Time to settle the issue

The time has come to settle the debate between those who are for a people’s initiative to propose Charter amendments and those who are against. I would emphasize the word proposal because that is really what a people’s initiative is all about. In other words those who are fighting tooth and nail (Mayors Jejomar Binay and JV Ejercito et al) are against any proposals coming from the people. They are sporting for the wrong fight. One understands if there are people against Charter change, but it is hard to accept that in a democratic and free country citizens are stopped from making a proposal. That is what a plebiscite will have to decide.

It flies in the face of what the 1987 Constitution purportedly stood for after the much heralded peaceful People Power revolution. The framers of the Constitution explicitly say that a people’s initiative would embody the ideals of the events which led to the overthrew of the Marcos regime. The People’s Initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution was the more peaceful and safer alternative instead of massing at EDSA.

As, Antique Governor Sally Zaldivar told this column, in the EDSA 1 and 2 people power were Manilans with little participation from the provinces because of the cost of transport. Today, the people’s initiative enables Filipinos wherever they may be, in cities or towns outside Manila to have their own version of people power. Indeed, why begrudge them, just because it is a people power not led by Manilans and alleged freedom fighters? Where is the justice if a few hundred thousand Manilans can oust governments but nine million registered voters will not even be heard?

Isn’t it surprising that people’s initiative should be so anathema to the ardent supporters of EDSA 1 and 2 and the 1987 Constitution? This constitution included the people’s initiative and was ratified by more than 80 percent of Filipinos. By what right does Cory or Binay now want to stop it? Where is the logic? None, except probably either they never understood the 1987 constitution or the impulses that led to the inclusion of a people’s initiative. By the way, R.A. 6735 was certified urgent by then President Cory Aquino at the time it was passed as an enabling law.

Fine, now the freedom fighters are against Charter change through people’s initiative. That is their prerogative in a democratic society. But freedom fighters should not be such tyrants not to want a plebiscite to settle the dispute once and for all. A plebiscite is the democratic institution for settling differences. It should be encouraged not blocked by the antics of a mayor who claims he is a freedom fighter.

There was a time when Charter change could not be debated. It was dead in the water, period. But with a full-blown debate, people who would normally fence sit are now asking, listening to arguments and making up their own minds without prompting from what used to be holy and sacred masters. We don’t need the Church to tell us that the people need to be informed. They want to be informed. They want to be informed so please help them to be informed instead of stopping people’s initiative because they are not informed. That is hypocritical and not worth those who claim the high ground.

I am not a believer of surveys, at least the kind that passes for surveys here. But what can be gleaned from recent figures show that as the debate progressed and more people have been informed those in favor have increased. In the past it was enough for surveys to be commissioned to say that Filipinos do not know anything about Charter change, therefore we should not have it. Surveys were used as a tool against it.

This time the combined efforts of the Advocacy Commission, Sigaw ng Bayan and the ULAP have succeeded in breaking the barrier. Information has reached the people. That is the significance of the recent survey of Pulse Asia. It showed that 40 percent of Filipinos were now in favor of amending the Charter, 38 percent said they were not, and 21 percent were undecided. That is up from 33 percent in February and March. Moreover, the survey also showed that 48 percent wanted the Constitution changed through the people’s initiative, 28 percent through a constituent assembly, and 23 percent through a constitutional convention.

More important the latest figures show a growing political awareness that can profoundly alter plutocratic Filipino society. The Advocacy Commission should continue its information campaign. That is what empowering citizens means, not this holier-than-thou accusations that ‘people are not being informed’. More than 9 million Filipinos have so far signed up to support People’s Initiative despite the underhanded tactics employed by Opposition in their bailiwicks. Local election officials are almost finished verifying all of the signatures representing at least 3 percent of voters in each of the country’s 213 legislative districts.

* * *

While we debate on Charter change and seek ways for resolving the dispute, we are faced with a Middle East crisis that is now on top of us. That the price of oil was going to rise was already known and written about in this column since last year when the Saudi Minister for Oil came to visit. Even in a country as powerful as America, people are beginning to worry on what would be the impact of the continuing rise of oil prices on the world economy.

Opinion makers, NBC’s Tim Russert and New York Times’ Tom Friedman’s solution is to raise the prices even more by imposing what they call a ‘miracle tax’. That they say is the way to end American addiction to oil.

We have not seen anything yet as the Lebanon crisis escalates. Those who would like a deeper understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict would do well to read Avi Shlaim’s "The Iron Wall." Although an Israeli, he is objective and writes about the many chances that were lost for a peaceful settlement. He believes it was a mistake that Israeli leaders from the Right have persisted with the Iron Wall policy.

He blames Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the original proponent of the strategy of the iron wall. It envisaged two stages: first, building the iron wall and, second, once the Arab had given up hope of destroying Israel, negotiating with them. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Some of Israel’s leaders regarded military superiority not as an asset in negotiating a final settlement of the conflict with the Palestinians but as an instrument for perpetuating Israel’s mastery over them.

Having read the Iron Wall, I can understand the reluctance of the Israelis with the consent of the Bush government to call a ceasefire. They want negotiations but on their own terms. The politicians of the Right still believe that the only language the Arabs understand is force. "But if the 50 years’ history covered in my book shows anything, it is that Israel can only have peace with the Arabs when it is prepared to meet them half-way," writes Shlaim.

Because of the iron wall policy, Israel missed signing a peace settlement after the armistice of 1949. Ironically, the man who persisted with the iron wall approach now lies in coma. According to Shlaim, Sharon never believed that the process could be resolved by peaceful means. "He was always the master of violent solutions. For Jabotinsky, the iron wall was a metaphor. For Sharon, the wall has turned into a physical reality that mars the landscape, destroys the environment and in the long term is destroying two societies, Palestinian society and Israeli society.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]