Perhaps we can learn from the French on how their patriots/leaders revered the Constitution that came after the violent revolution. I have culled these passages from Simon Schama’s
Citizens to give us an idea of how important their Constitution was to them.
"As the August sun came up over the site of the Bastille, a chorus of girls dressed in white greeted it with Gossec’s Hymn to Nature. The space had been landscaped so that trees and shrubs testified to the victory of benign nature over the dead stones of despotism. In this renamed Champ de Reunion an enormous crowd witnessed the rites of revolutionary druidism. When the cantata based on Rousseau’s ecstatic pantheism in the Profession du Foi d’un Vicaire Savoyard had faded away, the President of the Convention, Herault de Sechelles, slowly climbed a flight of white steps.
Seated at its top was a statue in the Egyptian manner, enthroned between lions. Its hands cupped breasts from which water poured into a small tank below. Aiming carefully, he held out an antique chalice to catch this miraculous fluid, then poured it onto the ground rebaptizing the soil in the name of Liberty. Draining a second cup, he was followed in this ritual by eighty—six old men, each representing a department of France. As each stepped forward there were drum rolls and brass fanfares, silence while the cup was emptied, followed by cannon and the fraternal kiss.
This extraordinary ceremony had been devised by Jacques Louis David, together with a team of collaborators that included Gossec and Marie-Joseph Chenier, to consummate the formal acceptance of the new Constitution. It was designd to rehearse the history of the Revolution in an allegorical pageant, moving a large crowd from site to site and culminating on the Champ de Mars, where the ‘tablets;’ of the Constitution were set up on the altar of the Patrie. This Festival of Unity and Indivisibility, taking place on August 10, the first anniversary of the overthrow of the monarchy… Perhaps that is what is lacking in the way we conduct our nationhood. We have neglected the power of symbols and their capacity to tap into the spirit of what unites us as a nation. That neglect is what has led some of us to belittle the Constitution as ‘only a piece of paper.’ Sadly, it has also separated the leadership from the masses. We have a history rich with unifying symbols and heroic figures that can underpin our efforts to move our country forward. But instead of tapping into this rich lode of historical treasure we have resorted to ‘popular figures’like actors and actresses, singers amd broadcasters, to link up with the masses. The result is a trivialization of politics. Is it any wonder that our politics or governance lacks moral and civic substance?
Unfortunately, some politicians regard calls for unity as an excuse to deny justice or compromise with the rule of law. That is not what this column is about. A call for unity must edify. It must not eschew sacrifice or difficulty in the pursuit of a strong nation. Unfortunately a cavalier attitude about justice for the sake of keeping the nation together is merely its caricature. That is what Marcos supporters, and more lately, Erap partisans, have attempted to delude a weary and disillusioned public. The cause of unity – national unity – is not served by moral turpitude. We do not.absolve leaders who have raided the country’s coffers for the sake of unity. By unifying symbols I refer to our history as a nation which, by the way, set us apart in Asian history as the pioneer in colonial revolution. Lee Kuan Yew may have done well with Singapore but he has nothing to teach us about patriotism and independence. The symbols from that history can draw on all classes for the difficult but necessary enterprise of nation-building in our day.
We need symbols to bind the different elements of our nation at the same time that we work at political and economic problems. In this regard, I cannot think of a more potent, more edifying, symbolic act that will unite this country than to call for changes in the Constitution that will shift our system of democratic government to parliamentary federal. A parliamentary and federal government will pave the way for the psychological break, the tearing of the umbilical cord from our colonial past. Slaying the father, again.
There may be differences in seeking solutions to what ails this country and these can be expected to be the subject of intense debate but if the spirit of the debate is to find solutions, then that background itself is a strong basis for unity. At the moment what we have are statements from academics and politicians who merely declare that there is no need to change the Constitution and that changing it will be divisive. These statements do not unify. Predicting disunity is quite inferior to the more compelling experience of discussion and debate about differing opinions on solutions to the problems of the country. .It may be paradoxical but differences can be made instruments for unity if these are summoned to arrive at a conclusion that will be accepted through the vote in a plebiscite.
We have reached a stage in our history when the need for uniting the country has become urgent. Changing the constitution will divide us only if we work outside the context of patriotism, of what is good for the country. Issues as issues may be divisive but not if the perspective is to forge a common testament, as in crafting a new constitution. If the discussions are imbued with that desire in mind, then the process can only unify. We may start with differences but we ultimately end up with one mind after a plebiscite. Only then does it bear imprimatur of the nation and we all submit to that.When men and women come together to discuss what is best for the country, the experience has an edifying power that will go beyond economic programs and political campaigns.
Those who understand how symbols work know that these can also serve as a peaceful alternative to violent means when citizens seek to remake a political society that no longer serves their interest. Bonifacio understood this when he fashioned the KKK with its many symbols and unified Filipino revolutionaries.. The frustrations of disillusion that lead to violence can be constructively channeled into peaceful means. That is what the Movement for a Parliamentary Federal Philippines through a constitutional process. Aims to do. That was the purpose of the committee of artists and intellectuals which worked on the rituals that attended the installation of the Constitutin of France after the revolution. Among other othings, the music, the statues sculpted by her artists, the oratory and the fireworks honored the people and gave them importance and blunted the potential for violence. Simon Schama writes about how ‘their self-importance became safely imprisoned in the calm, adamantine universe of symbols’.
Theme of convergence between politicians interest and citizens’ crusade. I predict that in the coming days we will see a reformist storm not unlike what happened in America in the 1920s. I am optimistic that this time around more and more groups will join the clamor for changes in the Constitution. Even those who do not agree with the changes will join the debate, instead of sabotaging it with ‘people power’ as they did in previous attempts. Moreover, for the first time, we may be presented with an invaluable opportunity for unity with the politicians’ interests converging with a citizens’ crusade. But it will require commitment from both sides to work together and fashion a new Constitution, albeit from conflicting positions, for more effective government..A partnership of politicians and citizens, if this can be found, will augur well for the country. This can happen if they do not allow misguided sectors who will use these differences to push their own agenda.
If politicians and citizens commit themselves to a common cause to change the Constitution, we may see the beginning of strong democratic institutions in our country. Discussions on the best constitution to cope with the challenges of our time will foster a vivid sense of community. The Americans had a similar experience in 1920s.when those who took democracy seriously turned to a renewed reverence for the Constitution and American history as way of pulling the country together. The Constitution (yes, the piece of paper) and the Declarationof Independence were moved from the vault in the State Department where it was kept and put on public display at the Library of Congress.
It is good that President Arroyo has declared an open mind about changes in the Constitution. But it is my opinion that she would have done better if she had taken the bolder step of leading it. Waiting for a consensus is not the same as leading by conviction.
On Friday and Saturday, the Movement for a Federal Philippines will hold its Luzon-wide consultations. The two-day conference dubbed
"The Luzon-wide Conference on Federalism" is a civic and academic initiative to prepare the public if they are to participate intelligently in the debate for constitutional change. I received my invitation from Rey Magno Teves, the convenor of the Movement for a Federal Philippines. The occasion is significant because the movement began in Mindanao. The conference on Friday and Saturday is by way of announcing to the public that the federal movement is not only to address the Mindanao problem but it is also about the political restructuring of the entire country. The keynote addres will be given bu Dr. Jose N. Abueva on "Pushing Federation via the Constitutiona Process." A Federal Republic of the Philippines envisions 11 states — Northern Luzon, Cordillera, Central Luzon, Metro Manila, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, West Visayas-Palawan, East Visayas, North and West Mindanao, Central and South Mindanao and Bangsamoro. So federalism is sought not merely to address the Mindanao problem but a political restructuring that will open the development of the entire country instead of concentrating resources in Metro Manila.
My e-mail is
cpedrosa@edsamail.com.ph