As this column has said many times the race is on whether President GMA can remain president until her term ends. That is the prize for her dogged persistence to stay on despite the obstacles put before her since she became elected president in 2004. She has weathered the strategy of “Garci scandal and all that came with it.” Well, almost. She still has to race to the finish line, determined she would not be an Erap or a Marcos. This must be dismaying to her enemies, whether local or foreign. Unfortunately she has paid a heavy price for resisting machinations to oust her or make her resign before her term ends. Surveys by supposedly reputable commissions have tagged her as the most unpopular president in the history of the Philippines. This is only part of the story.
Too many Filipinos missed the other parts. Had they been watching more carefully they would have seen the pattern of a strategy that began in 2004. It might be too much to expect that Filipinos would have been more informed or sophisticated enough to put the issue of the Philippine presidency (any president) in the geopolitical context of regime change as it was being played out. Had Filipinos been more aware, President GMA would have had more support. For one, she would certainly not the “most unpopular president.” That the surveys have cast her to be. At the very least, she would have had the support of those who value the sovereignty of the nation. The issue on the line was whether the Filipino nation was truly free to control its destiny. It includes the capacity to deal with its own government, whether good or bad, without outside intervention. There is a whole debate not just in the Philippines but elsewhere in the world, when or where the point would have been reached for foreign intervention to be justified. In my opinion that has not been the case of the Philippines under President GMA.
From the start our colonizers, first Spanish friars, and then American politicians, claimed Filipinos were incapable of governing themselves or saving their souls. I thought that the debate was somehow resolved in 1898 when Filipinos were the first Asians to proclaim a constitutional republic and then again in 1946 when the US formally ‘gave’ us our independence.
All this is not to say that President GMA has been faultless or that her government has been the best that it could be. It only means that there are other, more important factors to consider other than to succumb to devious attempts to dominate or control our country in the guise of good.
Politics often hides this vicious but very real aspect of the development of the Philippines. Often, the opposition is mistaken as the driver of this strategy when it is used as a cover for different results other than local politics.
With that in mind, it is not hard to understand why demonizing Philippine presidents is the key to blocking Charter change that would restructure government. The less obvious result of such a change is to make our government less malleable to external influence. Not surprisingly the first step in frustrating Charter change is to eliminate a president, any president that would attempt to break away from the neocolonial status quo.
The antidote to this does not mean that President GMA should be spared from criticism when it is called for. It means separating the person of President GMA from the issue of Charter change. And that is all where our efforts should be.
This may seem an impossible task. Critics will argue that since President GMA supports Charter change we should not support it because she can use it to extend her term. That is speculation and detracts from an intelligent approach to Charter change. The bigger, more fundamental problem before us is how to find a solution to problems engendered by the presidential system. It is time to admit the system has not worked for us as it also has not worked for many other countries.
More importantly, we need to create an atmosphere for reform and innovation. That will not happen by merely changing our leaders through elections under the present setup that precisely gave rise to flawed governance.
Admittedly, the issue of whether President GMA should remain as our leader will have to be faced. But it should be after, not before, we have restructured our system of government. By then it will be a different ball-game altogether. We easily forget that the corruption of our legislature is the product of our presidential system. I believe that a parliamentary system with a promise of strong program-oriented political parties will open the competition to more players with less money. But as it is now, we are limited to candidates either with money or who are put up with outside support that has had in one way or another other always influenced our presidential elections. Contrary to popular belief, such interference will become more and more difficult under a parliamentary system.
Finally Charter change by constituent assembly will strengthen our institutions especially Congress. I have faith that in time parliamentary government will attract more talented and more capable leaders. For one, a Prime Minister must have a vision and be able to defend that vision during question time every day without help from speech makers or advisers when he or she rises in behalf of government. At the moment, the question that occupies power brokers for 2010 is who is the most popular or who will be anointed by big business. No wonder oligarchy rules.
Lastly, if we are truly to be guided by our Constitution, Congress is mandated to propose Charter changes subject to the vote of the people. Why is this being stopped, at all cost, by those who claim that we must uphold the Constitution? Why indeed do we keep electing representatives if they are not to be trusted with making proposals for Charter change? If term extension is the objection of the opposition or the pretenders to power then they should vote against it in the plebiscite and not stop the legislative mandate. For me and many others, the burning question is why all extra-constitutional ways are being relentlessly pursued for regime change.