Democracy and Dynasties

PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/15-21/2012

dy·nas·ty (dn-st) : n. pl. dy·nas·ties 1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line; 2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state. (FreeOnLine dictionary)

THE GOOD: The Lees form a political dynasty in Singapore, Hsien Loong the son took over from patriarch Lee Kwan Yew after a brief transition with Goh, while Mrs. Lee tended to the economic and financial affairs of the State. Despite the enviable success of the small country they managed to become a global powerhouse, there are Singapore critics of the Lee dynasty. Between the Good and the Bad are the controversial dynasties, such as Sukarnos in Indonesia, Tanakas in Japan, Kennedys in the U.S. Shinawatras in Thailand, Marcoses in the Philippines. The Bad and Ugly: a long list can be cited, from the controversial three generation rule of the Bush family in the U.S. marked by charges of war-for-profit to the most crude, retarded and oppressive Duvalier dynasty in Haiti.

Dynasties in electoral democracies are alternately called "democratic dynasties" to distinguish from the non-electoral dynasties. China has its modern form of the ancient dynasties, but instead of names like Shi, Tang or Qing dynasty there is the CPC dynasty (Communist Party of China) and its third generation inheritors today. "Princelings" of the revolutionary leadership led by Mao Tse Tung and the Five Immortals today rule China. A prime example of a democratic dynasty is the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty in India which controls the ruling party of India, the Congress Party which is now into its fourth generation. Democratic dynasties must also be distinguished from the outright feudal forms of dynasties as are prevalent in U.S.-British backed Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia of the Saud Family, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.

Antis, Pros and apathy
Democratic dynasty controversies abound in the world. Critics come mainly from the intelligentsia, the educated middle classes of the respective societies, agitating to contain such dynasties. Favoring undisturbed continuance of democratic dynasties are mainly the democratic dynasties themselves and/or the political parties they lead. Rural folks generally are apathetic to the issue. We can glean these impressions from observing Philippine society itself, but a statistical study is reported in an article Ronald U. Mendoza of the Asian Institute of Management, published in March of 2012 months before the current controversy over dynasties since the latest filing of certificates of candidacies in October that revealed a resurgence of political dynasties in Philippine politics.

Mendoza writes: "In varying degrees, political dynasties can exist in any democracy … Legislators and parliamentarians with dynastic links range from 6% in the United States to as high as 37–40% in the Philippines and Mexico. In the case of the Philippines, if we also consider familial links to local government units, the figure reaches an amazing 70%. Roughly 80% of the youngest legislators in the Philippines also hail from dynastic political families." Dynasty-ism is, based on this finding of Mendoza, actually the dominant mode of politics in the Philippines. It must be perceived as a real problem since the 1987 Constitutional Commission wrote into the basic law a ban on political dynasties.

Dynasties stonewall Constitution
Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution states: "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.", but the legislature is dominated by members of political, democratic dynasties. Thus, for twenty-five years the political dynasty ban has languished as a mere principle. Backlash to the political dynasty trend grew as unprecedented two-member presence of families emerged in the Senate, with the Cayetanos, for example, and the 2013 senatorial saw prospects of two Enriles sitting in the Senate, two Estrada, while the scion of Angara also looms, the Aquinos field presidential nephew Bam Aquino, and the Singsons apportion provincial governorship and a congressional seat amongst its scions (including a convicted drug user). This trend is all over the country. The Constitutional anti-dynasty ban is doomed to oblivion as political dynasties in the legislature seem bound to grow in numbers and strength.

Democratic Ideals
The ideal of democracy is that of limiting concentration of political power and distribution of the exercise of such power to as many participating citizens as possible. The English Magna Carta of 1215 is seen as the root of modern democracy. The Magna Carta set out rules for rulers written by those to be governed, limiting the powers of rulers and guaranteeing liberties and rights to those governed. These rights later included the right to stand for election to office. Since that time, the modern democratic ideal has been to limit the powers of rulers and expand the powers of the citizenry and the right to be elected to participate in legislation and governance.

Does political dynasty-ism in the Philippines work against the democratic deals? It definitely does, here's one instance: as scions of political families monopolize the political party drafts at the expense, say of affirmative action to include Muslim senatorial candidates. The Philippine senate has not had a Muslim senator for several terms now. This in turn has destabilized our national government because of the absence of Muslim representation. If the ban on political dynasties is now enabled in law several seats would be left free that would allow political parties to consider other potential candidates and ensure more diversity in the composition of the Senate. The same can be true in the Lower House where dozens of seats would be freed for non-dynastic candidates to run for, and fill.

Pork Dynasties
A ban on political dynasties would also help in preventing the growing concentration of the "pork barrel" funds in many levels of governance, in the hands of fewer and fewer political families. A congressman gets P 70-million in pork annually or P 210-million in a three-year term, each senator is entitled to P 200-million in the same every year amounting to P 1.2-Billion in a six year term. Just imagine the amounts political families can accumulate if they have two or more scions in the Senate or the House, plus more in the national and local executive branches. Pork barrels are becoming standard privilege in local governments too, a Quezon City councilor gets P 42-Million annually in "pork". It must be noted that there was no "pork barrel" under Marcos, cory Aquino introduced that to Philippine politics.

The pork barrel of politicians is "rent-seeking", earned for producing no real goods or service, and only for holding a position. This is an important, if not more important, as the constitutional issue of political dynasties ban. The pork barrel is the stinking, rotten lure for the opportunistic to spend and win elections and control political positions; it distorts at the very onset the entire political and democratic electoral intention and process. Political dynasty-ism multiplies its ugly head if the pork barrel did not exist or were outlawed and corruption would be nipped in the bud. Jawant Singh, former Indian finance minister, on corruption: "The 'dynasticism' that has taken such a firm grip on much of Indian politics plays a large role in fostering corruption. … Preserving hereditary privileges invariably means that rules and governmental processes get bent, if not made wholly subservient to dynastic concerns…."

Dynasto-saurs and voters
India, grappling with the issue of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, is rich in studies of this issue. In "Dynasty and Democracy: Of Families, Modernization and Legitimacy" leading political columnist Karan Thapar writes: "First, political children have to win elections to get into the system…Second, for their party to survive dynastic leadership has to inspire voters or survive the long period of drought when the response is adverse…The advantage a dynasty confers on a political party could be substantial. Immediate recognition, mass appeal, a certain savoir-faire and a capacity to cement a party, bind its factions, resolve differences and provide a coherent central command-like control. Elected leaders, who can be challenged, often cannot deliver as much."

Contrarily, British writers Heather MacRobie write in "Dangers of 'dynastical democracy'… The negative effects of 'democratic dynasties' are obvious: a fossilisation of the elite decays democracy as well as social and economic mobility, fostering 'rent-seeking' behavior … But political discourse can deteriorate as names become more important than issues. …" My last word: voters choice are limited by Philippine political dynasties' monopolization of the party and political nominations. Voters are pre-empted from having a broader choice of candidates. Society has the right and the power to regulate the power wielders and the political process, the ban on political dynasties is an exercise of that but that constitutional provision, which is among this nation's democratic ideals, is doomed to sat upon until death by suffocation by the Dynasto-saurs in the Senate and Congress.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and onwww.gnntv-asia.com: this week "People's Power Struggle"; tune to 1098AM radio Tues. To Fri. 5 to 6pmhttp://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

The presidency or the republic (conclusion)

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

10/13-14/2012

Martial law cannot be judged on its face value because any extraordinary use of power by the State would always induce a negative reaction from the people. The Pareto Principle is at work because an increase in the power of the State always and residually would result in the diminution of individual rights. Individual rights and state power cannot go hand in hand or altogether expand on the assumption they compliment each other.

Those who opposed martial law could never comprehend that individual rights can only operate in a civil society where the rights of all are synchronized to blend in harmony, and not when they tend to override on the rights of others. It is in the overlapping of rights that result in their dysfunctional operability, thus forcing the State to enter the picture. The motive is not really to curtail individual freedom, but to regulate freedom so that the freedom of others could function. No individual has the power or the capacity to do this; only the State by the use of its omnipotent power.

Even the opposition could not deny that in the first five years of martial law, the country experienced tremendous economic progress. Most important, peace and order, and faith in government were restored. Marcos himself was overwhelmed by the sudden surge in his popularity.

While it would be self-serving to cite the statistical economic gains achieved during the martial law period, the best and undeniable proof to this is the continued longing by people who experienced the peace and serenity in their community and the strides in economic development. Time has given them the opportunity to compare history with the present, which now tends to validate that martial law slogan which says, "Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan."

Sixth, martial law was bound to affect people who premeditatedly sought to have it declared by their participation in that violent enterprise. This was evident by the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines under the leadership of a romanticist ideologue. Jose Ma. Sison exhibited himself as ruthlessly cunning. He and his young firebrands taunted Marcos to declare martial law by systematically orchestrating violence, often sacrificing the lives of innocent people.

As utterly ruthless, they refused to admit that it was their adventurism that blinded them into complete subjectivism. For that, they entertained the notion that by combining violence and propaganda, they could force Marcos to impose martial law. In fact, they believed it could lead to his political isolation, and in no time will be defeated by their concept of "people's war." But contrary to what they expected, martial law resulted in them being routed, and no sooner the people began to have faith in their government. The reckless revolution cooked up by an ideological megalomania duped many young and idealistic people to believe that victory was at hand. Many were incarcerated; some died or were killed fighting a lost cause.

Finally, when they realized their revolution was fading beyond redemption, they began to cannibalize their own followers accusing them of betrayal and methodically executing them. The genocide earned them the distinction as the only revolutionary movement in the world to wage war against their own people, instead waging a war against their sworn enemy.

While the opposition, disguised as civil libertarians, refused to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court affirming the validity of martial law, as decided in the Josue Javellana vs. the Executive Secretary, et al., G. R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973, the fact remains that there were valid and factual bases for the declaration of martial law, which have been verified as true by objective history itself.

That interregnum necessitated that, in the absence of Congress to carry out the task of legislation, the President, by virtue of the powers vested in him as martial law administrator, could validly issue decrees that would have the same force and effect as legislated laws. Yet, when Mrs. Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, scrapping the 1973 Constitution, not one from the opposition, the elite, the ultra conservative Church, and the radical Left questioned her act.

Looking at the "Whereas" clauses in Proclamation No. 3 issued by Mrs. Aquino, or Adopting A Provisional Constitution, the only factual basis stated therein was her unbridled hatred, contempt, and lust for vengeance. Other than its self-serving arrogance of having been installed with the support of renegades from the Armed Forces, the Cory Aquino government stated that her decision to declare a revolutionary government was "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution."

There was much hubris in her that could only be matched by her unfathomable hypocrisy. It was an open declaration that she was above the law, equivocally telling the people she has the power to erase Marcos from all the pages in our history of which no civilized government is supposed to state in its own laws.

Maybe we cannot compare, but the truth remains painful that this nation accepted gracefully the rehabilitation of the President who served the Japanese occupation as they transform the country into a killing field. Yet, the man who saved the Republic and dedicated his entire life uplifting our people from the morass of poverty and exploitation continues to be maligned. This is telling of us as a people and as a nation.

If only we have learned to evolve beyond the pedestal of recrimination, the basic question should not be about martial law. It should be about the man who used that means that should be judged by history. Yes, he was ousted, but it does not detract us from the truth that he achieved much for the Republic he presided during those turbulent times.

rpkapunan@gmail.com

'Ap-piece-ment'

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/12/2012

The acknowledged territory of the Republic of the Philippines has since Edsa I been apportioned to foreign countries: a piece here, a piece there. Sabah, ARMM and now the expanded Bangsamoro and the Sulu Sea. This is "ap-piece-ment" of the Republic to the foreign powers and interests. Led by a scion of the Yellow ruling class, the country now submits again the Filipino people to humiliation and imperial victimization again in an onerous, destructive ceding of Cotabato City, Isabela City, and the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in Lanao del Norte province, barangays from Kabacan, Carmen, Aleosan, Pigkawayan, Pikit and Midsayap towns in Cotabato City, and the greatest prize of all — the Sulu Sea where Exxonmobile and others have has set its eyes on.

GRP peace panel negotiator Marvic Leonen says no foreign influence figured in the peace deal, but not so secret "dirty little secret" is that the USIP (United Institute for Peace) led by J. Robinson West of the largest energy consulting firm PFC Energy, has its dirty hand all over it. Leonen's prevarication shows that the peace talk panel representing the Philippines and its work deserves no respect from the Filipino people as the panel is devoid of integrity. The peace talks are an expensive sham. The UNDP stepped up to gift the major Philippine peace panel negotiator an N-Peace Network award, to reinforce the respectability of this ap-piece-ment and the negotiators who carved off more pieces of Filipino flesh to the Western oil interest. UN agencies are invariably used as tools of US and Western powers to legitimize imperial projects with such honorific blessings, such as in Kosovo which was wrest from Serbia.

The other title for this article is "Pipsqueak Leaders," highlighting how small or insignificant this country's leadership is before the subterfuges and pressures of the US and Britain (represented by client Malaysia) to negotiate away 75 percent of the economic wealth of the country. As the rebel MILF band's vice chief for Political Affairs Ghadzali Jaafar told the Philippines over a radio interview their 75 percent share is non-negotiable. Ninety percent of that 75 percent will go to the US and Britain while crumbs will be thrown to the likes of Jaafar empowering them to be little potentates like the US surrogates in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. Can Bangsamoro ever become a developed state? Not in anyone's lifetime. It'll be just like feudal, archaic Middle Eastern kingdoms the US controls and ready when needed to be used to control US hegemony as the potentates do in the Middle East.

Pipsqueak Philippine media pushes "ap-piece-ment," too: from Inquirer: "The glowing praises are richly deserved. After a protracted internecine war, one that has brought untold suffering on Muslim Mindanao, there's real hope the war may finally end."  What about he "untold suffering" of Filipino soldiers who fought to defend all Filipinos' sovereignty and the Filipinos' continuing impoverishment with the looting of 75 percent of its economic wealth in the Sulu Sea? In the Philippine Star one writes, "Leonen has convinced me from a distance that it is providential the Bangsamoro will be born during the watch of President Aquino whose only concern is peace and prosperity for the people of Mindanao … Since I see no alternative, I am willing to take my chance with it." Providential my eye, curses instead: Cory Aquino gave Sabah away; BS Aquino III cedes even more territories.

No alternative? The alternative is clear — defend national sovereignty over all our territory undisputed in any international forum. President Marcos defended that sovereignty, won and laid the basis for a durable peace with the Tripoli Agreement; but after he was deposed in 1986 by the conspiracy of the US and local oligarchs, the US stooge who succeeded him, Corazon Aquino, returned to the country the leader of the defeated MNLF and reinvigorated the secession movement. Likewise, under President Estrada the MILF was demolished at Camp Abubakar and its leader Hashim Salamat fled to Malaysia and beseeched US President Bush to restore him in Mindanao. When Estrada was deposed by the same forces that deposed Marcos, the Edsa II successor Gloria Arroyo restored the MILF to its former glory. Forgetting is not an option.

Two years back I wrote "The Traitor Class," about the Yellows cabal in Philippine politics that serve as handmaiden of the foreign powers. While that class runs the show in the country the Philippines will never win any of its struggles against the imperial and neo-colonial powers. How I envy those countries in Latin America that are already in the process of successfully throwing off the yoke of colonialism by nationalizing foreign resource-extraction and public utilities corporations, striking independent foreign policies, respecting each other's sovereignty, opposing foreign interventionism. Venezuela just overwhelmed the US sponsored presidential candidate for Hugo Chavez. In the Philippines, time will come when we can revisit the Mindanao issues and recreate a truly just peace that keeps the national intact for all Filipinos benefit and welfare.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Filipino Homegrown Franchises Expo"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)