On Sunday the Inquirer editorial pointed out that Americans are not only keenly interested in their upcoming presidential election, but have been for some time -far earlier than usual. The editorial says this is due to Americans eagerly looking forward to regime change.
The 2010 presidential race has also begun, for us, rather early, which also points to the public heartily looking forward to installing the next administration in office -and giving thought to the various candidates presenting themselves even at this early stage. This is born out by the (admittedly unscientific) observation made by some bloggers and media people I’ve talked to, who’ve noticed that anything to do with the potential candidates for 2010 gets a large, and highly critical, readership.
Amando Doronila does not make the above point, but makes a different one that’s difficult to contradict:
Truly, 2010 heralds the closure of the turbulent EDSA-driven eras, defined by extra-electoral political change, and the beginning and the normalization of electoral politics now under the specter of military coups or withdrawal of support for sitting civilian governments.
This epochal shift gives us the opportunity to make a leadership change that offers this time a wide range of choices.
It is the advent of a younger generation in 2010 that makes the next election a qualitative change from the previous leadership handovers.
We will be electing in 2010 a new set of leaders who will take power with electoral mandates unblemished by the irregularity of an extra-electoral method of change represented by EDSA I and EDSA II, both marked by military interventions.
Year 2010, therefore, will mark a return to normal election processes as a mechanism of political change. This is what makes it a hopeful transition, although the relatively large field of choices does not ensure the emergence of an honest, efficient and results-oriented administration.
I suspect, though, that what we will find is really a two or at most, three person race, as both the politicians and the public narrow their choices and, who knows, actively seek a truly majority president for once, after a string of post-Edsa minority presidents.
Mon Casiple, in his blog, dissects the options that confront both the President and the opposition this year. In terms of the administration, he boils down the options available to three:
For the people in the GMA administration, the logical first choice will have have to be an extension of her stay in power–by a constitutional change allowing the president a second term or a change to either a parliamentary system or a federal state (which would require a transition provision). This is not possible at this time without a prior effort to dislocate the opponents of a GMA constitutional change–a scenario requiring massive political and electoral manipulation as well as ensuring an undisputed control of the armed forces.
A second choice is the building of a viable presidential candidate without the negative association with GMA in time for the 2010 elections. As in the first choice, this will maintain the ruling coalition but necessitates an early distancing from GMA or–more difficult–the positive upturn of GMA’s popularity.
A variation of this that benefits Vice-President Noli de Castro is an early retirement for GMA that would put him in the presidential chair to push forward the ruling coalition’s eventual candidate. However, it is a given that whoever this candidate will be, he or she will be campaigning with a huge millstone around his or her neck because of the present administration’s unpopularity, especially if GMA is still around in 2010.
Failure to make the above choices will effectively dissolve the ruling coalition and create a free-for-all where the strong presidentiables raid the ranks of the coalition to augment their own electoral coalitions. This will be evident in the incoming year as serious contenders make their moves to create the critical mass for their candidacies.
In terms of the opposition, Casiple lays out the main challenges, chief of which is the one that Doronila (see his piece above) credits Estrada with setting out to do: consolidate its forces (see Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, however, for his views on past presidents being permanently disqualified from running for the presidency again):
The momentary issue for the opposition (or for presidential hopefuls within the ruling coalition) is the possibility of a GMA endrun for a continued stay in power through a constitutional change. This possibility, though more remote than before, has to be laid to rest before the real battle for 2010 commences. 2008 therefore will lay the ground (or set the terms) for 2010.
In a situation where the president steps down or is passive in the 2010 presidential elections, the opposition–and the ruling coalition–will fragment and their component forces will go their own way to form new coalitions behind the presidentiables. The opposition as such will become irrelevant and the GMA factor will be a non-issue, except as another campaign issue against former administration candidates.
On the other hand, if the president continues on to 2010 or actively intervenes in the 2010 elections, then the main issue of the elections will be her administration’s legitimacy and record. The opposition, in this situation, needs to unite to ensure victory against the vast resources and machinery of the administration. Failure to do so will divide the protest vote and effectively jeopardize the chances of all opposition candidates.
The opposition (or the presidentiables from their ranks) will have its work cut out in 2008. A critical mass has to be formed behind one presidentiable capable of getting out the winning votes. The operative word here–crass though it may be to political reformers–is ADDITION.
A shrewd political observer I talked to over the weekend distilled both points into three broad questions which will determine things, politically, this year:
1. Will the President be more liberal, or restrictive?
2. Will the armed forces be adventurers, or remain firmly wedded to the constitutional order?
3. Will the public be active or passive?
My editor at the Philippines Free Press last week gave me my first assignment for the year. “I want you to explore whether the President can turn things around, and recover her popularity,” he said. The result of this challenge was the following:
MARILYN Monroe once said, “I’m selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control, and at times hard to handle… But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.” The President of the Philippines is no blonde bombshell, but maintains much the same defiant, even petulant, attitude toward her critics. Divided as her critics may be on what they want to accomplish, the President has only two things to say to them: “I will survive,” and “I will continue to be relevant.”
Her perpetually having to be in survival mode is a problem unique to her administration; that of making every effort to remain relevant is an occupational hazard faced by all presidents approaching the end of their constitutional term.
Political analyst Mon Casiple says this year “will lay the ground (or set the terms) for 2010.” According to him, the President can do one of three things: try to extend her stay in office; intervene, actively, in the election of her successor; or step down gracefully and not bother with trying to influence the outcome of the 2010 presidential race. At stake is not just her personal and political safety, but also, the prospects for the continuing control of the levers of power by the coalition she’s built up and maintained, and the opportunities for her critics to gain control of those levers for themselves.
The President has been able to face down constitutional and extra-constitutional challenges to her rule; she has done so, not by mobilizing public support, but by capitalizing on public mistrust of the entire political class –and by mobilizing the resources available to her as the incumbent. Patronage, whether in cash or kind, by means of promotions or demotions, has kept her coalition much more united and purposeful than her opponents. She has also managed to step back from the brink whenever any administration initiative, such as the proposal to amend the constitution, threatens to galvanize opposition to her government.
Recently, the President said she was a better economist than she was a politician –a statement that inevitably sparked a debate on whether she was good at being either. What’s significant is not whether her self-analysis was objectively true, but rather, what it revealed about her. Her belief in herself as an economist first, and a politician second, may have been there all along, but has been unevenly expressed throughout her term. That she is more comfortable with herself helps explain, to my mind, why she has both endured and continues to maintain the allegiance of a significant portion of the population. Her self-satisfaction taps into a yearning from those sectors who consider it a virtue to sacrifice some of their freedoms in order to move the nation forward.
In contrast to the equally significant portion of the population convinced she has indeed presided over the erosion of freedom while not really moving the nation forward. To be sure, this analysis requires the stipulation that we accept that the surveys are correct: a quarter of the population solidly supports the president, another quarter tolerates her as the lesser evil and the least-inconvenient option, and the other half of the population can’t stand her but are utterly divided among themselves on what they want as an alternative.
In such a situation, essentially a battle of attrition, survival is highly probable so long as both sides continue to have access to resources. The President, by virtue of her controlling the national treasury, possessing the appointing power, and playing off the provinces versus the metropolis. Her critics, by means of their ability to marshal public opinion, have denied her total control of Congress and continue to flourish in pockets of opposition-controlled provinces and cities. Neither side, however, is capable of mounting an offensive to crush the enemy.
But the President’s attempt to make a virtue of her unpopularity, can’t obscure the fact that she holds a job whose powers are built on the cultivation of popularity. It is popularity that provides a president with room to maneuver, which allows a chief executive to pull the rug out from under the opposition, and which cushions the impact of programs or policies that may be unpleasant, but necessary for the common good.
The President and her team have tapped into simple, but effective, messages that resonate with enough of the public to keep the opposition divided and the rest wedded to the status quo. These messages are: the peso is strong, and the stock market high; we are attending to the serious business of governing while ignoring political noise; and we are pursuing infrastructure and economic reform while avoiding exotic and frightening economic options beloved by certain sectors in the opposition.
In the meantime, the administration has been fairly careful to avoid closing off the avenues that allow the public to do their own thing, never mind if the government takes credit for private sector achievements. Emigration abroad is encouraged; overseas contract work continues to be proclaimed a form of heroism. The real mass media, radio and television, has been kept manageable through a combination of co-opting individual media practitioners and the use of government media to sound a constant note, if not of reality, then of achievement and optimism. Print media has born the brunt of government pressure, applied more consistently and daringly than in the case of other media, which anyway has proven liable to being divided and easily intimidated.
Intervention in the business sphere has been less clumsy than in the case of past administrations: there is no Midnight Cabinet, deal-making is done overseas or in private homes and golf clubs, no particular business group or company has been targeted for destruction, and presidential corruption can at worst, be whispered about, but there are no obvious cases of high living or high-profile acquisitions to make businessmen and the middle class particularly nervous. Even in terms of the political class, the administration can be said to take things less personally than the opposition: once back in the administration fold, there’s far less lecturing and hectoring than takes place in opposition ranks.
Every bill, however, has a due date. Presidents use popularity to both charm and intimidate not only their critics, but their followers. Kissinger famously said power is an aphrodisiac and the art of seduction is an integral part of the political game. Bereft of charm, the President’s policy has been to buy the love of her supporters, but being transactional, there isn’t any real warmth: diamonds may be a girl’s best friend but cannot sustain political friendship. What real loyalty does the President command, or more precisely, can she continue to command, as the country prepares to select her successor?
This is her dilemma. It is a dilemma that presumes she is no different from her predecessors in wanting to accomplish three things in her last years in office: go down in history positively; remain influential (and safe); and possibly, convince the country it needs the incumbent more than it needs a replacement as chief executive. Ideally, every president (except for Corazon Aquino, the only exception in terms of never showing an interest in perpetuating herself in power) wants to accomplish all three. Though of the three, the last is, perhaps, the most expendable.
If we take the President at her word, meaning she looks forward to stepping down on June 30, 2010, her main problem becomes figuring out when to make her resolve unambiguous, without turning herself into a very lame duck. If her last State of the Nation address is any guide, she prefers ambiguity to the certainty of being a lame duck. In adopting this attitude, she makes recovering a semblance of popularity, virtually an impossibility. No President likes being unpopular, but any president would prefer actual power, to impotently enjoying the affections of a fickle people.
The President’s main task, then, becomes threefold: continuing to pay off political debts but not so recklessly and lavishly as to arouse the people; keeping everyone guessing as to what she truly intends to do in 2010, while pursuing every means to keep every option (including an extension of her term or a change to parliamentary government) on the table without, again, solidifying the opposition; and keeping the pressure valves –the OFW remittance cash cow, a healthy stock and property market, a content upper and middle class- operational.
She does not have to do these things particularly well; she never has. She only has to keep the impression going, that everything she does is not on an ad hoc basis, but instead, is based on a plan. That plan is simple: keep remittances coming in, which obscures the weaknesses of the domestic economy; keep the deficit under a semblance of control, by means of selling off government assets; juggling tax collections and spending so as to never put a crimp on her doling out patronage; and creating as many jobs as necessary for her supporters, whether civilian or military to maintain their tactical support.
Along the way, she can hope that she continues to enjoy better luck than her enemies. This includes hoping that nothing takes place in the outside world, that threatens to close off any of the safety valves in our society and economy. In the absence of anything extreme taking place, she can expect to coast along, and with her, the country. Lurching from event to event, but without risking any fundamental change, may not seem much in terms of governance, but what matters is that the President believes –and with her, her supporters- that along the way, small, incremental changes have been made.
At the start of her term, the President said she hoped not to be a great, but simply, a good president. Her legacy has been to take these diminished expectations, and convince enough of the country that it is better to do small things, and not bother with the big things –and who, in the end, can argue that this is not a genuine achievement? For a President who may not be loved, but who is tolerated, still gets to wield the same thing –power.
My column for today, Shod and unshod, takes its cue from the Sunday column of Joseph Gonzales. My column also makes reference to Randy David’s Civic duty and national renewal. In his column, David does his own distilling, this time in terms of what modernity demands of the citizenry:
The modern society that is upon us demands that we abide by its most basic rules. They are not difficult to understand. What are these? Three things, basically: (1) Fall in line and wait for your turn; (2) Know the rules and follow them; (3) Come on time. These simple rules will permit us to navigate the complex terrain of the modern world with ease. There is not a single modern society in the world today that does not strictly enforce these rules.
He then goes on to make a point about the evils of patronage, and with this particular point in mind, I’d like to refer you back to my entry, Charismatic expectations in noncharismatic times, where David’s point is echoed in the writing of Gary Wills, who makes reference to Max Weber and others whose thinking has influenced David’s, as a Sociologist.
At its simplest, the point is, a modern society relies on a bureaucracy to fulfill the social purposes that politicians dispensing patronage used to provide.
Via Touched by An Angel, found out about this article in the January 6 Manila Bulletin. Am grateful to WikiPilipinas.
Technorati Tags: elections, ideas, philippines, politics, president, society
The free press bit was “opinion” not journalism.
“Come on time”? Tell that to the women.
There are times when a Parliamentary Form makes sense. No “near the term end” to survive, no lame duck leader, but always another election to look forward and campaign for as there are no term limits for the Leader and for the Members, yet so far no leader stayed beyond their usefulness to the Party or the Country. Only Jean Chretien did (and he can’t lose an election) just because of his personal desdain for the the man, Paul Martin who can’t wait for his turn to the leadership.
And one of the reasons why the encouragement of serving the government without limits of term is the Parliamentary Pensions which the Members qualify after serving a complete two-terms of 4 years each at early age on top of other government pensions and increases as more years of service. Please note that member’s renumeration is not as high as in private businesses.
Just like that, Erap’s back. And there’s no getting rid of him. Ever. He’s here till God takes him. It’s the fault of Edsa Dos and its Die Hards. Pardon was a big blunder by GMA and a brilliancy by Erap. I am more than ever convinced of the essentially sadistic nature of the God of Politics. Because it seems to me He would have us learn the lesson that Davide prevented/aborted in 2001, by going through a time when someone like Jinggoy or Loren will have to be president and we take it like good nuns in a chapel of horny deacons.
Bernas shows that the intent of the Framers was twofold: to get rid of the Incumbent’s advantage and to prevent any person from “governing the people and controlling the presidency” for more than six years. Their solution was to prohibit ANY RE-ELECTION which appears to achieve both objectives, but as the career of GMA shows, only for the elected Presidents! The Framers left a giant loophole in the constitution against their own intent to destroy incumbent advantage and limit presidential power to six years–in the matter of succession. GMA, as a result of Edsa Dos, will serve ten years and had the incumbent advantage in 2004 (plus Garci).
According to the Letter of the Law, Erap cannot run, Bernas is right about that. But the Spirit of the Law urges a different conclusion altogether, if by it, the striving of citizens in the present to fulfill the INTENT of the Constitution, even in the face of the frailties of its Framers.
Its amusing that some people interpret ‘re-election’ as applying only to the incumbent, and that someone who served a full term already prior to the incumbent and decides to go for the same post is not going for a ‘re-election’
Erap, please, you’ll just make lawyers happy (handling a losing case for a client with deep pockets, wow! the ideal combination!)
the news is still confusing me… but did the Erap pardon include the lifting of the penalty of civil interdiction?
and if he is a full citizen again, what sort of legal hijinks will his lawyers pull to allow him to run for office?
methinks the floodgates of cash are due to be opened yet again…
I agree that the 2010 Presidential race (if it pushes through) will narrow down to a three person race, as i mentioned previously, between:
(1) a liberal who is not a democrat,
(2) an illiberal democrat and a
(3) liberal democrat.
simply by definition of the word, re-elect means to be elected again. no mention of the word incumbent or otherwise, the framers’ intent is quite clear.
Erap is trying his damnedest to rewrite history, going so far as publishing his book re corruption “kuno.” baloney, if he knew abt it while he was president, why’d he wait all these years to reveal it? the difference bet the righteous and the wicked is that the righteous doesn’t need any motivation for whistle-blowing, while the wicked pretends its whistle-blowing to save its ass.
again, monumental stupidity and utter selfishness await the opposition in 2010. i’d be surprised if they can even agree on who’s the true opposition. you think Lacson will give way for anyone? why would he when he didn’t for FPJ? Lacson is the Phil’s Nader. and who will be next? Villar? Escudero? Legarda? they’re all shit, as far as im concerned. even Mar Roxas stinks of hubris and a lot of BS. what last year has done, is exposed that no one is truly an opposition in its strictest terms. they’re all for sale, and the electorate is better off looking after its own interest instead of waiting from one of these saviour-wannabes. if it wants true leadership, it is not from these mold of politicians the electorate must look, but elsewhere. the Phils is full of silent heroes. capable, honest, intelligent. in the next years to come, what the electorate must do is seek these people out, and encourage them to run – and fight the cynical politics ruling us. from the President down to the last smallest elective post, ALL old faces must be replaced.
going back, the opposition can easily solve its problem on who to proclaim as standard bearer if only everyone would be willing to agree on a presidential primary/caucus of some sort within the coalition. commission a survey province by province, and whoever wins gets to be the standard bearer.
which reminds me, what we need is another Barack Obama. young, fresh. who is neither a Hillary nor a Guiliani.
someone come to mind?
someone come to mind?
MLQ3
The idea of an Estrada candidacy again for the Presidency will have to hurdle several obstacles.
He will have to surpass the intent of the framers and/or how the people who ratified the Charter understood the provision in the first place. And both don’t look good for him.
But will someone who succeeds to the Presidency and served as such for more than 4 years ever get to run for the Presidency itself? Unlikely.
If someone as such can’t run; how can someone elected to the Presidency run again for that same office?
Is the Constitution supposed to be more strict on those who succeed to the Presidency and served more than 4 years than the Constitution is to those who were elected President whether they served more than 4 years or not?
The 1987 Philippine Constitution should have come with a manual. People who deviously interpret the constitution for their own benefit should be lined up and shot. Ask Mang Pandoy instead what he thinks about that no reelection provision.
Besides, the issue of an Estrada candidacy is practically only hot air and toilet paper as far as the COMELEC and more importantly the Supreme Court is concerned.
As far as the SC is concerned, there is no actual controversy to decide upon whether ex-Pres. Estrada can indeed run again for the Presidency.
The filing of candidacy for the 2010 elections is nearly 2 years away.
Only when he does file his candidacy will there be an issue to decide upon.
And usually, candidates like to wait till the last minute to file as to take advantage of the time before the actual campaign period so their actions/speeches/films etc… might not be subject to early campaign violations.
And this will all take time away from the real Estrada candidacy as every delay in resolving the controversy could work against him.
Gamblers don’t like to bet on hobbling horses.
Should even good fortune side with him; it might be too late in the day as volunteers and money have been allocated to viable candidates without such legal baggage in the first place.
The ones likely to benefit from his good fortune are the past President (except former Pres. Aquino who isn’t affected anyway) and the future past Presidents.
mlq3:just curious, since your article seems at times to be teetering on the brink of actually betraying some sort of respect for GMA – 1. When did political survival become such a nasty thing that it has to be invoked every time GMA is talked about? The way I see it, oppositionists use this term to ridicule GMA; sort of like a more genteel person’s version that age old taunt ‘kapit tuko.’ What politician hasn’t done that? Like you said, about the only exception seems to be the saintly Cory and we all know no one can be as saintly as she is. The taunt is therefore, hypocritical. In fact, look at the reverse. can we not say that the oppositionists are merely salivating … drooling for the power she has? And this they disguise as moral superiority. In any case, kapit tuko is only a meaningful taunt when the person doing the clinging is the only one who believes he should cling. But as you said, something like half the population accepts her presidency. Why then is it more ‘correct’ to believe the discontented half such that we can say she has no reason to stay in power? Is half the population stupid then? Or blind?
2.You say that she has not mobilized public support. But hasn’t she? Negative space is space nonetheless. Not supporting the opposition … does this not mean she enjoys public support? Perhaps not as dynamic as the word ‘mobilize’ suggests, but support nonetheless.
3. You seem to find fault with her ‘mobilizing the resources available to her.’ What is she supposed to do? Assuming, as you have, that half the population is ok with her staying in power, is she then supposed to play the opposition’s game and try to win the hearts and minds of the discontented half? Oh, I’m sure it’ll all do our egos a lot of good to see a president trying to please everyone, but what sort of president would that be? I for one would rather have a president who suffers the slings and arrows of unpopularity and chooses to be, rather than not to be.
4. I imagine your umbrage is how she seems to be completely without morals in her use of her power. As you said, demotions and promotions. But in order to say that, there must be some sort of objective measure to say that her demotions and promotions are bad for the country. And yet, the economy continues to strengthen, albeit not in leaps and bounds. So she must be doing something right.
5. In one breath, you say her critics have the power to marshal public opinion so well that they have denied her a majority in congress. In the next, you say that mass media – that true engine of public opinion – has been co-opted and been kept docile and manageable. Which is it, then? In fact, mass media has been anything but manageable. You say government media harps on optimism. If they didn’t, then doomsayers would have the field unopposed. Good, i suppose, if you consider the highest good to be her ouster; good, if you want to run government to the gorund under the sheer weight of pessimism and faultfinding. As it is, media practitioners who speak well of the administration are mercilessly relegated to the fringe, and treated as shameless sell-outs when, more often than not, their optimism has far more basis than the depressing rants that have been daily fare for other practitioners.
6. And then you seem to take offense at her seeming desire to avoid becoming a lame-duck. You prefer that she be one? Will any politician willingly become a lame-duck? Funny, this notion, because when people are elected, they are elected to serve in their positions for the whole term. Not for 3/4ths the term. Or should we then look at the contenders and ask ourselves, when the last fourth of their term comes, which of these will quietly and meekly limp into the darkness with nothing more than a melancholy quack? That’s a novel criterion.
7. Alas, some of your criticisms do ring true. The OFW money does obscure the weakness of the domestic economy; a balanced budget at the expense of national assets is a bad deal since, as me and cvj recently discussed, input driven growth will not help anyone in the long run. I think the patronage problem – I’m guessing as reflected in the dole outs (presumed to be from her) to those congressmen may have been overstated when you look at the bigger picture – half-a-million for a governor to do a good job in his province? if things turn out right, that 500 thousand investment could turn into millions in terms of gains for the province, couldn’t it? And job creation for supporters? … well, I guess if we’re only talking about totally pointless jobs. If, on the other hand, you’re taking umbrage at actual employment being generated, then i suppose i would say that whether those jobs are for supporters or not, they’re still jobs. unemployment takes no political sides, does it?
8. She will never be a great president, that much is clear. But there is no sense I think in taking that against her too much. Sometimes you get great presidents, sometimes you get lemons. 2010 gives us another chance to pick a great one (except only lemons are on offer). And besides, to crucify her for not being great is like saying every post-EDSA president sucks because none of them were ever as eloquent as Marcos.
There is this fraction of a chance that the 2010-elections is up-ended by a violent coup, what with five Filipinos plus a few hundred more wanting GMA out cuz they find her “…so guilty and ,,,, can’t wait, can’t wait, can’t wait!!!! The constitution be damned… can’t wait.”
The remittances of the OFWs and jobs to be found outside the country have shielded every administration for the longest time in doing its primary duty to improve the domestic economy. While the economy has not entirely collapsed, it never took off, except briefly during the time of Ramos who instituted major economic programs such as telecom, banking and energy deregulation/liberalization which strengthened the foundations of a production-driven economy. On the external side, he also promoted investments, so that on both sides, he did something so that the bottomline gains would be positive. Not to mention such other achievements that promoted political stability when he forged peace agreements with the rightists and the leftists.
In contrast, the succeeding administrations after Ramos lacked any strategic plan to get this country going. What an idiotic thought this is — for GMA is not even a good economist (that Economics PhD is put to good waste), as she projects herself to be. As mlq3 stated, she didn’t do anything, that the government spins as its major achievement — the robust stock market, the strong dollar, low inflation (all of these are driven by factors outside the positive actions of her administration).
What self-respecting government congratulates itself in generating jobs that are outside the country? so the one million OFW deployment for 2007 is now her administration’s achievement? It should instead cover itself in embarrassment that the domestic economy cannot generate enough jobs for its people. While we cannot stop people from leaving because it is a basic human right to choose to live and work at any place one chooses — why must we tolerate an official government policy of exporting people when it leaves in the dust our aspirations to educate our people, improve out society, when other countries would benefit from it? We have also let the government off the hook so easily with this official policy – in its main job in terms of strengthening the structural foundations of the economy, ensuring that job are created and raising foreign reserves.
There goes our taxes and many years of investment, not just monetarily, to every kid who goes to school whose ultimate dream now is to go abroad to work and perhaps never to come back.
GMA says that there is no need to worry that all our nurses are leaving, because the large nursing graduation figures take up the slack for those who are leaving and that the long-term solution is to keep opening more nursing schools (that’s economist talking LOL – you know on limited logic that she can defend her statement, but substance-wise it’s got major stupidity written all over it.). We entrusted our country’s future to this person who can say with a straight face that there is no need to worry when we are actually bleeding and hemorrhaging? All she has to do is go to the provinces especially and count how many hospitals have shut down for lack of doctors and nurses. At least, when Flavier was Health Secretary during Ramos’ time – the official discourse that the government spoke was the “Doctor to the Barrios’ program – not a blatant policy of export of people as this administration. How GMA like to propagandize on blatant lies such as this administration’s respect gor human rights and their “economic achievements†– when their propagandizing would serve the government well as the country as the Doctor to the Barrios programs did, no matter how limited it was – it was not built on lies, it was at least built on vision and purpose – which this present administration are so lacking in.
Yes, she said she never said she wanted to be a great president, but merely a good one. Well GMA is not even close to good. Even without the Garci controversy, achievements-wise, her record is way too BAD, just because she has not done anything substantial for someone who will go down in history as the longest-serving Prez after Marcos – except to survive politically, which is her main skill and ONLY MAIN ACHIEVEMENT so far.
erratum – “the strong dollar” = the strong peso
MLQ3,
“Being popular” was never part of Gloria’s repertoire. Once in power in 2001, she held onto it in the quintessentially liberal way: she ran the government competently if ruthlessly, as one does an inheritance or entitlement. “Being good” means being good at the job of managing the “political economy” which she sought to master from the day she decided she would one day run the government. I think she wields the government bureaucracy much better than any President ever has because she understands its workings the way one who grows up in it understands a large and complex household. She knows all the Help and how to handle them. It’s not popularity but familiarity that she wields or desires. Your editor must’ve been thinking of Erap.
cvj,
be careful what you wish for…if barack obama wins the nomination can he win, not against a Republican, but against the inconceivability for some people of a “Black President in the White House.” BTW this is a racial slur PDI published as a headline considering he is half white.
I agree fully with Madonna that it is a mobility right of every individual to choose where to live and work, but for a Government promoting its citizens working and living abroad and taking Credit for Job Creation is just not a sound Economic Program..
About a decade ago or so ago, the government of our Province, cutting the Health Budget, laid off thousands of Nurses with a Generous offer of Buyout which was promptly grabbed by thousands and most of them migrated south and found employment, only to the detriment of Health Care and emergency shortages of care givers, thus giving way to defeat of that government. Now the Government is offering incentives for Nurses to go Back and also for a few remaining Physicians who also fled south because of Billing Capping. Most of them came back anyways when they found out that the grass in not as green as they thought in the other side..only the weather is warmer…
It will probably still be eons away for pinoys to see men of color simply as men. Pinoys seem to have this white complex.
Obama won in Iowa and will take New Hampshire besting three individuals who are white in States that are over 95% white.
He speaks the message of hope and is transcending the idea of race and moving away from the stereotype civil rights leaders off the past in Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He is not running as a black man for the black man.
Even before the contest moves to the big voting centers he is taking in support from the young, women and independents who are predominantly white.
Something is happening in U.S. politics that has never happened before. White mainstream America is voting for a colored man because they do not see his color.
Almost 47 years after the first Irish Catholic President was elected the U.S. could either have a woman or black man as President.
This is how I see it.
Obama or Clinton as Dem presidential candidate will not win against either Huckabee or McCain. They have a better chance against Romney. If the Dems are serious about going back to the White House then Edwards is the man who can beat Huckabee or McCain. I’m saying this not because I like Edwards but because Americans are itching for a change in direction. The Dems can actually win with any candidate except O and C.
i said it once before and i say it again. we need a president who can perform with competence and achieve positive results, not merely one to be “loved”. actions that call for rare political courage are usually unpopular at the time they are taken. gma need not worry about her place in history. future generations will be the judge of that, not this one. what she was able to achieve after the disastrous estrada presidency is a matter of record for every one to see. like her father, she may be ignored for her true worth by spiteful people writing “history”. Nonetheless, that should not detract one bit from what she has accomplished in her life as a public servant.
vic: “mobility right of EVERY individual to….” is phrasing it too strongly since it suggests that every Filipino has a right to move to Canada and work there.
Supremo: the following, if they become the Democrat standard-bearer, will lose — Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd.
vic & upn stude, every filipino has a right to move to canada but canada has a right to reject him.
Bencard: so does that mean that GMA is an idiot-president because she does not release funds to any Filipino who wants to migrate to Canada?
Vic and Madonna, on OFWs as jobs created.
So, this is what Gloria and her job-creation czar (forgot his name) are boasting about? One million jobs every year (jobs outside the country, for heaven’s sake). For a government bent on creating a First World country in 20 years, that’s marvelous feat indeed. Whoa! even super-rich USA only reported 1.3 million new jobs in 2007.
Good luck! See you folks in Enchanted Kingdom (or else in Kingdom come).
DJB, huh? what did i wish for?
upn, maybe that’s too deep for me but i don’t see any sense in your question. just because you have a right to procreate doesn’t mean that government has to give you “funds” to raise your children. allowing immigration is the prerogative of the host country. gma has absolutely nothing to do with that.
madonna, are you advocating a ban on overseas employment? isn’t it free choice to work wherever one can earn more? what is wrong with the government being supportive of such a choice?
it’s not fair at all to say that the government is “boasting” about job opportunities abrad. it is the same cockamamee thinking as the no-brainer idea of ofws’ stopping remittance of their earnings to the families they left behind just to spite pgma and harm the nation’s economy under her watch.
gma, or no gma, filipinos love living and working aroad, if they have a chance to obtain a visa. you may be an exception but a rare one.
Bencard: For a number of Filipinos (and Africans and Americans and French), label something a right — a well-paid job — and they automatically conclude that if they don’t have it, they are victims; that they are entitled to government programs to get what is their right; that the government or God has the obligation to rescue them; and that IT/THEM/the-president/USA/God/the Church/the hacenderos/the Chinese …. someone has to be to blame. A Filipino does not have the right to a job in the US or Australia or Germany.
now i got the irony, upn. and i believe you. personal responsibility is always at the backseat. for these people, everybody else is to blame for their problems but themselves.
djb, i can only tell you that from 2001-2004, which i can vouch for, popularity was a great burning need and desire of the president.
fvr handled the bureaucracy much more effectively, and cleverly, than his predecessor or two successors. though in the palace, at least, only one president was held in genuine affection: jee (but as civil servants, their more fundamental attitude, as one put it to me, was “presidents come and go, we remain.”
djb, it’s not about obama’s color or racial origin. it’s more about his inexperience that worries me and his demagogic style of using the tired, old slogan of “change”. as guiliani pointed out, there is change for good and for bad.
i think it is the non-critical-thinking, but cynical, youth who just hate the “establishment”, that propels the “surge” of obama from being a state senator, to a u.s. senator and to possible presidency of the most powerful nation on earth. this group of youth is the net result of the “dumbing down” of america that bill bennett once talked about. leadership is not just about talking the talk but also walking the walk. i have yet to see obama make an executive decision that is of nationwide, let alone world-wide implication. of course, he never had the opportunity, and that’s the point.
UPn,
I was assuming that mobility rights is universal as it is enshrined in our Charter:
Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Anyways, no country would like to see its citizen or national packing up and leaving, but can not stop them, either for whatever reason they choose so. Most or our young Graduates, would like to move to warmer climates as soon as opportunity comes up, even as their education were mostly funded by the Public all to the way to the University..well they still have to pay their Students’ Assistance Plan Loans. And that is their right as guaranteed in the Charter..
“what is wrong with the government being supportive of such a choice?”
A simple set of premises for justifying support of OFW-ism is the recognition that:
(1) Pinoys thrive APART and languish when TOGETHER;
(2) Pinoys do not respect their own rules/concepts but are utterly beholden to foreign rules.
(3) Pinoys are hopeless at indigenously creating capital-based (as against input-based — in rom’s words) employment and therefore will never achieve sustainable employment levels; and,
Item 3 is the kicker. When it comes to trying to teach an old dog new tricks, the easier option for a master that no longer delights in said tricks is to sell it off to the highest bidder or put it out of its misery.
Vic: While Canada says that a Canadian citizen has the right to leave Canada, Canada does not say that a Canadian citizen can remain in Boracay. [In Malaysia, a Malaysian Muslim woman does not have the right to marry an Iglesia-ni-Kristo (or Hindu or Presbyterian). I hope that this is not the case in Mindanao for a Filipino Muslim woman. ]
mlq3, maybe pgma “desired” or still desires popularity but judging from her official actions, that doesn’t seem to be the be-all and end-all of her presidency. i think, when push comes to shove, she would prefer to be right than “popular”, effective than “likable”. for once in our life, why can’t we rid ourselves of this hang-up for wanting our leaders to be popular, pogi, mabait, maganda, in favor of being effective, results-oriented, hard-working, no-nonsense public servants?
no wonder, we have a penchant for electing mentally-challenged but relatively good-looking artistas and bombastic tv personalities who capitaize on their daily exposure to the tv-watching public.
In the context of my discussion with Rom, ‘input-based’ included both labor and capital so the distinction that you’re making above is a false one.
In any case, your conception of how a country is supposed to build up an industrial base reminds me of the Maoists’ [failed] approach during their Great Leap Forward.
bencard, at this point, i don’t dispute your view. but for a long, and crucial, time, no-nonsense was set aside to try to achieve popularity, and i use popularity in a neutral sense, as an essential attribute of leadership. of course leaders can compensate for unpopularity, but it is not, and shouldn’t be the default condition. a lack of popularity is a handicap the way a foolish craving to be liked is also a handicap.
as for the kind of people who win, i find it odd that those preaching that the public ought to be commended for being passive, and accepting the continuance of the administration, at the same time heap scorn on the public for its past choices -at the same time it was electing movie actors it was also electing then senator gma.
i’ve made this point before -the people choose who they like, and the reasons why they like certain candidates has a certain logic. you can deny it exists or try to discover it. the showbiz phenomenon was neither new nor senseless. it derived, for one, with a certain exasperation with lawyers in politics that helped propel people like gma herself, to power.
mlq3, maybe pgma “desired†or still desires popularity but judging from her official actions, that doesn’t seem to be the be-all and end-all of her presidency.
Bencard, I think what MLQ3 said was that from 2004 onward, the GMA presidency’s be-all and end-all was survival, not popularity. Popularity was her concern from 2001 to 2004.
To be fair to benign0, his items (1) and (2) at leat have some empiricial observations to back them up, despite the deliberate generalism of benny’s rhetoric. Item (3) however is at best debatable, and at worst easily refuted by presenting Pinoys that created indigenous capital-based employment.
In any case, I would bat strengthening an agri-based economy first before we can even think of industrialization on a large scale.
As economist Dani Rodrik (if i remember correctly) observed:
Rich countries produce ‘rich country’ goods while Poor countries produce ‘poor country’ goods.
That’s why industrialization is important. (Which is not to say that agricultural productivity isn’t.)
“In the context of my discussion with Rom, ‘input-based’ included both labor and capital so the distinction that you’re making above is a false one.”
No it isn’t.
Just because I got your context wrong doesn’t necessarily make mine wrong.
“Rich countries produce ‘rich country’ goods while Poor countries produce ‘poor country’ goods.”
Rich country goods have a high proportion of their value accounted for by capital.
Poor country goods have a high proportion of their value accounted for by labour.
mlq3, jeg: i concede that in 2001-2004, gma was competing for popularity. but that would have been natural, wouldn’t it? she was looking at possible re-election. she was not naive on philippine politics. every candidate in every election is a populist. whether or not he/she continues to be one after would determine what kind of a leader he/she would be. lovable or great.
Check this mar roxas blog: http://marroxas2010.blogspot.com
2010 is really in the air manolo!
Rich countries produce ‘rich country’ goods while Poor countries produce ‘poor country’ goods.
Exactly. We’re a ‘poor country’. Before we could produce ‘rich country’ goods, we should be adept at making ‘poor country’ goods first. Benign0’s observation is that we’re not even doing that. We’re merely consuming.
I used to lament the fact that the ‘poor country’ auto industry we had has almost disappeared. Im talking about those small shops that made ‘owner-type’ jeeps and their variants. Here I would agree with benign0 that they were hampered by lack of imagination, the jeep not having changed its design since WWII: poor aerodynamics (which leads to inefficient fuel consumption) and poor ergonomics, as anyone who has traveled in a backseat in an owner-type will tell you. I look at India’s Tata and just shake my head at what might have been for our own auto industry; genuine auto industry (albeit still importing engines) that primarily marketed to fellow Filipinos.