Two of my STAR colleagues have now joined the legion of those who seek constitutional reform for the country — Joey Concepcion and Babes Romualdez. Both have access to big business and our political and economic oligarchs, two groups known to have resisted such reforms. I have no doubt that the two can make a difference and wish them well in this herculean effort.
Both have written on their proposal in their columns. They, as well as their readers agree that constitutional reform is necessary and have suggested a timeline that should make it acceptable to the Establishment. The timeline is 2010.2016. Under this formula they envision a route for substantial political reform through a constitutional convention with the delegates to be elected simultaneously in 2010 in the presidential elections. In these elections, a new set, of or more accurately, an old set of politicians (or their heirs) with new terms for senators, congressmen will also be elected.
I refer to Babe Romualdez’s column Takin Care of Business with the title “We really need to change the system” and Joey Concepcion’s Ask Go Negosyo 2010.2016 Time for real change. I joined them in one discussion and as a long time advocate of reform through constitutional change, assured them of my wholehearted support. Anything, just anything that is done to steer this country to more meaningful reforms should be welcome especially when it is taken up by influential voices like Babe and Joey.
Unfortunately this support has its caveats. As a veteran advocate for constitutional reform I have been through these debates so many times I am afraid that putting a timeline to it will not make it more acceptable to the stakeholders of the presidential system. Neither will it be a win-win situation when 2010 comes and you have to contend with the newly elected senators and congressmen. On the contrary, these newly elected officialdom from the president down will be in the frontline of defense against any change that will prevent them for cashing in on their investment on such an expensive enterprise like elections. Indeed, as one young senator who you would think were more idealistic than most said it plainly “hindi pa namin nakukuha yung ROI sa aming investment.” As for the election of delegates the lawmakers themselves have said that those who would be elected would have to have the capability to be elected. That capability was achieved in the current system so we can’t really expect reforming candidates to be raising their hands in a bruising contest of money and patronage. There are many more issues I can rack up in the years of struggle for constitutional reform that opponents have so successfully derided as ‘cha-cha’.
Indeed I have come to accept that constitutional reform may be a good idea and being an idea its substance is timeless. We could do it tomorrow if there is a will and if there is no will it will not happen in 2010 or 2016. But I would be happy to be proved wrong and reiterate my support and best wishes to my colleagues. Given that there is such a resistance from the Establishment, the fulfillment of constitutional reform I am afraid will be a battle of the few against the many and unless it is done soon, we can expect it to be bloody. Who was it who said “you change the Constitution or you launch a revolution” or words to that effect.
I have taken up the cause of political reform via constitutional change. As an ordinary citizen, it is an advocacy of a timeless idea to correct what is obviously false politics and false government coming from a flawed system in our country. At the same time the equation might be beautiful in my mind but unless our leaders summon the will to get it done, no debate, even with the finest arguments, can make it happen at anytime with the guys and gals elected in 2010 least of all.
* * *
I’ve always been attracted to Buddhism as a religion of peace. So I am puzzled when I read about protesting Buddhist monks. First it was in Myanmar. Today it is in Tibet. The rioting Tibetan Buddhists are said not only to be disloyal to the Dalai Lama, they are also reportedly plotting his ouster as their leader. Sounds familiar. They are no less human than the rest of us who belong to more historically violent religions.
But when we are close to the eve of the Chinese Olympics and with what promises to be a spectacular public relations exercise for China, there may be other factors to consider. Certainly no rival worth its salt would stand idly by while China gains notches as an inevitable superpower, winning friends and influencing people across the world.
In that case, then it may have less to do with Buddhism than it is with superpower rivalry. Some countries like Poland are already announcing they will not attend the Olympics opening in Beijing.
James Miles, a journalist with The Economist, happened to be in Lhasa during the riots and reported differently from other stories in Western media. He said that in the Lhasa riots “Tibetans were singling out Han Chinese, burning their shops, throwing stones and assaulting them.” That means the reporting is not always as straightforward as it would seem. Some Chinese are complaining that the rioters were killing innocent Chinese, and not the other way around. I can’t really tell since I am not there and have to rely on those who are reporting on the spot.
China has already protested that foreign media reporting of the riots was biased and has invited the journalists to come to see it for themselves. At the same time it stepped up its propaganda campaign against the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader, for the violence and said China was a victim of “separatist terrorist activity.”
Whether that is true or not, the awakening giant in Asia is obviously concerned that the Tibet unrest, as well as anti-government protests over Darfur, could disrupt the Olympic Games this summer. Three members of the Athens chapter of Reporters Without Borders, a media-rights group based in Paris, disrupted the Olympic flame-lighting ceremony in Greece recently. The incident took place just as Liu Qi, president of the Beijing Organizing Committee, was addressing spectators, dignitaries and Olympics officials. China Daily, the English-language newspaper bluntly said: “Riot Reports Show Media Bias in West.” Xinhua news agency also reported that CNN has misrepresented the situation.
Gao Zhikai, a former official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said “If you read the foreign media, the only message you can get is that China is very heavy-handed; and they are doing a lot of bad things in Tibet and they are totally out of their minds”. Yet they talk about the Dalai Lama as if he’s God. For his part, the Dalai Lama made the statement he did not organize the riots and that he supported the decision to allow China to hold the Olympics.