the fallacy of republicanism

I resolved not to comment at least on print medium on political events anymore. The last time I did way back in 1986 when I was still in college, the university president summoned me and the military listed me in the order of battle . Besides, any political comment will have to involve constitutional issues, and owing to my daily dose of legal briefs, I have enough, so I thought.

But the recent political brouhaha in the Philippines leave me with no recourse but to play political pundit once again, even if only for this issue.Last night, I slept not late in the evening, but early hour of the morning as I was glued to the tv monitor. Flashed in the screen were the faces of our congressmen as they explained, in a nominal voting, their votes to unseat the present Speaker of the House, Jose De Venecia. JDV as he is fondly called, has been speaker for five (5) terms, a record in the legislative branch. He did so by astute political manuevering, patronage, concessions, accomodations, and puppetting for the President. He shielded President Gloria Arroyo from several impeachment attempts. He is the perfect icon of traditional politician.

Lately, however, he fell from grace, and last night, he was finally shut off from the corrigidors of power. His idealist son was the whistle blower of an anomalous transaction of the government with a Chinese company, ZTE, involving an over-price of around US $200,000,000.00. The testimony of his son before the senate traced the anomaly to the spouse of the incumbent president, Mike Arroyo. Exposed to the searching light of media scrutiny, the Arroyo’s ego was bruised, and revenge must be made, and indeed, it was had last night.

Jose de Venecia delivered an extemporaneous, albeit scathing speech, outlining how he helped President Arroyo for almost two decades, and the anomalous transactions that he has personal knowledge, and by reading between the lines, he helped cover-up. Despite the two decades of friendship (or is it alliance?) , like Ceasar being stabbed by Brutus, the flaming arrows of tricks and deceptions, hit him from all angles, and to cap it all, even from the people he once considered friends.But more than the attack on the president, the speech hightlighted the fallacy of republicanism, the same fallacy that I took note when I was still taking up political philosophy.

In a republican state, sovereignty resides and emanates from the people. But the people elect their representatives and leaders to run the state. To check the abuses of the leaders, three branches of government are set up: congress, to enact laws; the president to execute the laws; and the judiciary, to interpret the laws. This is the system of check and balance necessary to keep democracy throbbing, and prevent the consolidation of power in one branch. Once power is concentrated in one branch, the other branches lose their independence, and democracy collapses. Then, it is not the voice of the people that governs, but the voice of the president.

Yet the Congress and the Supreme Court are beholden to the President. The power to appropriate comes from Congress, but the disbursement must come come from the president. During the impeachment proceedings, congressmen had to rally to the president or else the pork barrel, the money for their favorite projects, would not be released by the president. As pointed out by Jose de Venecia, the congressmen have to kneel before the sub-alterns of the president before the budget be released.

When a branch of government depends on the other to finance the projects, you can always expect the consolidation of power in the president. President Arroyo, having been raised in the corridors of power when her father was once the president, knows exactly how to consolidate power.

Last night, President Arroyo and her minions, err puppies, ousted de Venecia, and enthroned another pup, Boy Nograles. I do not like de Venecia, but my blood boils with the wanton display and arrogance of power. President Arroyo’s sons virtually installed Speaker Nograles, and consideing the partonage politics, the latter has to lick the hand of the president. Speaker Nograles has to bow to the dictates of the president or he will soon follow his predecessor, to the exit door. Any pretense then of republican democracy is a sham, a fallacy.

I dread the idea of a president consolidating power. The last time was President Marcos, who, having tested martial law powers, never let go of the throne until he was forcibly evicted by the repository of power – the people. Look what happened during Marcos time: the economy was plundered, civil service militarized, and the people who opposed, killed. Worse, the culture of corruption spread like cancer cells that have metastasized.

There is need to strengthen the fences between the three branches of government. Strong fences make good neighbors. Destroy the fences, you lose republicanism. But strong fences make a good democracy. Allowing the congressman to have pork barrels open them to the bait of the president. Stop the pork barrel, and the president would have no fishing rod with which to strangle the independence of the Congress.

It took me several years to speak in open against Marcos. This time, I cannot let history repeat itself.

Let me be a pundit once more.

Burma: Crying out for the world to hear

 

burma

There are things we want to abandon and forget, but when a situation presents itself, we find ourselves embracing same concerns we tried to archive or relegate in the recycle bin. When these concerns present to us, shying away from them negate of who we are, and therefore, make us less human and fully alive. Running away from these issues contradict our very essence.

My friend once said: “ You can fight against the rest of the world, and perhaps win a few and lost most of the battles, but you cannot fight against yourself, you will surely lose.”

Another friend who is a businessman cannot back off from the concern of his small and remote place. The chairman of the barangay has been harassing and threatening the people aside from the plunder of the public coffer. This friend, despite that he is too busy with his business, has to take up the cause, with the protestations of his wife. He told his wife, “ Is it alright if we rake in more profits and yet close our eyes to the plight of our folks?”

Indeed there are things which, no matter how we try to cover our eyes, we cannot help but see and be affected by the situation. No matter how we resist the urge to get involve, we are ending up taking the cause because it is what defines us, our core.

These past weeks, the horrors of Burma, not Myanmar as the military junta would want us to call, keep flashing in my mind even if I pretend that I no longer care of issues of this nature. In my dreams, I see young students, monks, and plain folks being gassed, kicked, tortured, and the least fortunate, killed.

How many more should die?

Every time I think of Burma, past events flashback in my mind, as if in a race. The Philippines regained democracy in the now famous bloodless revolution on February 25, 1987 in EDSA. It was hailed as the most peaceful revolution when Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator for two decades, was booted out from office, without spilling blood.

But revolutions, even that in EDSA, is not a product of one isolated event. The events leading to EDSA which saw the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos was prefaced with series of bloody events. There were people close to me who died. There were nameless activists who died in the horrific misnomer of all, “salvaging”, which actually meant killing in the military parlance. There were famous names who were assassinated like Leandro Mercado, and the most famous of them all, Ninoy Aquino.

When the protesters in Burma were struck with truncheons, I cannot help but relive the pain of being beaten, and the gnawing fear of being possibly atrociously “salvaged”. At the time when protesting against Marcos was not still mainstream, there was this loneliness of an activist that somehow, the people for whom he put his life on the line, did not even care nor understand the reason for the movement. I see the faces in the protesters in Burma longing for understanding from their fellow Burmese, and perhaps a plea, that they too like them, flood the junta government with passion for democracy. When I saw over the CNN the young, beaten face, I saw more than the face: I read the message for help from us, outside of Burma.

The internet has made the peoples on earth closer, to be exact, only a click of the mouse away. Online, we share our jokes, exchange ideas, make friends, and even have petty quarrels. Through this medium, we feel the heartbeat of humanity miles away from us, and likewise, we feel too the pains of the people in Darfur, the violence in Iraq, and the agony of the Burmese. But the virtual world we carve has a real world outside the box. The laughter of the person who receives our jokes through email is as real as the beating of your heart. There can be no disjointed virtual and real universes, unless you choose to live a farcical life.

The Burmese who are rallying in the streets, and who risk their lives are answering to the call of the core of their being, that denying this call is to negate the very persons they have become. In fact, the struggle of the Burmese transcends the protesters’ dream; theirs is to give birth to nationhood, that without it, they will lose their identity, and ultimately their individual selves.

I wanted to close my eyes, and shut my ears, and forget that I too experienced the pains of the protesters circa 1980s. But I recall my friend who said, “ You cannot win against yourself.” Not to blog about Burma, and to call on my online friends to write something about what is happening in that country, is to fight my innermost self.

Monday October 8, 2007 – 10:17am (CST) Edit | Delete | Permanent Link | 4 Comments