The bigger problem for the Liberals

While all eyes are on who should be the presidential candidate of the Liberal Party — Noynoy or Mar — a deeper and more serious problem is being overlooked. An internal strife, unless it is solved amicably, is poised to destroy whatever is left of the party.

At present, the party is ruled by an executive committee led by Messrs. Jovito Salonga, Mar Roxas and Franklin Drilon. In a power struggle in 2005, this self-proclaimed ruling faction expelled rank and file members led by Secretary Lito Atienza by throwing out of the window all the rules that govern the party. In essence the dispute was about the decision-making process, not whether the Liberal Party should support the Arroyo government as it has been made out to be.

Members of the Atienza faction are fighting for democratic procedures based on party rules but this has fallen on deaf ears. The acts by the troika are described as dictatorial, fascist and whimsical.

The rank and file has rightly questioned how a party that cannot follow its own rules, discriminates against its members, and acts autocratically can run on a platform of liberalism and democracy. “The Liberal Party in the Philippines today as conceived by this ruling faction is anything but liberal,” adds the non-pedigreed lower ranks. That is the internal mess that has to be solved. It must confront the issue of electing its officers democratically. Otherwise how can it be trusted with democratic government?

The problem has come up again in relief because of the issue on how the party’s standard bearer is to be chosen. The Atienza side wants it done through a national convention with all its members. The Salonga-Drilon-Roxas side would limit the selection through a committee or a few members.

 The thorn in the flesh is Secretary Lito Atienza who has been with the Liberal Party since he was 12 years old. Both his father and uncle were original founders of the party. He has insisted throughout the rift that he and his followers who make up the majority will fight the betrayal of liberal principles. He feels especially aggrieved because there was a time when he and Eva Kalaw were the only ones carrying the LP banner during the perilous days of martial law.

 In a telephone interview, Atienza former Liberal Party chairman, told this column that he had not received any call from Salonga so he is not sure that his call for a convention (made through media) was sincere.

 If it were sincere, members should have been called before any announcement of a convention. The members should be asked to do two things: have a proper election to end the leadership row that began in 2005 and then consolidate the entire membership, be it the rank and file or its leaders, into a strong party to compete in the 2010 presidential elections. Short of these two conditions, the internal fight can only grow bitter.

 Atienza’s group counts on 90% of some 2,500 leaders all over the country. They want the leadership issue settled once and for all.

 When that it is clear then LP members can nominate its presidential candidate. That would be the liberal and democratic way.

*      *      *

The clamor for Noynoy Aquino to run for President or vice-president solely to live up to the legacy of his parents is equally disturbing. It goes against the spirit of the 1987 Constitution that expressly prohibits dynasties.

 It is an opportune time to point out that our Constitution expressly prohibits dynasties, Article 2 Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” To date this clause, like many others, has yet to be acted on by Congress. It is time that the governing of our nation stopped being the preserve of an elite pursuing their own narrow interests rather than that of the nation as a whole.

 This is precisely what the 1987 constitution sought out to do but failed. It sought greater democratization to allow deserving men and women with lesser names and without pedigree to come forward as leaders. Not only has it failed to do that, dynasties continue to flourish and proliferate.

 The Mar-Noynoy struggle is a good example of how urgently we need to change the Constitution. We must revisit the reforms envisioned in the 1987 Constitution and debate how to expand participation in the political system.

Rather than wallowing in elitism or looking glassy eyed at past glories or what could have been, we should be looking at the track-record of people from local government and civil society to see what they have done and if their accomplishments can be generalized elsewhere.

 There are many people working at the grassroots level taking initiatives to improve the livelihoods, we hear little or nothing about them. There is much that can be done to improve our governance.

*      *      *

Perhaps this is where the Friedrich Neumann Foundation should train its efforts in helping the Liberal Party. It should discourage the elitism that now seems to have seized the upper hand in a party supposed to be dedicated to liberalism and democracy. There should be a better political perspective than to rely on a “Noynoy phenomena” that came about because of crowds that joined Cory’s funeral cortege. It is not the way to go for political maturity or to advance the country’s political institutions.

 The renowned Professor John Nye of George Mason University should be called in to discuss New Institutional Economics for developing countries with local liberals. It is Nye’s position that reforms are best understood from the default position of poverty. “The prosperity of some nations is a rare and recent event. The real issue is how countries can rise out of destitution, and why it is particularly difficult to do so, ” he explains.

He says elites refuse to cooperate because they think these reforms will hurt them. Therefore, the key is to “broker a compromise between the leading factions that will open up the economy in the long run, but will preserve the existing order in the short term.” An effective compromise would have to persuade elites not only to agree to transformation, but also to create vested interest in further reforms, he adds.

 So why should that not apply to the problem now faced by the Liberal Party of the Philippines?