This one came from Jojo, who is a "batchmate" of mine from the workshop. He is known to be "darkness" when he expresses his sentiments; more fairly I think he is "grim and determined" (or as we say, G-and-D) -- he he he. Actually he is only very much outspoken and unceasing when it comes to debating issues. As I post this, he is actually online this wee hour of Friday morning still replying to postings. I like that in him. I particularly liked this posting: someone said Jojo was being "academic" in this one, I'd rather think that he was bearing down on the bottomline of "democracy of the people." (Jeez, that sounded somewhat hackneyed.) Sometimes we need to look at some things more fundamentally to get the sense of the most blatant as well as the more subtle.
- - - - - - - - - -
I think the issue is not just Proclamation 1017 but actually who issued it and for what purpose. I read Belinda Olivares-Cunanan's column one time (and if Conrado is lopsided, this one is lopped off to the other side). She, like many in the administration talks about the state's right to protect itself.
May problema tayo, because people in the government (no matter whose administration) believe they are the "State." But the people are the State - the government, merely a representative of the people, therefore the caretaker of the "State" but is by no means the "State."
The Constitution provides for dealing with emergency - one in which wherein the "State" is in danger. Look around, is the "State" a.k.a. the people in danger? Or is an unpopular government in danger?
The Constitution is written for the people, not for the people who claim to be in government. Sorry Bong [he refers to another Bong with whom he actively debates in our Group], I do not share your view that democracy is about institution. Democracy is about people - institutions, rule of law, government are secondary. The Constitution exist for the people and not for the government. And for government to use the Constitution and rule of law above the people, there you have a problem.
People Power is an institution in itself. The framers of our Constitution from experience realized that laws, government and its institutions can be corrupted and thereby put people power as a "safety valve" to deal with such situation (coincidentally, Inquirer also referred it as such). It is the only way for the people to short-circuit the government when needed, when the law and institutions are hijacked (that includes the impeachment process or the courts). Martial law was instituted with law. Law was changed to fit one's end. Law was used to repress dissidents using institutions. How do people get out of that?
Democracy is not only about the majority or those using their numbers in Congress to effect what they want - many authoritarian governments use the same utilitarian argument - for the people daw. What makes democracy different from all other ideals' claims is that democracy specifically has the "Bill of Rights," a set of rights so precious not even the majority or the government has the right to take away without enough justification.
There is no justification today to stop people from launching People Power because it is a right inherent to us. There is no justification to suppress freedom of speech, assembly and free press, specially not by a government fearing its own people and using a corrupted institution to effect its own ends. Election is an institution, you know how corrupted it is. The people has the right to say no to corrupted institutions, laws and government. Elections is one way to do that, clean elections, I mean. But even a [potentially] lousy election is in danger of not happening come 2007. Now that really is the corruption of law and institutions.
What about people for 1017? Yun nga, don't suppress the people and let the people speak freely. That's the only way you will know for sure kung ano ba gusto ng taong bayan. Let both sides or as many sides speak freely. Only a government that fears the people's voice will try to suppress it and will claim that only itself speaks for the people. Besides, when does it [probably he's referring to people's voice] become an exercise of rights and when does it become destabilizing of government? Our Constitution upholds personal freedom more important than [perceived?] stability of government; again, it's an hallmark of true democracy. Pero yun nga, all this talk about law and institution; look at it, are these fairly enforced, implemented or followed? Gagamitin lang ang batas 'pag pabor sa kanila. Ano yung arrest warrant noong 1985 kay [Congressman] Crispin Beltran? We need to see the forest and not only the trees.
What I believe is not idealism, it should be reality. WE have sunk so low that we expect the worst from our government. We even say, "So what if they steal? At least may nagagawa sila." Is that the reality shared by people in other countries? Bakit ang baba ng reality natin? It is funny how some people grew tired of noisy activists and street parliamentarians, yet we dont seem to grow tired of corrupt politicians. Kaya nga di tayo umaangat kasi tinanggap na natin yung "reality" na yon.
Why should I choose between the lesser evil of two sides of Trapos? Why do we keep saying the other side is also dirty? Dalawa lang ba ang panig? Whether people are anti- or pro-GMA, hindi homogeneous ang tao... stop equating those against GMA with the Trapo Opposition and NO, there is NO united opposition under Binay.
GMA is not the lesser evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment