manila abuzz with rumors is my Arab News column for this week.
Busy day, no time for updates.
Technorati Tags: military, Philippines, politics
66 thoughts on “Manila abuzz with rumors”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Lacson for president? Why not? It’s another jump into the unknown, but I’m willing to bet on it than continue sliding down with Gloria.
as a relative of a victim of the (in)famous Kuratong Baleleng incident, Lacson is never an option
The last time I checked, Lacson was not indicted in this case. So he remains innocent until proven guilty. (Sorry if I sound insensitive. I’m no Lacson fan, but I’ll bet on him over Gloria as I’ve stated above.)
But that still leaves questions of legitimacy. Constitutionally, Lacson is nowhere in the pecking order to the presidency. This choice might assuage the military, but it won’t provide the stability we’re seeking.
Edsa I, Edsa II, Edsa III, “Military installing Lacson as Pres” are all extra-constitutional acts. Which one is the best, or worst? When will it stop?
Whatever happens, I hope we have special elections as soon as GMA is gone.
And I don’t support lacson or anybody being installed as president in this manner. we’ve already had an experience like than in 2001, where arroyo was installed without elections. and it didn’t work quite that well, did it?
ping or drilon or magsaysay or biazon wants to be president, then they better support the move to hold special elections once arroyo is out.
no way will i support anybody that is not elected by the voters.
…
Whatever happens, I hope we have special elections as soon as GMA is gone.
And I don’t support lacson or anybody being installed as president in this manner. we’ve already had an experience like than in 2001, where arroyo was installed without elections. and it didn’t work quite that well, did it?
ping or drilon or magsaysay or biazon wants to be president, then they better support the move to hold special elections once arroyo is out.
no way will i support anybody that is not elected by the voters.
i know that a friend of mine was almost salvaged by lacson if not for berroya who intervined because this group of people who where about to be salvaged where able to write to the vatican to intervine for them & berroya had to
suggestion lang, easy lang kay lacson, you really know so lil about a guy who has a very cold look.
i herd of a mall in the states managed by his son.ever wounder why his family is so comfortable in the states?
Jon Mariano,
You wrote:
“I’m willing to bet on it than continue sliding down with Gloria.”
“…he remains innocent until proven guilty.”
————————————————-
To be even-handed:
Based on measurable data, the country is not sliding — but is actually climbing — with Gloria.
GMA is also innocent until proven guilty, no?
Ferdinand Marcos was accused of having stunted the growth and proliferation of young leaders, because he wanted to pertetuate himself in power. But 20 years after Marcos, we have never had, and still don’t have, inspiring leadership. From Edsa I on down, it’s been one unimaginative, disappointing leader after another. It’s pathetic that, among the choice of leaders, “None of the Above” ranks as the preference of a greater percentage of the country.
Among the lackluster line-up of leaders being presented, Ping Lacson certainly is the best choice. In the dog-eat-dog atmosphere that will prevail post-GMA, we will need tough, no-nonsense leadership. Lacson is the best equipped.
with regards to Lacson, indeed he’s not an option to take over the country, despite the fact that he’s a fellow Caviteno like me, which only reminds me of the very first dictator of the Philippines, Emilio Aguinaldo, another Caviteno and like Lacson, he’s among the list of Cavitenos I’m ashamed of.
Having lived through Marcosian rule, I always think of one word when I see Ping Lacson on TV – Metrocom. I have always thought of them as being much like the Nazi SS. Back then, the sight of those white cars with Metrocom emblazoned in red sent chills down my spine. Get into one of them and no one would ever see you again.
I’ve never met the man (except once, literally bumped into him at a rally in front of the Batasan). His demeanor strikes me as cold, a bit too stiff, and his eyes don’t smile when his mouth’s turned up. He carries heavy baggage, and I doubt if he’s ready to unpack.
My preferred scenario is here, also to have an elected president.
My reasons why I said the Philippines is sliding, I have written here, Gloria the Destroyer.
MLQ3,
In the event that a Lacson option to replace Gloria becomes realistic whether through a snap election or whatever, do you believe PDI will not come out guns ablazing against Ping to shoot him down even before the contest begins?
PDI has been consistently against the soldier turned politico.
a de brux, yes, of course. if the media remains open for business.
MLQ3,
I have faith in the courage and the genius of men and women of Philippine media. Haven’t they always managed to keep media business open even in the most adverse political conditions, i.e., Marcos’ martial law years?
Why, even when Louis Beltran and his publishers was being prosecuted for libel and persecuted for I don’t know what else, etc. and his newspaper was suffering from advertising boycott, his medium survived.
And who was it who said that “The pen is mightier than the sword.”?
your arab news column almost makes lacson palatable. if indeed he has reached an accomodation with arroyo, then what we have is nothing less than a brave new world. let’s just hope that, like octavian, they keep the forms of democracy and constitutionality, to keep from spooking the investors. then perhaps we can all concentrate on what really matters, increasing our per capita GDP.
It was Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Mme. de brux. The quotation is “beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword”.
In Aldous Huxley’s novel, humanity achieves utopia at a heavy price. “Humanity is carefree, healthy, and technologically advanced. Warfare and poverty have been eliminated, all races are equal, and everyone is permanently happy. The irony is, however, that all of these things have been achieved by eliminating many things  family, cultural diversity, art, literature, religion and philosophy.”
Brave New World, footvoter? Indeed!
i really enjoy your blog. may i link your blog to mine?
i don’t exactly expect utopia with that odd coupling, dominique, nor would i expect the new order to extinguish art, religion and culture, but the metaphor pretty much captures the ambivalence i feel. would i trade some democratic space for a little bit more of the stability necessary for economic progress? eight months ago, i might have said no. now, i’m not so sure.
of course, this assumes that there would be a curtailment of democratic space, and that having lacson on board can actually make things more stable.
anyway, i think i’ll wait for further developments before engaging in any more speculation.
maryanne, please do! and i will do likewise!
geo, just a question. how did the us economy do under nixon?
footvoter: a wise point.
I wrote my reaction at Filipino Expat, but the gist is: any extra-constitutional change does the country more harm than good as it projects immaturity and instability. GMA is the president. Lets live with it, trust the constitutional process, and move on.
Footvoter is right to point out that per capita GDP is the figure that really matters. According to the 2005 UN Human Development Report, our per capita GDP as of 2003 was USD 4,321. This still falls short of the USD 4,539 figure achieved 21 years earlier in 1982. Given growth rates the past two years, we’re probably approaching the 1982 high water mark if we haven’t done so already. That means that people on the average are now about as well-off as they were back in 1982 only with larger absolute numbers of poor people around due to increase in the population. Of course, looking at the average is misleading because the richest 30% have about 88% share in income compared to the poorest 30% who have less than 8% share. Clearly it would take many more years of Geo’s ‘best’ macroeconomic statistics to rectify this situation, more years than i think the poor would be willing to wait. If the next leader is one who would will wield an ‘iron fist’, it is best that he or she uses this ‘strong leadership’ to forcefully address this long standing inequity, and not just to preserve ‘law and order’ for the oligarchy and the privileged few. Notwithstanding the above, handing over power to politicians who do not place a high value on human life is something the citizenry allows at its own peril.
If per capita gdp is what matters
tell that to China and India….80 million poor each …
what matters is growth and its trickle down effect
how to do it? china and India is still finding a way….
btw high per capita income does not assure equal distribution of wealth…
its just part of the law of averages
Cortesy of Time Magazine
Apr. 27, 1970
THOUGH Administration officials figured that last week’s statistics showed that the worst of the slowdown may be over, nobody was trumpeting that inflation has been beaten. The President’s policy of controlling inflation by deflating business has been only half successful. It has stunted economic growth for many months but not yet significantly slowed price increases. A listing of some economic barometers since Nixon’s first full month in office:
FEB. ’69 LATEST PCT. CHANGE
Industrial Production 170.1 170.2 +0.001%
Unemployment 3.3% 4.4% +33.3%
Prime Interest Rate 7% 8% +14%
Dow-Jones Industrial Average 905 776 -14%
Consumer Price Index 124.6 132.5 +6.3%
Never trust a man who cannot smile with ease – unless he’s medically unable to smile!
Mon Solo, I agree with you. I’m also hoping these rumors are proven to be unfounded.
Good observation, Karl, you made me do further research. For comparative purposes, here then are data from India and China compared with the Philippines:
Source: UN HDR 2005
Philippines:
GDP per capita (2003) PPP USD 4,321
GDP per capita, year of highest value 1982
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) (1975-2003) 0.3
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) (1990-2003) 1.2
Share of income or consumption (%) poorest 30% 7.6
Share of income or consumption (%) middle 40% 3.8
Share of income or consumption (%) richest 30% 88.6
China:
GDP per capita (2003) PPP USD 5,003
GDP per capita, year of highest value 2003
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) (1975-2003) 8.2
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) (1990-2003) 8.5
Share of income or consumption (%) poorest 30% 6.5
Share of income or consumption (%) middle 40% 5.4
Share of income or consumption (%) richest 30% 88.1
India:
GDP per capita (2003) PPP USD 2,892
GDP per capita, year of highest value 2003
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) (1975-2003) 3.3
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) (1990-2003) 4.0
Share of income or consumption (%) poorest 30% 12.8
Share of income or consumption (%) richest 40% 16.2
Share of income or consumption (%) richest 30% 71.8
Inequality is also a fact of life in China, but per capita growth has been 7 times higher. India is on average poorer almost 4 times faster. It is also a more equal society (to my surprise) than China or Philippines. I do hope we can imitate their solutions, not their problems.
above should read…’India is on average poorer [but has been growing] almost 4 times faster’.
MLQ3,
One of your bloggers said never to trust a man who cannot ‘smile with ease.’
If a criterion for not trusting a man is because he cannot ‘smile with ease’, I suppose, the Englishman (“Stiff upper lip my boy, stiff upper lip!”) and the Northern European man in general (who easily sports a scowl even when he smiles), should be deemed quite untrustworthy.
Someone said that the Filipino male in general who is past 60 finds it less easy to show his teeth and therefore cannot smile with ease – does that make him less trustworthy?
Based again on that criterion, one could say that the
The Middle Eastern or the Southern European male apparently, being the Mediteranean type that he is, is easy on the smile. I suppose that based on the same criterion, he should be the ultimate trustworthy male.
The American, known for his easy smile, his contagious mirth and backslapping glee, I presume, will pass the test with absolutely flying colors and should be declared the most trustworthy of the male lot.
President Marcos was one of the most charismatic leaders the Philippines ever had, easy on the smile, great Colgate demeanor; he should be therefore be hailed as the most trustworthy (male) leader the country ever had.
President Manuel L. Quezon, who’s never sported a smile in his pictures and who, according to my parents, was not known to be easy on the smile – would that make him the least trustworthy (male) leader the country ever had?
I wonder if the criterion for trustworthiness should indeed be an easy smile…
Smiling with ease and an easy smile are two very different things. I’ve seen photos of MLQ not just smiling but laughing like the joke was on you, ADB.
FYI, I do not present myself as a blogger. I’m just commenting on a post written by a blogger…and this does not make me a commentator either….
people, it seems that the lil we have we don’t seem to appreciate.
if we are really serious, it’s enough that we work on the positive things in our economy & stop leaving in the illusion of wanting to see things change tommorow.
what will make us prosper is if & when we can stop all the political noise that adds to our instability.
if only we learn how to focus our energies of plotting & schiming so that we can be better citizens who are also aware of “obligations” & not just our our rights.then we can really make a difference.
the post-gloria scenario is looking for someone who will continue the much needed economic & political reforms.
it’s looking futher then the tip of our nose then just limiting ourselves to the present rutten politicians that we have.
just like the saying goes – once a dope always a dope – just like once a salveger always a salveger –
have we that short memories that we have forgotten the dacer case? just try to remember who are the people there & what are their connections to lacson?
just like i said yesterday.his family is leaving comfortably in the states.have we ever woundered how a cops salary?
it’s frightening to even consider a lacson when one knows so lil of him.
(I missed all the excitement in this thread! Early to bed and late to rise will do that…)
Geo, I’m quite happy with the economic improvements the Philippines has achieved under Gloria. The next step should be to find ways to sustain it and make the ordinary people benefit from it. Maybe lower the prices of goods?
If only Gloria has no legitimacy problems, then it could have been perfect! You see, even in developed countries or third world countries, leaders who are perceived (not yet proven) to be corrupt, or illegitimate, one way or another they are thrown out (Indonesia, Peru, Romania, etc.).
As I have said before, if Gloria had not waylaid the impeachment process, she could have gotten closure. Personally, I could have been made happy.
Is the point you’re trying to make, “Forget about everything else because the economy is doing well?”. If it is, then you’re not learning from history. It’s easy to say that now that the economy is doing well, Gloria’s enemies will forget that issue and focus on the legitimacy issue again. In the first place however, it is the legitimacy problem that is the real and bigger problem of Gloria.
Apparently, from the figures being bandied by some of those commenting on this blog, we never had it so good since 1982. Hey! Who was in charge at that time? Ferdinand Marcos?
Goes to show…it’s all been downhill since EDSA. Not that the old dictator was so great. It’s just that, 20 years after, we still haven’t made any headway. Sure, those politicians will give that old song and dance about more democratic space. They can shove it, as far as I’m concerned. Economic emancipation is more important.
jon, personaly, i would not waste my time in the legitimacy issue not until we see warm bodies who did it & clearly know their motives.because all we see now are different groups “exploiting” the issue for personal gains.
not until that happens.the legiimacy issue is pure dirty politics.
if you really wanna bring pgma down, hit the economy, create more poverty & misery.
like i have always said.let’s look at the big picture.
building on the positive sides of the economy has a longer lasting effect then playing partisan politics.
those who would do anything & escalet the political noise in my view are the most selfish & cruel characters.because they really are not thinking of negative consequences of the things they do.their world is so samll.
in my book there is nothing lower then using the weak to gain political power.
it’s really so true that the nation is didvided into 2 parts.those who want to move on & those who are so threatened by change because they will lose their relevance.
it’s an imperfect world & we all know that.
pgma’s “best friends” will never never never stop not until they get what they want.
i pitty them cuz they are impossing their small world upon us.
it’s for those who are supposed to know better to put them in their rightfull place & learn to make praiorities.
Joey, you have your own preferences, I have mine. I have my own ideals, you have yours. Let’s leave it at that.
Carl, actually, if we zoom in to the yearly figures you would find that most of the steep fall happened during the last years of Marcos’ rule (1982 to 1985) mainly due to his economic mismanagement (crony Capitalism etc.) together with the IMF prescriptions. That is what is taking us 20 years to recover from. I’m sure you remember we were building some momentum of growth after EDSA, but the coup attempts cut that short. During FVR’s time, the Asia Financial Crisis intervened, then the Erap Presidency happened and you know the rest. There is no simplistic causal or logical link between economic stagnation and democratic space or the lack of it. For every Singapore, there is an Burma or Zimbabwe. For every Philippines, there is a Malaysia or Thailand.
You’re right about economic emancipation though, that’s why we must make it a priority to redistribute wealth to those earning one dollar a day. If the next leader is a dictator, and he uses some dictatorial powers to take from the rich and give to the poor, then maybe it would be worth considering. The blood of the future dictator’s human rights victims might as well count for something other than nurturing the oligarchy and its middle class supporters just like in 1972.
[BTW, on the main topic of this thread, i consider John Marzan’s comment#6 & #7 the final word.]
It looks like many are in favor of having an election to determine who should be the next leader. What could we do to make that happen? Or is it going to happen at all? If it is going to happen, how do we make sure the results are going to come out fast and generally unquestionable?
The sad reality in our country is that for every good idea that comes out, approval won’t be universal, and implementation will be difficult.
Actually, in 1983, Marcos’ borrowing spree caught up with him. That’s when the Philippines had to declare a moratorium with the IMF. That was the real economic trigger for EDSA. Before people get the wrong impression, Marcos actually had very widespread support with the masses and the middle and upper classes before the economy caught up with him.
The tragedy of EDSA is that it didn’t change anything, only worsened the economic situation. And it did not capitalize on the goodwill it generated worldwide. The Cory Aquino administration meekly accepted all debts incurred by Marcos. Worse, it did away with the good things Marcos was doing, such as Geronimo Velasco’s energy programs. There was a slight economic pickup in the beginning, but that is normal given the euphoria of a new beginning. But it was never sustainable because it immediately became apparent that the politicians were back, and that corruption was even more widespread. If there was anything that EDSA could be noted for, it is that corruption was democratized. It really was a fake revolution that had no policies. It was a reactive government, not a proactive one. It was paranoid too. Scared to death of its own shadow. Scared of the military, scared of the Marcos loyalists. It was a government with no backbone, ideology or direction. It only bent with the wind and adjusted to circumstances. In that sense, nothing has changed.
But among all post-Marcos leaders I blame Cory Aquino the most for our dire straits. It was she who had the most opportunity to change things. It was she who could have set us on the right direction. It was she who enjoyed the goodwill of all our creditors and trade partners. But she wasn’t up to the job. She just didn’t have it. And she just let things go to pot. In the end, the 12-hour running blackouts which her administration was responsible for, almost sank the country economically. She had no energy policy, and it took an FVR to step in and save the situation from deteriorating even further. But at great cost. That’s why we had the IPP’s. That’s why, to this day, Napocor drags down our economy with it’s inefficiency and huge, huge debt. Cory Aquino really bungled things.
On the other hand, South Africa had a Nelson Mandela. He was jailed for most his life. And tortured. Yet, when he became President, he was not bitter about his experience. He was not vindictive, either. When he became President, he did not confiscate businesses and industries from the whites. He allowed them to thrive, create more employment and to allow blacks to invest in these enterprises. He nurtured the geese that were laying golden eggs, he didn’t kill them for vendetta or greed. When Mandela’s wife pushed her weight around, Mandela immediately stopped her (unlike Cory Aquino who vigorously defended her kamag-anaks’ rights to make a living and do business, even with government). Because of Mandela’s pragmatic policies and personal example, South Africa has progressed, unlike the Philippines.
Carl, your last comment was very well said.
The current positive developments in our economy helps Gloria to hang on to power, but she’s no Mandela. Not even close.
I just wish one Filipino will step up soon and claim that spot. Will it be Lacson? Are there enough people out there willing to give him the chance?
During the 2004 elections, I strongly believed that he was one of the biggest cause of the oppositions defeat (but if there was cheating, it wouldn’t have mattered) because he got some votes away from FPJ and Roco. I still believe so, but I give it to Lacson to believe in what he believes and stand on it win or lose. That’s a good quality a leader should have.
MLQ3,
Carl’s leadership of Cory Aquino and Mandela re-visited merits great kudos.
If we must outline the criteria for choosing a leader, Carl’s description of Mandela could serve as a very good starting point.
We have to keep in mind that the biggest economic policy mistake in recent times was committed during a period of dictatorship by the brilliant Marcos and his elite band of technocrats (Jobo Fernandez, Roberto Ongpin & Cesar Virata). The lack of free discussion on the impact of the IMF’s policies caused untold hardships especially to the poor. We need to remember this whenever we are tempted to entrust decisions to a self-chosen elite without taking into account the inputs of the common citizen.
I agree that one of Cory’s biggest mistakes in turn (aside from paying lip service to Land Reform) was to continue Marcos’ policy of cooperating with the IMF. Maybe, if she had only chosen to listen to her ‘leftist’ advisers, things would probably have turned out differently. Carl, interesting that when you use the adjective ‘slight economic pickup’, the figures are actually numerically at par with Geo’s ‘best (highest) GDP growth’ (prior to the December 1989 coup attempt). Whether the economy would have tanked anyway is open to conjecture, but the they certainly did not help.
I appreciate your Cory vs Mandela comparison. Of course, she did not have an equivalent of FW de Klerk to work with.
CVJ,
Just a thought on a nation’s cooperating with the IMF:
Although the IMF has been demonized by various populations in different parts of the globe, it was IMF that saved the bankrupt UK from total, utter economic collapse in the ’70s.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had no choice but to cooperate with the IMF. That “cooperation” entailed huge sacrifices from all sectors of government and the UK population. The UK was absolutely poor then. Poverty stalked almost every household.
Less than 30 years later, the UK became one of the most economically (richest) stable countries not only in Europe but also in the world and continues to enjoy the one of the rich nations status.
But it was Thatcher’s leadership that enabled the UK to achieve that. Seen today, the Thatcher government’s ‘cooperation’ with the IMF almost seem incidental today because it was Dame Margaret’s leadership that was key to making that ‘cooperation’ work.
Even during those times, according to corruption watchdog reports, the incidence of corruption overall both in the private and the public sectors in the UK was less than or at most 1%.
That is because Thatcher herself was not corrupt, she did not manipulate election returns, she did not lie, she did not steal from government coffers nor did she break the UK’s Rule of Law. Her grit, her outstanding leadership saved the UK, in spite of her government’s total subservience to the IMF, from total economic and moral collapse.
I believe that on balance, it is not the IMF that could ultimately save or fail a bankrupt nation, it is its leader and its people.
No, Cory didn’t have an FW de Klerk. Instead she listened to people who never had any ideas about running a business or a country. Lawyers like Joker Arroyo, who was as paranoid as he was incompetent (or rather, he had reached his level of incompetence). She also listened to stiffs like Jobo, who was related to her by affinity and part of the close-knit family group that was Cory’s security blanket. But, if she knew better, Cory Aquino could have listened to more substantial people. Just as Mandela listened to de Klerk, whom he could have completely ignored or even sent to jail. In the end, decent people like Jimmy Ongpin killed himself and the likes of Chino Roces became totally disillusioned and disgusted.
GMA is a product of the kind of people that rode on the Cory bandwagon. These were, aside from the Communists who really wanted nothing better than to sabotage government in order to further their agenda, the old political oligarchy and their offspring, who wanted nothing better than to regain lost glory and treat government like their private fiefdom. Because things weren’t done right after EDSA, the country suffers the likes of GMA. Having someone like GMA was inevitable. If she didn’t exist, she would have to have been invented. She is the logical outcome of the political depravity and moral turpitude that thrived after EDSA. And the kind of people that EDSA ushered in.
Had the proper example been set from the beginning, just as Mandela swiftly threw the book at his wife, Winnie, the Mike Arroyos would not have had the gumption to push their weight around. Instead, the “what are we in power for?” mentality of the old political families prevailed. The Cojuangcos, the Aquinos, and all the old political families run roughshod over government as if it was their private domain. So avaricious and drunk with power were they that they even looted the loot Marcos left behind. Is it any wonder that, for all of Marcos’ vaunted wealth, so little was recovered? But the old Marcos cronies and the families of the new order all became wealthier, wearing the smiles of the cat that had eaten the canary for lunch. For all of her lunacy, Imelda Marcos is correct when she speaks of the rapacity of the new oligarchy that replaced Marcos.
i disagree re: cory. the desire of many who entered the fray after years of simply accepting marcos was, a return to basic democracy and a return to where we were prior to martial law. all the rest were aspirations not shared by the majority; and in a series of showdowns prior to the snap elections, those aspirations were rejected and lost out.
after edsa we experienced a period of unprecedented growth. whether or not it was sustainable, we will never know. the putsches killed the momentum, not cory, not our democracy. it was the putschists. they provoked a period of uncertainty and reaction.
you have to return to marcos who made it inevitable that the many simply yearned to return where he had left off. the past twenty years have been spent creeping along where we should have been creeping along in the 70s and 80s. the problem is the world sped up, and we have not been able to speed up because the initial revving of the engines sputtered and died between 1987 and 1989 (the coups) and then again with the asian crisis in 1997. then another period of reaction set in as a response to the victory of estrada and the refusal of the few to accept the verdict of the many.
I disagree re the putschists, mlq. The Cory government was too fraught with selfish interests and contradictory agendas to ever be viable in the long term. The putsches were but a reaction to the failure to lay down programs and agendas. The neglect of the power sector would have caught up anyway. And Cory would still have become the “Queen of Darkness”. That wasn’t due to the putshces. The centerpiece program of Cory’s administration, CARP, was a farce. It was typical of her government, a lot of window-dressing but nothing substantial. It was all a show for the masses. But even the masses saw through it. You can’t have a massive land reform program without first putting in the infrastructure and services. That’s the problem with Cory’s administration, it was all ad-hoc. There was never any serious planning. Surely, the putschists can’t be blamed for that.
And as for the initial growth, that is normal when a new government, full of promise, takes over. The important thing is to sustain it. Not for a year or two, but for many years. For that you need programs, not empty promises and occasional crumbs. When Peron was deposed in Argentina, there was initial euphoria and growth. But, because the succeeding government had no programs, the euphoria vanished and reality bit in. There are many examples of that. But they are precisely the examples we should avoid. We should, instead, follow the examples of South Africa after apartheid, Chile after Pinochet, or Spain after Franco (wherein the threat of putsches continued, but were soon overcome because the government had its act together).
Of course, Cory also had her share of bad luck with Pinatubo and the Baguio earthquake. The putsches weren’t responsible for that, God was. And it may have been His way of showing displeasure at the way religion was used by Cory and her allies. And it may have been God’s way of telling us that we were definitely on the wrong track.
Today, the only accomplishment Cory Aquino and her administration can point to is that “democracy” was restored. Democracy without economic emancipation is empty. Just like the empty promises and rhetoric of EDSA.
And EDSA ushered in the rise of the old politicians and their offspring. Gloria Arroyo is one of them. She is the bastard product of the excesses and the omissions of EDSA.
I disagree re the putschists, mlq. The Cory government was too fraught with selfish interests and contradictory agendas to ever be viable in the long term. The putsches were but a reaction to the failure to lay down programs and agendas. The neglect of the power sector would have caught up anyway. And Cory would still have become the “Queen of Darknessâ€Â. That wasn’t due to the putsches.
The centerpiece program of Cory’s administration, CARP, was a farce. It was typical of her government, a lot of window-dressing but nothing substantial. It was all a show for the masses. But even the masses saw through it. You can’t have a massive land reform program without first putting in the infrastructure and services. That’s the problem with Cory’s administration, it was all ad-hoc. There was never any serious planning. Surely, the putschists can’t be blamed for that.
And as for the initial growth, that is normal when a new government, full of promise, takes over. The important thing is to sustain it. Not for a year or two, but for many years. For that you need programs, not empty promises and occasional crumbs. When Peron was deposed in Argentina, there was initial euphoria and growth. But, because the succeeding government had no programs, the euphoria vanished and reality bit in. There are many examples of that, including Russia under Yeltsin and, recently, the “Orange revolution†in the Ukraine, that is showing signs of going sour. But they are precisely the examples we should avoid. We should, instead, follow the examples of South Africa after apartheid, Chile after Pinochet, or Spain after Franco (wherein the threat of putsches continued, but were soon overcome because the government had its act together).
Of course, Cory also had her share of bad luck with Pinatubo and the Baguio earthquake. The putsches weren’t responsible for that, God was. And it may have been His way of showing displeasure at the way religion was used by Cory and her allies. And it may have been God’s way of telling us that we were definitely on the wrong track.
Today, the only accomplishment Cory Aquino and her administration can point to is that “democracy†was restored. Democracy without economic emancipation is empty. Just like the empty promises and rhetoric of EDSA.
EDSA, more than anyting else, ushered in the old political class and their offspring. It also forged alliances with Marcos’ political vanguard, such as the Singsons, Estradas, Dys, Josons, etc. It brought into one basket all the rotten politicians from pre-Marcos and the Marcos-era. Gloria Arroyo is one of them. She is the bastard product of the excesses and the omissions of EDSA.
carl, even accepting for a moment your thesis, you compelety sidestep what the public was doing during this time. they wanted what they want and on the whole got what they wanted. but when they stopped not getting what they wanted, then we started down the road to where we are now. but i am very skeptical of arguments that avoid getting into the complicity of the public when it comes to the circumstances the public bitches about now.