GMA’s spinmeisters claim there is none. Business groups and certain Church and evengelist leaders are, allegedly, unhappy at the prospect of Vice President Noli de Castro assuming the presidency.
Except for rabid rightists, and retired military officers killing their remaining time on earth in their ancient and drying watering holes, no one seriously prescribes a military junta as a solution. The known history of military takeovers is that they stick around, despite promises of temporary tenures, until they are forcibly removed, usually in bloody counter-coups.
The splintered political opposition has nothing to offer by way of credible leaders. FPJ, arguably the one most victimized by any cheating in the last presidential elections, has passed away and his widow wisely refuses to be used as a partisan tool. GMA’s other opponents, whose ignominious loss could not be totally blamed on cheating at the polls, have limited themselves to calling for a special or snap election.
The conclusion of these GMA adherents, therefore, is that we should just stay with what we’ve got. At any rate, they insist, even if that was her on the tapes, she spoke of nothing illegal or improper with whoever it was she was talking to. Even if damaged politically, better to stick with the devil we know, blah, blah. Besides, she may still do something dramatic, like exiling Mike, or ordering Mikey and Iggy to resign as congressmen and reiterating yet again that she will not interfere with any criminal prosecutions or civil suits against the three.
The contrary view is that the most important thing is not who will succeed as president but that truth and justice be served. Let the truth be known, they cry, let justice be done! It doesn’t matter who takes over, as long as a person whose mandate to govern is in doubt and whose moral authority has disappeared is booted out of office.
Besides, it is argued, it is impossible that not a single leader will emerge, either from that gaggle of pretenders, from the ranks of other political or business leaders, or from civil society.
I join those who vigorously reject both extreme views. Both are unnecessarily reckless, both overlook constitutional processes already in place, and both put us on an irrevocable slide to unremitting instability and political strife.
There is no real historical precedent for GMA’s current predicament. In EDSA 1, Cory Aquino was the obvious successor. No one else, practicing politician or not, was considered to have the popular acceptability and moral ascendancy that Ninoy’s widow had. In EDSA 2, since Constitutional processes were followed, albeit a still highly contentious point despite definitive rulings of the Supreme Court, there was no doubt that the incumbent Vice President, GMA, would succeed as Chief Executive.
At present, it appears that many believe the position is up for grabs. The contenders are thought to be the Vice President, the Senate President as caretaker head, a civilian collective leadership, a civilian-military junta, a purely military junta, the victor in a snap or special election… or, none of the above.
This last option supposedly leaves open the possibility that a knight in shining armor, some hitherto unknown giant of a leader, will either charge into the fray or come out of the shadows. Nice, romantic thought. The trouble is, when you start thinking of specific possibilities, you probably draw a blank. Worse, this school of thought assumes a leadership vacuum, which will have to be filled by the allegedly best and brightest… or by the blatantly power-hungry with firepower behind him.
One of the reasons why this country is where it is, I think, is that we have overblown expectations of our leadership. One mistake is to think that popularity translates to qualifications and ability. But another is to bookishly think that popularity has nothing to do with leadership, that the masses are not to be trusted and that the elite will know what is best for the country.
This latter thinking leads to the belief that a President can keep piling agony upon agony on our people, without some kind of political denouement. The former results in Presidents entrusted with the highest responsibilities of government, who are not only unprepared for the job but are clueless about what to do once in position.
Of course it’s absolutely essential to think about who will be the next President! Just as it is essential to consider carefully what process is used to oust a sitting one. It is rank irresponsibility to neglect this question, just because "the moment is ripe" to kick out a corrupt or lying incumbent. The people must control the trajectory of developments, not scheming politicians or incorrigible military adventurists who would rather we don’t ask about their own shenanigans in office.
It does matter who takes over. And on this issue, I come down on the primacy of the Constitution. If GMA is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and the alleged theft of an election would indubitably come within that category, then impeachment is the logical course of action. But as legislators, civil society and a flip-flopping military said during EDSA 2, impeachment is a political process, more than a legal one.
Well said! I guess that’s why a US President can be impeached but not convicted when caught lying through his teeth about not having sex with that woman. Or why our Senators can walk out on an impeachment trial and bring the action to the streets. In the first case, a President got off the hook. In the other, he was skewered on that hook. In both cases, it was a case of superior numbers, one in the halls of Congress, the other outside on EDSA where it mattered.
We must decide whether we’re serious about our Constitutional system, or whether we’re just playing pretend. If our Constitution still matters, inconvenient as it occasionally is, then there shouldn’t be any arguments, or fears, about who will succeed as President if it becomes necessary.