Here is a video that encapsulates it all: the precise instant that Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu lost control of his people.
The title of my entry is taken from the title of one of my favorite chapters in one of my favorite books,“Shah of Shahs” (Ryszard Kapuscinski).
And this is my favorite passage from that chapter, a useful reflection as we look back to 1986 and 2001, and ponder what we want to happen in the days, weeks, months, years to come:
Revolution must be distinguished from revolt, coup d’etat, palace takeover. A coup or a palace takeover may be planned, but a revolution -never. Its outbreak, the hour of that outbreak, takes everyone, even those who have been striving for it, unawares. They stand amazed at the spontaneity that appears suddenly and destroys everything in its path. It demolishes so ruthlessly that in the end it may annihilate the ideals that called it into being.
It is a mistaken assumption that nations wronged by history (and they are in the majority) live with the constant thought of revolution, that they see it as the simplest solution. Every revolution is a drama, and humanity instinctively avoids dramatic situations. Even if we find ourselves in such a situation we look feverishly for a way out, we seek calm and, most often, the commonplace. This is why revolutions never last long. They are a last resort, and if people turn to revolution it is only because long experience has taught them there is no other solution. All other attempts, all other means have failed.* Every revolution is preceded by a state of general exhaustion and takes place against a backdrop of unleashed aggressiveness. Authority cannot put up with a nation that gets on its nerves; the nation cannot tolerate an authority an authority it has come to hate. Authority has squandered all its credibility and has empty hands, the nation has lost the final scrap of patience and makes a fist. A climate of tension and increasing oppressiveness prevails. We start to fall into a psychosis of terror. The discharge is coming. We feel it.
As for the technique of the struggle, history knows two kinds of revolution. The first is revolution by assault, the second revolution by siege. All the future fortune, the success, of a revolution by assault is decided by the reach of the first blow. Strike and seize as much ground as possible! This is important because such a revolution, while the most violent, is also the most superficial. The adversary has been defeated, but in retreating he has preserved a part of his forces. He will counter-attack and force the victor to withdraw. Thus, the more far-reaching the first blow, the greater the area that can be saved in spite of later concessions. In a revolution by assault, the first phase is the most radical. The subsequent phases are a slow but incessant withdrawal to the point at which the two sides, the rebelling and the rebelled-against, reach the final compromise. A revolution by siege is different; here the first strike is usually weak and we can hardly surmise that it forebodes a cataclysm. But events soon gather speed and become dramatic. More and more people take part. The walls behind which authority has been sheltering crack and then burst. The success of a revolution by siege depends on the determination of the rebels, on their will power and endurance. One more day! One more push! In the end, the gates yield, the crowd breaks in and celebrates its triumph.
It is authority that provokes revolution. Certainly, it does not do so consciously. Yet its style of life and way of ruling finally become a provocation. This occurs when a feeling of impunity takes root among the elite: We are allowed anything, we can do anything. This is a delusion, but it rests on a certain rational foundation. For a while, it does indeed look as if they can do whatever they want. Scandal after scandal and illegality after illegality go unpunished. The people remain silent, patient, wary. They are afraid and do not yet feel their own strength. At the same time, they keep a detailed account of the wrongs, which at one particular moment are to be added up. The choice of that moment is the greatest riddle known to history. Why did it happen on that day, and not on another? Why did this event, and not some other, bring it about? After all, the government was indulging in even worse excesses only yesterday, and there was no reaction at all. “What have I done?” asks the ruler, at a loss. “What has possessed them all of a sudden?” This is what he has done: He has abused the patience of the people. But where is the limit of that patience? How can it be defined? If the answer can be determined at all, it will be different in each case. The only certain thing is that rulers who know that such a limit exists and know how to respect it can count on holding power for a long time. But there are few such rulers.
So was 1986 a Revolution by Siege and 2001 a Revolution by Assault? And the fate of the President lies in her hands, not in those of her critics. Something to ponder. I’ll give you a couple of concrete examples of what I mean.
In the case of Manuel Gaite, his wife has, understandably (and even justifiably) enough pleaded for fairness because of the public criticisms of her husband’s behavior. But we ought to consider how much of the outrageous arrows of fortune now sticking out of her husband, is due to those who have accepted Jun Lozada’s statesments as Gospel truth, and how much are due to Gaite’s own statetements -and that of the Palace. Gaite’s defense is a simple one: he is a good soldier, but a foot soldier may be the first to fall, as Fr. Joaquin Bernas points out in Shielding the President; and a soldier, even if good, fighting to what end? As History Unfolding points out, an official may fight well but not for worthy goals. Even the good soldier defense, as Torn & Frayed pointed out, insults the intelligence.
For this reason and many others (he surely had a hand in drafting some of the most noxious executive issuances of our time), while I sympathize with Mrs. Gaite and I think Gaite himself tries to be a good person, I am unsympathetic to where this has all led him.
In his testimony before the Senate, and indeed, on the basis of the administration officials who testified, one thing they didn’t shirk was that they tried to prevent Lozada from appearing before the Senate. Gaite admitted the Palace’s objective was to facilitate Lozada’s leaving the country until the Senate could wrap up the ZTE hearings. A recent Inquirer summed it up as a confession of conspiracy. What the administration tried to dodge was the allegation of abduction.
Another, and related, example is this: Lozada passport turned over to court. I’ve heard it said that when the passport was produced, the faces of the lawyers from the Solicitor-General’s office fell. The whole problem with the passport, apparently, was that a stamp showing Lozada had gone through immigration upon his arrival would have demolished the claim of an abduction. The problem was, no lower-level person from the Bureau of Immigration wanted to be a party to order to stamp the passport: it would have required a lower-level bureaucrat to stake his name and reputation on saying he’d stamped the passport when Lozada arrived, when no immigration official did. This implies that these bureaucrats didn’t think it was worth their while to take the heat for their bosses -and the surrendering of the passport to the court by a lower-level security person is a similar refusal to further take the heat for the bosses.
Let me refer, once more, to my Thursday column, Minimum and maximum, which tries to distinguish between two courts: of public opinion and of the law. Each has their proper place and they are not, much as the Palace insists, mutually exclusive: but each has its proper place and both are being actively resorted to (most recently: Lozada files kidnap, murder raps vs Razon, Atienza, et al ). Last Tuesday on my show my lawyer guest pointed out that Lozada’s testimony before the Senate is significant, in that it can be used to impeach him in court cases; therefore his assertions can actually fortify or weaken cases related to him or to officials in the courts.
Meanwhile let me state for the record that whatever my own preferences may be, I do not think a consensus for People Power exists, yet; or that there is even a widespread demand for the President’s resignation, yet: because there is no consensus on what should come afterwards. I find it heartening that people from all sides are making efforts to encourage arriving at a consensus.
But I do think three things have happened: first, more people are open to either option, and second, that the President faces a significant erosion in the constituency she fairly successfully claimed to represent from 2001 to the present: big business, the entrepreneurial class, include the Filipino-Chinese merchant class, professionals, and the provinces, and the majority of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Why this has taken place, now, is best clarified by Manuel Buencamino in his column, Everyone has a limit.
At the Mass in La Salle Greenhills on Sunday, I saw a classmate and good friend of Mike Arroyo. I teased him, took his picture with my cell phone, and told him, “I’m going to ‘MMS’ this photo to your friends Mike and Gloria.” He replied, “I already waved my middle finger at them when I passed the security cameras at the gate.”
I saw a nun from the Assumption College, Gloria Arroyo’s alma mater and bastion of support. My daughter commented, “Look, dad, there’s a lonely Assumption nun. Are they breaking ranks?”
I laughed and texted Manuel Quezon III about the apparition and he texted back, “She is not alone.”
Everyone has his limits. I suppose that’s what Gloria’s bishops meant when they said there is some good in everyone, including unrepentant liars, bribers, cheaters, plunderers, kidnappers and murderers.
Third, even among those still unprepared to consider resignation or People Power, there is also a growing number of people who have reached the conclusion that the President does not intend to step down in 2010, but they are still digesting the implications of this realization.
As Amando Doronila points out in Mounting outrage, little momentum :
Although there are signs of increasing public outrage over the NBN scandal, a higher state of outrage is needed to send huge numbers of people to the streets. The military is watching the size of the crowd before it makes a move either to remain loyal to the commander in chief or withdraw support, like it did in 2001, when the general staff dumped Estrada.
And yet, as Mon Casiple suggests,
Malacañang is scrambling for the initiative. Mobilization by friendly LGU units are being planned, sprinkled by a few pro-GMA NGOs and church personalities. A media offensive has been launched — against Lozada, JDV, the opposition, and even against Vice-President Noli de Castro. The de Castro media attack seeks to prevent a possible de Castro defection that can fundamentally undermine GMA’s chances of survival.
And so, for betting men, the Asia Sentinel (in Philippines + Scandal = Life Goes On , which resembles Doronila’s views) is right in saying the advantage remains with the administration. For some, the old arguments still hold water, as shown by A Simple Life. See also …got my life back….
But if it is unable to turn the tide before Holy Week, then what? Let’s return to Mon Casiple:
If it is not able to regain the initiative in the coming days, then the momentum for people power may not be denied and a GMA resignation will be the only outcome, either to preempt people power or as a consequence of one. The key institutions to watch are the Catholic church, big business, military, the Cabinet, and the ruling coalition. All these are watching closely the rise of the people’s movement and are making their decisions on an hour-by-hour basis.
The political crisis may be resolved in a matter of days or weeks; failure to do so will create a sustained and debilitating crisis for the rest of the year.
Ricky Carandang pretty much sees the same challenge facing the administration: having created problems for itself, how does it turn the tables on its critics? In a suitably short period of time, too. See what reporter Jove Francisco has to say, too, about the way old strategies don’t work as effectively, anymore. See pine for pine for another example. But blog@AWB Holdings doesn’t think that trotting out the President’s Assumption friends really helps.
There is only so much we can do. But of the things we can do -consulting with people, fostering consensus, but also, recognizing our own limits and what we will do if those limits are going to be crossed by possible events- let’s do them.
There is another broad consensus that I think exists: that the problems are deep, and yes, systemic, and this means once we take a step in a particular direction, we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to live with events unfolding to their logical conclusion. Which, of course, includes the risk of unintended consequences, too.
Let me close with another illuminating passage from the same chapter from the same book I quoted at the beginning of this entry:
The Shah’s reflex was typical of all despots: Strike first and suppress, then think it over: What next? First, display muscle, make a show of strength, and later perhaps demonstrate you also have a brain. Despotic authority attaches great importance to being considered strong, and much less to bering admired for its wisdom. Besides, what does wisdom mean to a despot? It means skill in the use of power. The wise despot know when and how to strike. This continual display of power is necessary because, at root, any dictatorship appeals to the lowest instincts of the governed: fear, aggressiveness towards one’s neighbors, bootlicking. Terror most effectively excites such instincts, and fear of strength is the wellspring of terror.
A despot believes that man is an abject creature. Abject people fill his court and populate his environment. A terrorized society will behave like an unthinking, submissive mob for a long time. Feeding it is enough to make it obey. Provided with amusements, it’s happy. The rather small arsenal of political tricks has not changed in millennia. Thus, we have all the amateurs in politics, all the ones convinced they would know how to govern if only they had the authority. Yet surprising things can also happen. Here is a well-fed and well-entertained crowd that stops obeying. It begins to demand something more than entertainment. It wants freedom, it demands justice. The despot is stunned. He doesn’t know how to see a man in all his fullness and glory. In the end such a man threatens dictatorship, he is its enemy. So it gathers its strength and destroys him.
Although dictatorship despises the people, it takes pains to win its recognition. In spite of being lawless -or rather, because it is lawless- it strives for the appearance of legality. On this point it is exceedingly touchy, morbidly oversensitive. Moreover, it suffers from a feeling (however deeply hidden) of inferiority. So it spares no pains to demonstrate to itself and others the popular approval it enjoys. Even if this support is a mere charade, it feels satisfying. So what if it’s only an appearance? The world of dictatorship is full of appearances…
…The most difficult thing to do while living in a palace is to imagine a different life -for instance, your own life, but outside of and minus the palace. Toward the end, the ruler finds people willing to help him out. Many lives, regrettably, can be lost at such moments. The problem of honor in politics. Take de Gaulle -a man of honor. He lost a referendum, tidied up his desk, and left the palace, never to return. He wanted to govern only under the condition that the majority accept him. The moment the majority refused him their trust, he left. But how many are like him? The others will cry, but they won’t move; they’ll torment the nation, but they won’t budge. Thrown out one door, they sneak in through another; kicked down the stairs, they begin to crawl back up. They will excuse themselves, bow and scrape, lie and simper, provided they can stay -or provided they can return. They will hold out their hands -Look, no blood on them. But the very fact of having to show those hands covers them with the deepest shame. They will turn their pockets inside out -Look, there’s not much there. But the very fact of exposing their pockets -how humiliating! The Shah, when he left the palace, was crying. At the airport he was crying again. Later he explained in interviews how much money he had, and that it was less than people thought.
This passage suggests many things; among them, the solid logic behind Atty. Raul Pangalanan’s arguments against The arguments for inaction.
And how’s this for action: First Gentleman leaves for Hong Kong–airport sources: Lawyer clueless but says not evading NBN probes.
Yesterday I texted some people I know outside Manila what they think, re: Lozada. Responses:
Bacolod:
hati rin kmi d2, sa ofc (provl gov’t) we biliv some facts bt questns are many like dat of what he dnt tel snce it s a big questn y now lg xa went out to d open… Protectn 2 life yes, but we cnt say 100% we biliv him…
Also from Bacolod:
They all believe him. But they are also disgusted with his investigators. Nobody I know trust that the Opposition want change -they just want their turn. The big change is they all hate GMA now but no tipping point. [The politicians are] discombobulated. They don’t know how to read the situation now. Even Bacolod’s notorious GMA lapdog Monico Puentevella who has managed to be close to all Presidents since Cory has signed a resolution against GMA which means He’s also paving the way for the next power “just in case.”
A student journalist at La Salle Bacolod:
Do u believe in Jun Lozada’s statements? 1000 Lasallian students. [survey results] 73% YES. 9% NO. 18% undecided.
From Naga City:
Save for some ppld identified wid Dato Arroyo phoning in radio programs, public sentiment is overwhelmingly wid Jun Lozada by a mile. Metro Naga chamber of commerce broke ranks wid PCCI and issued a statement supporting Lozada. Ateneo de Naga and Univ Sta. Isabel leading regl signature campaigning asking GMA to step down./ Ders a big protest event slated tom. da prolonged rains -for more than a wk now- notwithstanding
From Cebu City:
I think most people from Cebu are indifferent when comes to politics. But people do consider him credible. As a business person, most policies of the present administration are skewed towards favored businessmen. Regulatory Capture of Government Agencies is so obvious. Get rid all the nasty people hostaging the president. She’s good but helpless.
Also from a Cebu City friend currently traveling:
Met up w/friend (f. 32, married, filchi, alabang) n BKK, she says ppl back home don’t care anymore -the’ll see see what comes.My sister (f.41.single) joked “Who’s he” but says she was in NAIA with him the other night. Before I left Cebu, my thought my thought was: is this guy for real? is he honest? we all sort of presume that BigBoy is also BadBoy but really do we want yet another popular uprising? I suppose the general sentiment is… there’s a lack of it. people are getting apathetic again -at least marcos babies like us.
From Davao City:
So far, people believe him and his testimony… Pero as far as suportng anodr edsa, dats anodr story. I belv they wud want 2 w8 4 2010. No ppl powr dis tym… Prblm s corrupt s so widespread that ppl hv bcm cncal on d mattr… Evn d senators ond way or odr s nvolvd.
South Cotabato, according to the Davao City texter,
N so cotab2, d sentiment s mor ntense re anti gma coz its a known opositn area.
In Manila, a student from UST has this to say:
Still lookng 4 a concrete thing to do besides rally. Mabe if we start pressuring congressmen to support impeachment now. Itll giv anyone intrsted somthng to do.
Many of dem talk re hs crdblty n hw d whol plan 2 covr up only incrsd prcption dat he’s saying d truth, bt many r also dsenchantd w/ d hrings. F u ask me, d real ish brot abt b d series of NBN probes is being muddld by focus n prsonalties (lozada’s crdbtly, neri’s conscience, abalos’ guilt, gma’s involvmnt). Mnwyl, no 1. evn d opp s movng fast 2 fx d dysfnctional govt procurmnt 2 prvnt such deals frm hpening agn. Dat’s y ppol get tyrd of it ol n tune out
Congres or any poltcian is always undr d comand of pblic presure. Bt pols cnt feel that presure, bec media coverge is muddld, ppol just tune out. F media focuses n d real issues, ppol wil spil on d streets nt (jst) to chnge govt bt to presure it to initiate chnges. When ths starts n media covrs frm an ishus prspctv, a virtuous cycle wil begin, more powrful thn any powr brker. That kind of media advocacy hs bn sucesful in Africa, Europ n evn in US.
D real ishus r d dysfunctions in govt, thos dat Neri hs bn lamentng in hs polecon lectures. No one wants cheatng, bt no one is pushng… for elections effciency. No wnts coruption, bt no one is pushng to chnge d govt procurnmnt systm. no one is keeping govt audts in check (unles they cn use it for poltcal blakmail). D ishus r nt poverty. Povrty s an efect of our systemic problems, w/c is y that shud be our focus, nt ppol. Bec whoevr sits in gov’t r accidntal to do problem. Corruption cn always prospr in a systm left unchckd.
And from a lawyer:
Funny u shld ask, I was discusing it wid an ofcmate ystrdy, he said at first he was riveted by d whole thing but lately wid d idiots in d legislature grandstanding (galit lang dawbec dey werent in on it) he has gotten tired and tuned it out. Sad, and maybe dats d point of dis admin, 2 make pipol so sick as 2 turn apathetic as a way 2 cope.
And I.T. person:
Most people i talk to believe him, they see no ulterior motive for what he is doing.
As for the blogosphere, yugatech on how wiretapping’s getting cheaper; missingpoints on comparing Lozada to Singson. Bayan ni Kabayan on trying to understand Joker Arroyo. The Venom Speaks suggests we all make a self-check first.
Update, 2 am Saturday: noise barrages have caught the imagination of students! Check out video in Life’s precious moments don’t have value, unless they are shared. , and photos in *dawnskee* and rheavargas and I’m becoming tired… , as well as descriptions in spread YOUR wings and catch ME as i fall 🙂 and Fly and forever dance and Me, Myself, and I… and des’ Site and the ME behind the I and “my crazy little place is just around the corner”
And more statements, first from the UP Law Faculty and Students and then:
To a fellow economist and former colleague, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo statement from economists of the Ateneo de Manila University
We are outraged by the revelations made by Engr. Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. at the Philippine Senate Blue Ribbon hearings last 8 February 2008 about the overpriced Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Company-National Broadband Network (ZTE-NBN) project. The project has no clear public rationale in the first place. We are dismayed by the revelations of Mr. Lozada that former Commission on Election Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr., with the alleged involvement of First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, ordered the inclusion in the proposed project a large amount of kickbacks, amounting to as much as 130 million US dollars (or more than 5.2 billion pesos), enough money to remove the yearly public school classroom backlog, or purchase 5.8 million sacks of NFA rice, or alternatively secure the basic needs of about 29,000 poor families for a year. Simply put, a lot is being sacrificed for the greed of the few.We are angered by the continuing attempt to cover up the anomalous circumstances surrounding the project, including the supposed kidnapping of Mr. Lozada to keep him from testifying in the Senate. We demand that government remove the cloak of Executive Order 464 and the invocation of executive privilege to allow public officials that have knowledge on the transaction to publicly testify on the circumstances of the deal. We demand the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to release records of the meetings that allowed the contract to be processed. Because of the nature of the work of the NEDA in national economic planning to promote national development and public welfare (and not for private or individual interests), these minutes are public records. We want Secretary Romulo Neri, an Ateneo high school alumnus and supposed staunch advocate of reforms to eradicate transactional politics and oligarchic dominance in the country, to reveal all that he knows about the matter. Efficiency and equity demand no less.
We abhor the habit of this administration of forging secret deals and engaging in non-transparent processes in developing and contracting large infrastructure projects, especially foreign donor-funded programs, contrary to the tenets of good governance. We call on friends and colleagues in the government, especially the alumni of our university, and other sectors to help ferret out the truth about other alleged irregular deals entered into by corrupt public officials, including the fertilizer scam, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority book scam and the North Rail project.
We urge our fellow economist, alumna, and former Ateneo colleague, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, to fully explain and account for all the anomalies under her administration to prevent our country from plunging into another political and economic crisis. Indeed, we are dismayed that Mrs. Arroyo has not exercised the vast powers and resources available to the Presidency to ensure that large-scale corruption in the government is not only blocked but also punished, and that these irregularities have only increased political instability and uncertainty in the country. We are also offended that the Presidency has instead utilized these vast powers and resources to turn its back from servicing the public and contribute to the advancement of private greed, including the Machiavellian buying of congressmen, governors, and everybody else that get its way. And sadly, these abuses have eroded the meaning and legitimacy of the Presidency. If she fails to fully account and explain the anomalies and corrupt practices in her administration, the most honorable thing she can do is to resign from the Presidency.
Finally, we publicly pledge to heed the Catholic Bishops’ call to communal action by supporting the activities that would promote transparency, accountability, and good governance, and we call on our fellow social scientists and academics to support this advocacy. We pledge to make our voices heard by committing to various ways of peaceful and non-violent political mobilization.
— Signatures —
Fernando T. Aldaba
Cristina M. Bautista
Germelino M. Bautista
Edsel L. Beja, Jr.
Diana U. del Rosario
Luis F. Dumlao
Cielito F. Habito
Leonardo A. Lanzona
Joseph Anthony Y. Lim
Romelia I. Neri
Ellen H. Palanca
Malou A. Perez
Joselito T. Sescon
Tara Sia-Go
Patrick Gerard C. Simon-King
Rosalina P. Tan
Philip Arnold P. Tuaño
@ramrod
Sir, I think you are excused (being in the military).
I think I just want to point out that if one wants to stick to a title, one should better deserve it.
I have yet to call a congressman “Honorable” and more importantly a sitting president should always live up to the title “Her/His Excellence”, the operative word being “Excellence”. Otherwise, as the new youtube star Salceda says “Bitch” will do.
@Silent Waters
My other theory is that the incentive is deemed not worth the added responsibility. You can of course be promoted by title only without a salary increase or with a small one. I once asked my aunt why she gave up the promotion to become a ward supervisor (nurse), she said for the additional £100 income, she’d rather have stress-free weekends and not think about managing the ward schedules.
Pero when you think about the example you mentioned, I really wonder why the friendship should be compromised jsut because of the promotion. Ah, but then, power corrupts?
@Silent Waters
PS. also, maybe you cannot put a price tag on quality time with the family. the promotion will probably require longer hours…but then again, it is rare for the ‘boss’ to work longer hours…hmmm, puzzle talaga!
If GMA knew beforehand that the contract was anomalous, why did she allow its signing? Isn’t that a sign of incompetence?†– cvj
Baka makalusot cvj. Let’s move on to impeachment.
“Someone told me about it the night before the signing of the supply contract. That was one of many signings [in China]. But how can you cancel it the night before, considering that you are dealing with another country?†– GMA
‘You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.’ – Oliver Cromwell
“collective guilt goes both ways” – Manuel Quezon III
It goes to show that Mr. Quezon is an apologist for the ruling classes, the oligarchs. He doesn’t want the oligarchs to bear the brunt of responsibility for the ills of Philippine society when, in fact, it was the oligarchs who tolerated Marcos, Ramos, GMA, etc. As Romulo Neri pointed out, oligarchs rule through the captive industries they dominate and which they use to influence government policies and contracts. The ruling classes, which include prominent friends of Mr. Quezon, were responsible for bastardizing Philippine politics and the Philippine economy.
JESUS NEVER PREACHED JEWISH EMANCIPATION FROM ROMAN TYRANNY. I AM CONFUSED WITH THESE PRIESTS WHO ARE SO ENGROSSED WITH TOPPLING DOWN ANY GOVERNEMNT THEY PERCEIVE AS CORRUPT. THEY DO NOT THINK THAT MOST LEADERS THAT WE HAVE TODAY WERE PRODUCTS OF THEIR EXCLUSIVE SCHOOLS. from philstar
Separate the guilt from the innocent. The guilty judged while the innocent spared. Institute check and balances so that control of a few of the nation’s economic wealth will be stifled and eventually removed. Educate the people of Oligarchic Syndicracy and Dictatorship; make them aware that they can say NO; that they have the real power. We do not want a Nazi-like pogrom in our county. This creates a new “elite” clique which dispenses decisions of life and death haphazardly.
Correction for above post, should be: Separate the guilty from the innocent…
The Philippines needs a president with integrity at the core of his/her being.We are in dire need of a new leader completely different from both ERAP and GLORIA PIDAL .In other words, we need a president who possesses the following characteristics (which Gloria and ERAP sadly do not possess):
Honesty:
The truth is what must always be spoken. Politicians who lie their way to positions of power have corrupted the political process for generations. Lies, distortions, and half-truths cannot be tolerated within the highest office of the land.
Values:
The president must be a person of unquestionable personal values. Anyone lacking a basic value system is not qualified to be the leader of our country.
Credibility:
We need a credible leader, someone known for consistency in his or her belief. Presidential aspirants should have a believable record, and not a history of changing their beliefs depending upon the latest political poll. The issue of credibility determines the effectiveness of being able to lead at the national level.
Communication skills:
Once, this was not such an issue. Today, it is. In this era of instant, and continual communications, it is vital that a president be able to effectively communicate with the nation, and the world.
Ability to inspire:
Regardless of all of the other qualities needed by president, without the ability to inspire, all is lost. He or she must be able to inspire our long suffering people to start believing again in their leaders and in themselves.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive” Yet, the deceiving doesn’t stop, and now it is coming from the Very Top..”yeah I know there were some irregularities, but until somebody say it right to my face, I’ll keep my silence”..
“The ruling classes … were responsible for bastardizing Philippine politics and the Philippine economy.” -Jude
Personalized, rich-vs-poor class warfare is:
“The rich are thieves or sons or grandsons of thieves.”
“If you are richer than me, then you have stolen from me.”
“If you are poorer than me, then you want to steal from me.”
“As I have been saying everytime, there are REAL ISSUES at stake that have to be addressed and they all can be traced to the current administration as the perpetrators are the same allies that close ranks to save it whenever besieged by a people who are clamoring for accountability and change.”
=========================================================
I believe REAL ISSUE NOW is on how go about with accountability and change that everybody is clamoring. Everybody wants public accountability and change and surely believe that that will improve their lives. But everyd cannot aggre on ho wto about it. I said this from the very start that I join this blog and I say it again.
Everyone in this forum is conquering the same territor
y. But is taking different routes in conquestteri. ( Of course its inspired by Stephen Covey Book 7 Habits). What is happening in this forum is that one sectors are so aggressive in their method of conquest and is constantly picking up on the other group of people that is taking a different route from theirs. One group woudl even claim that they are the good and the nice guys whiel teh other group is bad and eveil guys. Resulta, GULO!
BTW this is also the main platform of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. (Barack even have electoral reform) Of their platform are born out of the mess made by teh current president. So even the USA has the same problems as hours. But they do it in a very differnet ways than ours. There was no hate mongering, their was no overthrowing of government, there is no extra constitutional means, no peopel power, open letter contest no throwing of legalities out of the windows. None of those drama and antics from the opposition and and from those people who is aggressively clamoring for change in the phillippines. They simply waited for the end of Bush term. Prepared themselvse for the next next election. Yet they seem to be very effective. Judging from the way the way Hilary and Barack is doing in the democratic primary and caucauses and how they generated peoples interest. You guys can see them on cable TV right?
rego, when it comes to more important issues that concern the national interest, even the main oppositions (loyal oppositions) has to sit down with the government and work out a plan together. One good example is our country’s mission in Afghanistan, instead of the Government forcing an election on the issue of when to call it quits, the Politicians of all stripes decided that this issues is too dangerous to leave to the voters alone to decide..how about if the voters made a mistake? we are talking about our Soldiers here. so Instead the politicians, all of them which represent the totality of all voters work out a plan until they came to an agreement..we can not debate and argue while our soldiers are fighting, lest we change postion with them.
Ramrod, i think the incompetence is on her part as it shows lack of decisiveness. Pointing to the staff also betrays lack of control and lack of sense of responsibility – all indicators of poor leadership.
As to her excuse – “how can you cancel it the night before, considering that you are dealing with another country?“, wasn’t she the one who bragged that a “a president is as strong as she want to be“? This sentence reveals weakness on her part.
Of course, her statement also contradicts the timeline presented by Neri, so frankly, i think she’s lying.
James, i’m glad you equated the Arroyo administration with ‘Roman Tyranny’. 😀
Silent Waters, as much as possible, i don’t favor a ‘year zero’ (for reasons Kabayan mentioned at 9:18pm). I prefer a more targeted approach.
Voice from the past:
GOOD MOVE, BAD MOVE
By Ricardo Saludo (Asiaweek:1999)
What makes a good power move? Or a bad one? No, devils and angels have nothing to do with it. Power has one objective: to make things happen, whether good or evil. What things? Whatever the power wielder wants. So one test of a good power move is whether it had the effect it was supposed to have. At the start of Manila’s People Power Revolution in 1986, Asiaweek asked Ferdinand Marcos whether there would be a curfew. He promptly ordered one. But nobody paid attention – a clear failure of clout. Indeed, blatant flouting of Marcos’s word just accelerated the implosion of his authority. Which brings us to a second criterion for power moves: Did it enhance or erode the wielder’s clout?
Ricardo Saludo is now Gloria’s Cabinet secretary)
Vic: Abe Margallo may label Canadian Politics a failure for this sentence: “instead of the Government forcing an election on the issue …
Vic: And Canada is such an inviting place for a number of liberty-seeking people of all stripes, but to leave the citizens out of a war-and-peace discussion and without people-power marches???! Blasphemy!!!
Or maybe it works for Canada because Canadians believe that their politicians.. all of them which represent the totality of all voters .
UPn, There are quite a few school thoughts on this issue. But for me, this is the one I am comfortable with, because for the reason that any Party here can win the Government with winning the majority seats in the Province of Ontario alone and the popularity vote of even less than 35%. Because of the system of any party winning the most seats wins the government, that could happen. And that could mean a party whose plan for the troops that may not be for their best interest maybe catapulted to power by 30% of the voters. Whereas, all political parties represent all voters.
vic: I hear you! I just wanted to point out the paragraph in your blogpost entry because it is in contrast to other well-articulated points-of-view by others. It — no people-power??? — is blasphemy for others, but it appears it works well, for now, for Canada (from your perspective). Representative democracy does work!!!!
And you did say all political parties represent all voters…. radical!!!!
thanks UPn, we must remember that politicians of all colours are all part and parcel of Democracy..
But I am always a True Conservative and been a member of the Conservative Party for a long, long time, yet I admire a lot of Liberal Leaders and consider one Socialist in Tommy Douglas the Greatest of Them All..
Dear UPn student
Read your Darwin (the Origin of Species followed by the Descent of Man) first and then the El Filibusterismo. There are a few mouldy copies at the College of Science library at UP Diliman.
I presume you have read your Marx. Darwin is much much an easier read.
Happy reading!
And my fearful bemusement with cvj stems from sentences like this
What is interesting is that if you make “year-zero” the days-when-Monarchy-reigned (e.g. Shah-of-Iran) or the “days-when-Philippines-was-a-US-commonwealth”, the people targetted by the “…more targetted approach” can be any “LOWER”-class… “LOWER” meaning slimeballs in the eyes of the year-Zero leaders… so the targetting hit-teams can be Pinochet’s version, not just Sparrow-units.
So be sure to ask what “year-zero”? Trace the money. The capitalist-behind-the-plot may be the Saudis with year-zero being pre-Spaniards. Or the capitalista may be Honasan… but probably not Noli de Castro (Jon Mariano mentions that Noli may be P220-million “poorer” after his purchase of a love-nest… horny bastard 🙄 !!!!)
to Blackshama: Thanks!!! pero wala bang Cliff notes? 🙂
UP n, forget Blackshama’s reading list. Read William James, Freud and Immanuel Kant and read a little of Tagore. Origin of the Species is not exactly “bleeding edge.” Marx glories in artificial constructs like “dialectic.”
Adrienne
It has always been thus.
collective guilt goes both ways. – mlq3
That means collective guilt is a dangerous idea, but an idea being dangerous in itself is not grounds for denying its validity much less its existence. – cvj
Here’s a relevant entry from wiki on “group-based guilt†(not “collective guiltâ€Â) and reparation through “affirmative action†(based in part on Charles Hurst’s “Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequencesâ€Â):
Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity of some minority groups. They may argue that the end result – a more diversified and representative student body, police force or other group – justifies the means, despite the text of the Equal Protection Clause, and regardless of the adverse discrimination against European Americans or Asian Americans.
Philanthropists have drawn comparisons between the current economic state of some non-dominant groups and poverty. Children born, today, to dominant families are clearly not at all responsible for poverty throughout the world. Although these children have in no way caused or condoned poverty, history predicts that some will nevertheless see poverty as an injustice that should be righted if indeed possible. Proponents of affirmative action may believe that genuine residual social and economic injustices continue to affect particular groups; and that these injustices should be righted if indeed possible. Beyond the moral arguments for righting injustices, some proponents claim that immediate reparatory action – rather than delayed action or no action – can prevent the social and economic issues from reaching a stage where they become impossible (or greatly more difficult) to repair.
Much of the controversy surrounding affirmative action’s effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality. Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle and upper class minorities at the expense of lower class whites. This argument supports the idea of solely class based affirmative action. America’s poor is disproportionately made up of minorities, so class based affirmative action would disproportionately help minorities. This would eliminate the need for race based affirmative action as well as reducing any disproportionate benefits for middle and upper class minorities.
My take on the issue is indicated in this old post of mine on Erap and Mahatir:
Estrada appreciated that conceptions of fairness and justice cut very deep and are compelling catalyst, and that continued concentration of wealth in the hands of the Philippine elites would undermine the authenticity of market-oriented system and democracy. His campaign slogan was Erap para sa mahihirap (Erap is for the poor) and the centerpiece agenda of his new administration was food security. A welfare vis-à-vis market reforms might not be farfetched. Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir of Malaysia pursued a parallel scheme, what some commentators called affirmative action for the disadvantaged bumiputra majority, to temper the economic dominance of Malaysia’s Chinese minority.
And on a larger perspective this commentary:
What’s being postulated furthermore is that even the market construct could become fair if struggling but willing and ready nations are given a decent chance to build and accumulate [or in the language of hvrds: be “productive†through “impetus†provided by the state as actor – AND by economic elites with a high “sense of country,†if I may add, or “patriotic minded†as Madonna pointed out] just as exactly as the leading economic powers of today did during their own growing pains and struggles; and enabled to be on similar footing, then and only then should these latecomers be made to face up to the challenge of competition. On an individual level, they call this “affirmative action†in America. I believe even nations are entitled to equal opportunity. This axiom, possibly more legitimating than “economic liberalism,†requires that adjustments to transformation of this sort relative to the prevailing international economic order should demand more of the stronger states than the weaker ones, not the other way around.
Vic,
That should always be the case, kahit saan bansa naman yata eh. I believe yan ang problema sa Pinas ngayon. The opposition wont do anything regarding issue or poblem resolution unless Glora resigns.
But Gloria doesn’t want to resign no matter how much pressure is exerted on to her.
Now the people is left with the decision to keep her or to continue forcing her to resign.
My stand is to let her stay until her term expires. And we removed her before her term expires it shoudl be done through the existing process defined in the constitution. Prove all these allegations of anomalies consitutional violations in the proper courst to convict her.
And from my view, all these brouhaha over Lozada is not really accomplishing much so far other than media exposure for presidential and senatorial wannabes and powerplay of the political elites and oligarchs. That was all these mass at LSG and all these letter signed by peopel from prominent schools and was holding prominent positions before.
John Canda,
“The problem with us is that we easily believe such accusations even if they aren’t supported by evidence.”
Lozada is a witness. In our courts, this can be more powerful than the evidence. I don’t know if this is true but some lawyers (older ones) say you cannot put a man in jail without at least one direct witness against him. Sounds stupid but I can believe anything about this country’s legal system.
Re collective guilt:
Don’t go with Manolo on his focus on consequences. I’m sure it is a logical fallacy or something.
Manolo, if there is no collective guilt, then there is no collective amnesia. I’m sure you’ve used the latter phrase before, and quite with sincerity.
collective=cultural
“bencard, i agree so much with LTD test. but i’m very much concerned on how either side will accept the result though.” rego.
thank you, rego, for this very important question. since lozada is the complainant and principal witness to the alleged kidnapping and bribery, he has to convince the prosecutor that he has sufficient evidence to bring the cases to court and to convict the accused. in the process of evaluating lozada’s “evidence”, the prosecutor is not limited to lozada’s affidavit and testimony, or any physical evidence. what better way for a prosecutor to ascertain whether lozada is telling the truth than to require him to submit to polygraph testing. if lozada passed, the prosecutor would have the confidence and a better chance of “winning” against a formidable defense that has the constitutional presumption of innocence among its arsenal. i believe lozada would have no choice but to submit or else his complaint may have to be dismissed.
as to the other side, atienza et al., i think, would not only be in a position to object, but also would have no reason to accept the outcome. it would be a win, win situation for all the accused. considering what is apparently happening now that so many people, including students and universities, are making prejudgment against the accused, believing every word lozada utters, even hailing him as a “hero” and celebrity, without any of his testimony being tested according to accepted standards of truth-seeking. if lozada was dishonest, and the polygraph showed it, that would put a damper on the political firestorm that gma’s enemies had built upon it. the bubble, of both lozada and the people capitalizing on his lies, would burst. in the political “war” that is going on, that would be one battle won for the administration.
as far as the accused are concerned, even if lozada passed the test, it should not affect the presumption of their innocence since that would be inadmissible as evidence against them in court. also, i believe, such outcome, by itself, would be insufficient to convict the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”.
correction: 3rd par., 2d line: would have NO reason to accept the outcome…
correction to correction (sorry), would have no reason NOT to accept the outcome…
“Marx glories in artificial constructs like “dialectic.â€Â
Karen Greenberg, Barbarism Lite
According to the New Yorker’s Paul Kramer, here’s what A.F. Miller of the 32nd Volunteer Infantry Regiment wrote in a letter to the Omaha World-Herald in May 1900 from the Philippines about the treatment of a prisoner taken by his unit: “Now, this is the way we give them the water cure. Lay them on their backs, a man standing on each hand and each foot, then put a round stick in the mouth and pour a pail of water in the mouth and nose, and if they don’t give up pour in another pail. They swell up like toads. I’ll tell you it is a terrible torture.”
One American was indeed finally brought to trial for the widespread use of “the water cure” in the Philippines at the turn of the previous century as the Filipino insurgency was suppressed. Captain Edwin Glenn, a judge advocate, supervised such a torture session. For this, he was convicted and sentenced to a “one-month suspension and a fifty-dollar fine.” He retired from the Army in 1919 as a brigadier general.
Many were the American defenses of “the water cure” back then, including the blunt suggestion that, on racial grounds, Filipinos were not “owed the ‘protective’ limits of ‘civilized warfare.'” Many have been the defenses of waterboarding and other forms of torture in the Bush years — among them, the all-but-racially based suggestion that America’s enemies (you know who) don’t deserve to be dealt with according to the laws of civilization, including the Geneva Conventions. Then and now, a relatively small but hardy crew of Americans, in and out of government, protested, wrote, and struggled against such practices.
Hitler and his man drew on the latent anti-semitism embedded in the writings of Martin Luther who railed against the Jews for an entirely different reason.
The NAZI propaganda machine dehumanized the Jews in Germany. But they had fertile ground to do it on.
The poor and destitute are all invisible in the Philippines. They become visible only to the politicos during election times. To some of those who are the haves they are simply the wretched refuse on the streets. Look at Erap running around for photo-ops with the poor to proclaim that they love him. They are all running for the freebies and occasionally he gives away goodies for PR spin.
Instead of refusing to put himself under the jurisdiction of what he called an illegal court, he submitted himself and was convicted. He would have garnered a lot of respect if he stuck to his principles. He blew it big time. GMA has been terribly wounded by recent events. Her time is numbered, 2010 or earlier.
We all deserve “the lucky bitch.”
Corruption will never bring on direct action by the people. In the Philippine context the idea of stealing from the government in many forms is considered an art and better business practice.
Tax evasion and tax avoidance are synonymous. We have all blurred the lines. Look at Lozada. His entire family prospered from it. He is the perfect example of the average educated middle class who sees corruption as normal practice until he saw the his actions being exposed to public scrutiny.
Bencard,
Thank you. I totally understand now. Now I have enough reson to believe that subjecting Lozada to LDT seem a most sober way to go over these current drama. I definietly prefer LDT over the letter writing contest, mudslinging, cory sponsored massess and novena and the calls for people power and Gloria resignation.
brianb, a witness’ testimony is a form of EVIDENCE. it cannot be any more or less “powerful” than any other admitted evidence. i think even “young” lawyers who know their law would tell you that. does that sound stupid to you?
Completely Agree 100%. however; would that be even possible in the current state of philippine politics and society? Currently, people with those attributes wont even be elected as barangay captains or even HOA presidents. 😀 Granted a person with idealism is elected and begin to implement a complete overhaul of everything what is wrong in our country. Do you think he/she will survive politically or will he/she immediately compromise realizing that reforms cannot happen overnight. Which leader is better..someone who drastically change the system come hell or high water or somebody who goes slow and works within the system to achieve reforms.
Its counterproductive for our country to replace presidents every how many years knowing fully well that each succeeding one will fail to immediately turn things around. Idealist then ostracize them for not having a backbone to stand up on what is right.
Come to think about it. What if everyone have rallied around our presidents since Marcos and help them institute changes slowly around instead of undermining each and everyone of them. We probably are in first world status.
Bencard, I just heard a lawyer say that about the necessity of having a witness on criminal trials. Besides, finger prints and DNA are not exactly common forms of evidence here. Never heard of a murder put to jail because of his fingerprints or his DNA found on the scene.
“tax evasion and tax avoidance are synonymous” hrvds
wrong. tax evasion is willful failure or refusal to pay the taxes due. tax avoidance is using lawful ways to avoid paying, or to reduce, the taxes due, e.g., investing in tax-exempt activities.
brian, i don’t recall using collective amnesia but i did use official amnesia:
https://www.quezon.ph/?p=1497
jude, you’re welcome to return to my july 2005 column on the president’s resignation. i’ve been clear on the failure of those who have had authority. what i do not advocate is the wholesale liquidation of any portion of our society. collective guilt goes both ways because you can justify the liquidation of a group on the basis of that idea, and one day you too, in turn, could end up the target of liquidation of another group that has categorized you as unfit for continued existence.
Agree.
When we talk about political oppositions in the country we literally mean political opponents or enemies, instead of one of the Checks and Balances in a Democracy. And yet the enemy will become a partner for expediency. That should have not been the Case.
When the Queen calls on the winning Party to form the Government, the Governor General representing the Queen will address the Main Opposition as the “Loyal Oppositionâ€Â, a watchdog to the government actions, but a loyal servant to the nation nevertheless. All other oppositions are expected to be loyal likewise. All of them will hit the Government hard on Broken Promises and inactions, but would not shy to co-operate with obviously serious national interest issues. Any hints of wrongdoings in Government are tasked without let up, until the smokes clear. And that is with the enormous help of the Media which every entity may also support or slant to a particular party ideologies, but that is where it stops, and all cards down the table when it comes to wrongdoing by personalities of conspiracy within the Party.
“tax evasion and tax avoidance are synonymous†hrvds
tax evasion is willful failure or refusal to pay the taxes due. tax avoidance is using lawful ways to avoid paying, or to reduce, the taxes due, e.g., investing in tax-exempt activities. bencard
Once again, get out of your legal straightjacket. You’re are not taking a midterm test on Taxation.
When Lucio Tan first “evaded†to pay tax according the Tax Court to the tune of 28 billion pesos before interest, and then “avoided†paying it on being found innocent by a lower court judge . . .someone has to check the lifestyle of this judge now as well as the fixcals too . . . the end result is the same . . . LESS MONEY FOR THE COMMUNITY, THE POOR AND THE STATE.
The commercial hog farms do not feed their hogs with raw corn. They feed them with hog mash which consists of yellow corn and other ingredients that promote weight gain without too much fats.
It is not just like, isusuga mo yong mga baboy doon sa corn fields o kaya you will bring the corn to the farms. haha
Continue dreaming. When you wake up, the truth is still there. They run for public office to protect their business interests.
If Cory Aquino was not the President, do you think Hacienda Luisita will not be exempted from CARP.
Abe:
I don’t know why you posted items on affirmative action but prefaced it with “..collective guilt”. Here is a sentence from your cut-and-paste.
I agree with the sentence above, but do you? My understanding is the sentence above is something DISAGREEABLE to someone who believes in “collective guilt” in the manner that (I think that) cvj does and some “year-zero” proponents do.
Here are two additional sentences from your cut-and-paste.
Proponents of affirmative action may believe that genuine residual social and economic injustices continue to affect particular groups; and that these injustices should be righted if indeed possible. Beyond the moral arguments for righting injustices, some proponents claim that immediate reparatory action – rather than delayed action or no action – can prevent the social and economic issues from reaching a stage where they become impossible (or greatly more difficult) to repair.
What would you include among the “moral arguments for righting injustices”?
And what would you, a People-Power believer, consider as in-bounds and out-of-bounds for righting injustices, or is it that any means is acceptable considering the ends?
[My worry about some of the year-ZERO collective-guilt-practitioners (embodiment — PolPot, Hitler) is that they actually believe that injustices can be righted ONLY AFTER their enemies (the Jews (and gypsies) for Hitler; professionals, intellectuals, homosexuals, ethnic Chinese, Buddhist monks and other enemies-of-Khmer Rouge for Polpot) are sent to killing fields.]
watchful eye, ignoring your idiotic sarcasm, if that judge wrongfully applied the law, he should be dealt with for ignorance (or bribery, as you imply). tan should still be liable for the tax due (and the bribery, if proven). the law is not diminished by its violation. it remains intact.
Watchful eye,
The term tax avoidance doesn’t seem to fit in your example of what happened with Lucio Tan,though you and HVRDS seem to share the idea that there was less tax for the government due to either action of tax evasion and tax avoidance (and likely right).
Can’t really say if my example would be correct but here goes:
Income tax is derived from tax brackets. Lets say one’s taxable income placed him in a higher tax bracket. However the difference between the taxable income and the lower bracket is “manageable”.
So one decided to donate that difference (and probably some more) to an accredited charity which then made the taxable income fall within the lower tax bracket wherein one might be paying less tax plus the amount of the donation against the tax one would have paid if one belonged to the higher tax bracket.
What would you include among the “moral arguments for righting injustices�
And what would you, a People-Power believer, consider as in-bounds and out-of-bounds for righting injustices, or is it that any means is acceptable considering the ends? – UP n
UP n,
I submit that institutional injustices could be righted more efficaciously by men and women who have access to the institutional means and resources for righting the injustices.
To illustrate, Mita postulates: “The problem with the political oligarchy still goes back to the voters.â€Â
Let me then ask Mita: Do you blame a totally dysfunctional Payatas or a sacada family for failing to send the children to Ateneo or UST to learn enough civic virtues and responsibilities?
And we can move from the above extreme: There’s plenty of meaningful exchanges in this blogsite about what the country should do based on the best practices occurring in successful economies, but are those whose decisions really matter listening at all?
So, “What would you include among the ‘moral arguments for righting injustices’� I’ll say it again in this fashion: A system that allows 60 million or so Filipinos to live in less than $2.00 a day has to justify its continued existence; and the main burden of justifying that system or correcting it if it could not be done is upon the laps of those who have the institutional access to the means and resources of correcting or replacing a failing or failed experiment.
On the other had, People Power serves as a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of those who control the reins of the command center of power simply because there is a thin line that divides the lawful exercise of People Power from that of mobocracy that may, according to Ryszard Kapuscinski, “destroy everything in its path.â€Â