Catch 22

This is an idiomatic expression for an impossible situation. For me, it describes best the dilemma whether we should have Charter change before or after 2010 elections.

The term Catch 22 comes from the title of a book by Joseph Heller in which he writes about an Air Force rule that a pilot who continues to fly on combat missions without asking for relief is regarded as insane. But if he were to make a request first then he shall be considered sane even if he continued flying. This no-win dilemma applies to many situations in life but more so to government. Basically it amounts to damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

* * *

We face a catch-22 when we choose between Charter change now or presidential elections in 2010 first.

The Opposition and critics of Charter change would stop any attempt to change the Charter before 2010. They speculate that if Charter change takes place now through constituent assembly, President GMA can run for Prime Minister in a Parliament. So can FVR, JDV, and Senator Richard Gordon among others.

But if we wait until after 2010, a new set of officials from president down would have spent millions, even billions in some cases that they can only earn back if we keep the presidential system. That’s the source of graft. They would never, repeat never allow any Charter change that will weaken their power after having invested so much in winning their posts.

We will never again come as close as we have today to reform our Constitution to implement structural changes that will encourage better and effective governance. That makes the stakeholders of the status quo frantic.

The question boils down to this. Who should be followed? It is not about rightness or wrongness. On one hand, there are those, mostly opponents and critics of President GMA who speculate that under a parliamentary system, she can return to power via a parliamentary seat. They close their minds to any constitutional reforms of our political system that has been the bane of our underdevelopment. So any claim or hope that we will tackle Charter change after 2010 through a constitutional convention is asking for the moon. It won’t happen.

On the other hand are President GMA’s allies, among them local authorities who overwhelmingly support her and Charter change advocates who believe that if we elect new officials under the old presidential system in 2010, it will be business as usual with the winning focused on the return on their investment for what they spent to win.  

For those who try to fool the electorate that 2010 will bring change — please — there will be no change. Changing persons without changing the system means more of the same in our flawed presidential system.

 Lawmakers should push for the constituent assembly if only to break the vicious cycle of our politics. I am not referring to motives. I am referring to political actions and their possibilities. We can break the political vicious cycle from happening if Charter change is done now. We can’t if we wait until after 2010. Some of us support the constituent assembly route because at this point it is the only method that can make Charter change possible.

Since there is a divided opinion the only way to resolve the dilemma is through a plebiscite. Those in favor of elections 2010 before Charter change should not impose their position on those who are for Charter change now and talk as if this is the only moral thing to do. If President GMA is the issue, then it should be discussed. There can be many players/candidates in a parliamentary contest for leadership. With regard to the absence of more mature parties, I don’t think we can have mature political parties unless we organize them now with platforms we can vote upon when the parliamentary system shall have been in place. Another Catch-22.

* * *

Some members of the Citizen’s Consultative Commission created by President GMA in 2005 met to regroup and see how they can help to inform the public. Even within this small group a mix of academicians, constitutional experts, lawyers, religious leaders, businessmen, farmers, labor and political leaders there were differences when Charter change should happen.

Those of us who met decided to put our differences behind for the time being. Our objective is to fight back disinformation and propaganda against Charter change. We act as ordinary citizens.

Moreover there were those, (I am one of them) who resent being told that Filipinos do not want Charter change or Charter change is only meant to prolong President GMA in power or that we are promoting “greedy” congressmen who want term extensions. Our work will be confined to clarifying Charter change and informing as many Filipinos as possible to look into its merits and demerits and prepare for an informed decision when the time of the plebiscite comes. We focus on Charter change as Charter change.  

We will create a website which the public can look into as well as ask their questions on Charter change.

 We will network with as many groups for Charter change despite political differences. We will not allow anti-Charter change demolition squads who use the anti-GMA hate campaign as their lynchpin to attack Charter change. They do not have a monopoly of what Filipinos ought to think and believe in.

 This is a good time to be reminded that differences of opinion are normal, even necessary in a democracy. It is how we resolve them that matters. For myself, we should continue with con-ass, get a Supreme Court decision on how it should be conducted and hope we can get the vote of the people through a plebiscite.

* * *

It is good to have been able to talk to can-do Senator Richard Gordon. He is among the few senators who have publicly deplored wasteful expensive presidential election that is the main source of graft. He read out from the Philippine STAR facts to show to our group what some candidates have already spent this early in the campaign. These already run into hundreds of millions just for television ads alone.

He suggests that the government shoulder the campaign expenses of all presidential candidates to level the playing field. If this is not done then our elections are about candidates who are mere surrogates of big business or are themselves in big business and not about the selection of leaders for the country, rich or poor. What’s the COMELEC chairman doing about it?