Letter to the editor - Cha-cha

What I can’t quite understand is this word ‘democracy’ that everyone advocates as the basis for a ‘free’ people in regard to the Filipino people, bearing in mind that all Filipinos are equal but some are more equal than others.

By definition, democracy is a form of government in which the sovereign power is, essentially, in the hands of the people and can be exercised by them, directly or indirectly as they may choose.

This is patently an ambiguous case in the Philippines . If indeed this were the case then tenure in public office would not be constrained by legislation that restricts, in law, age or tenure of any public ‘servant’.

To cite an example, if it were the case that 99.99% of the electorate of the Philippines wanted Gloria Arroyo or her party to run in office for another term, (I can’t quite see why anyone would, but that’s not the point), our legalisation forbids this. Why? Is this not the voice of the people, can it be ignored and dismissed? This denial of any application by Arroyo for continuation of public office is actually legislation against democracy, is it not?

And yes I do understand why the legislation is there; to prevent dynastical/ dictatorial fuedal forms of government. Papa bear, handing down power to Mama bear and then to Baby bear. The success of our legislation has been demonstrated all too well down in Maguindanao has it not; (well, maybe that’s not a very good example.)

I hear the constant bleating of senators and congressmen in support of a Charter Change (or in typical Filipino vernacular, ‘Cha Cha’) from what we have (and I have to confess I’m not too sure what that is, a sort of quasi American/ Spanish/ Filipino mish mash of political ideology that incorporates feudalism, capitalism and theocracy) into a parliamentary system.

The mother of all parliaments, arguably, is in the UK, and more properly based in England . In this English system, there are no restrictions on age for example. The youngest Prime minister that ever served was actually just over 24 years old. The longest serving Member of Parliament (Congressman) held office for sixty three years! His name was Sir Winston Churchill, a name people may know. Why? Because people kept voting for him! That’s why!

On the question of age; age does not necessarily bring wisdom. We have a lot of intelligent 30-year-old people in this country, and, conversely we have so many geriatric, bovine idiots as well.

On the issue of Charter Change, it is clear that all may be agreed that a new policy change is an excellent idea, in principle. But in view of the doubts being expressed, it may be decided to record that, after careful consideration, the considered view of any committee could be that while they might consider the new proposals met with broad approval in principle, it could be felt that some that some of the principles were so fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it could be proposed that the more sensible and prudent practice would be to subject this proposal to more detailed consideration with and across the relevant departments with a view to preparing and proposing a more thorough and wide ranging proposal, laying stress on the less controversial elements and giving consideration to the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, to be presented for consideration and discussion on some future more propitious occasion when the climate of opinion is deemed to be more amenable for consideration of the approach and the principle of the principal arguments that the proposal proposes and propounds for approval.

I do hope I have made myself crystal clear.

Jeane Tayo.

Guiwanon, Bantayan Island

Cebu