StuartSantiago.com

February 17, 2024 @ 12:13 pm.

Cha-cha crazy?

Feb 8, Constitution Day, the President declared unequivocally that he is in favor of the Lower House’s push to alter the charter’s economic provisions. As expected, the honourable Reps have since gotten even more aggressive, nagging the Upper House to pass RBH6 ASAP. It’s as though they’re sure that in separate voting, the Senate would oblige, say yes to inserting UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW in three provisions. It’s as though they’re still sure that it can all happen very fast, including a plebiscite (raise your hands?), maybe even preempt the 2025 midterm elections, pasensiya na kung totoo ang nababalitang balak ni VP Sara na tumakbong senador.

It’s all so convoluted, layer upon layer of issues and agendas, and so many unfamiliar faces, in presscon after presscon, telling us why they’re right and the Senate is wrong to slow down the chacha process, whether through People’s (Politicians’) Initiative or Constituent Assembly. My kneejerk reaction everytime is, sino kayo? Why should I take your word for anything? I’d rather hear from people I know of, like Rep Joey Salceda, who has been for chacha since GMA times (if memory serves). I’ve always wondered why, really. I’d love to know kung anong sagot niya sa mga anti-chacha na nagsasabing ang problema ay hindi ang econ provisions na nagawan na ng paraang luwagan; ang problema ay high power rates, poor infrastructure, bureaucratic red tape, policies that change midstream, atbp.

Feb 15, Senate Prez Migs Zubiri in that interview with Karen Davila, said na sa ibang bansa, ang economic restrictions ay legislated, hindi nakasaad sa konstitusyon, so dapat daw siguro, gayahin natin para pumasok ang mas maraming foreign investments, or something like that. Ganoon? I’m sure that’s debatable.

I gather from the Senate hearings na merong mga senador na pro-chacha. Si Sen. Imee Marcos mismo has nothing daw against chacha, but questions the timing and, kailangan pa ba? Are there 17 who might say yes to the Senate prez? When are we going to hear from the Senators themselves?

Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt from must-read essay,“Machiavelli’s The Prince“ by Business World columnist Amelia HC Ylagan. Reminds not to believe everything we’re told by politicians, let’s not be deceived by appearances, self-serving press releases, warring dynasties atbp. Read also “Marcos Jr. explains in what sense he’s Machiavellian” by Inquirer‘s John Eric Mendoza.

Machiavelli’s The Prince

By Amelia H. C. Ylagan

… To celebrate the book’s 500th anniversary, the Boston University College of Arts & Sciences history department discussed why Machiavelli’s masterwork continues to resonate. “Some say he wanted to empower tyrants; others say he listed their crimes the better to expose them. Readers across the ages have found support for all kinds of causes: monarchists, defenders of republics, cynics, idealists, religious zealots, religious skeptics. Whatever its intent, one thing is clear. The book follows its declared purpose fearlessly and without hesitation: to show rulers how to survive in the world as it is and not as it should be” (bu.edu, Feb. 6, 2013).

Machiavelli himself was a “survivor.” He from whose name comes the pejorative “Machiavellian” qualifier, quite cunningly maneuvered himself in critical government posts (foreign service) through the changes among the powers-that-be in the turmoil of the 16th century flux of the Renaissance. He has been given the honorific title of “father of political science” by some admiring political analysts.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince just after he was forced to leave Florence as a political exile. Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the book is Machiavelli’s advice to the current ruler of Florence on how to stay in power. It was also his effort, though unsuccessful, to gain an advisory post in the Medici government. Yet The Prince was not even read by the person to whom it was dedicated, Lorenzo de Medici (insights.som.yale.edu).

“The advice espoused in The Prince led his name to become shorthand for cunning, manipulation, and self-serving behavior— one of the few eponymous adjectives to strongly convey an abstract idea. His open appeal to guile and his subversion of Christian norms were regarded as so abhorrent that, in 1559, the work would be listed in the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books” (natgeo.com, Oct. 23, 2020).

But Machiavelli’s ideas on how to acquire power and glory as a leader had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press.

Leaders as diverse as Oliver Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Louis XIV, Napoleon I, Otto von Bismarck, and John F. Kennedy read, contemplated, and debated Machiavelli’s ideas. “The most one can say about The Prince in this regard is that Kissinger and Nixon preferred it as their bedtime reading” (penguinrandomhouse.com). Napoleon I of France wrote extensive comments to The Prince. After his defeat at Waterloo, these comments were found in the emperor’s coach and taken by the Prussian military. According to their biographies, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote a discourse on The Prince and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin read The Prince and annotated his own copy.

Does Machiavelli, therefore, share some blame for the violence and brutality that has wracked the globe since he first wrote? No. “People don’t need The Prince to be inspired to commit every atrocity it names and more,” the forum at BU for the book’s 500th year anniversary concluded. “The impact of the book has instead been to force countless readers over the past 500 years to confront, in the starkest terms possible, the most important questions about politics and morality.”

And time must be looping, as in an automatic replay video, livestreaming strong-man rules in countries big and small, young and old.

“In order to get a secure hold on new territories,” the book advises, “one need merely eliminate the surviving members of the family of their previous rulers.”

It is terrifying how “the end justifies the means” is the backdrop of the to-the-death fight between Russia and Ukraine for territory. Ukraine claims that Russian casualties since February 2022 were 386,230, staggeringly high, but broadly corresponding with estimates from the US military and intelligence officials that Russia has suffered 315,000 dead and injured troops in the full-scale invasion. If accurate, this means Russian casualties are equivalent to almost 90% of the total personnel it had when the conflict began in February 2022. A New York Times report in August cited US officials who estimated the Ukrainian death toll at close to 70,000, with another 100,000 to 120,000 wounded. “Ukraine’s goal is not liberation of the territory. Ukraine’s goal is the elimination of the military threat from Russia, and the liberation of territory would be only a sequence of the main goal,” Ukrainian officials said (Newsweek, Feb. 1, 2024).

“Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself,” Machiavelli says in The Prince.

More than the liberation of territory for the sake of the people, the goal of the leader is to keep his power. The great leader, Machiavelli says, must be able “to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people.”

And in our own little country, we live in fear at not knowing the truth, not knowing where we are being led to.

Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that “while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public” (ipl.org).

And we, the “vulgar” masses, must bow to the fathers and sons/daughters of warring political dynasties like in Machiavelli’s time.

“The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar,” Machiavelli taunts us all. [emphasis mine]

*

Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines. ahcylagan@yahoo.com

January 14, 2024 @ 12:31 pm.

EDSA-pwera kuno?

It was certainly a shocker of sorts, that they dared invoke and blame EDSA and the 1987 Constitution for the nation’s ills. Randy may be right, that the Marcoses are not behind it, and it’s really a subversive move by certain unnamed funders to sabotage the charter change initiative, how nice, rich? and snaky, of them. And then again, what if it’s not addressed to us but to the social media masses who have long been tuned in to Marcosian propaganda canards characterizing EDSA as a communist affair? What if they believe it pala? I guess we will know soon enough. #chachacharot

The ‘Edsa-pwera’ ad
By Randy David

As yesterday’s Inquirer editorial (“When a Cha-cha ad backfires”) aptly put it, the paid ad that inundated primetime television early this week was “a poorly thought stunt that backfired if the intention was to gather public support for Charter change (Cha-cha).” That is if the intent was to mobilize broad support for constitutional change.

But, what if the real intent behind the ad was, in fact, to incite the broadest antipathy toward Charter change? Then, we may well say that the ad achieved its purpose. For indeed, the reaction to the advertisement was instant, passionate, and manifestly hostile to the whole idea of amending the 1987 Constitution at this time. Is it farfetched to imagine that this is exactly the public response that, for whatever reason, those who seek to preserve the current Constitution at any cost sought to generate?

On the contrary, what I find hard to believe is that a TV ad as sleek and as technically well-crafted as this could be so careless in its messaging. Perhaps, it wasn’t careless at all. By playing with the scornful word “Edsa-pwera,” a derivative of “etsa-puwera” (which means “excluded” in our language), the ad put the 1986 Edsa event at the front and center of its storyboard. The effect was to belittle not only the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution, a cherished moment of national redemption but also the untold injuries inflicted on the nation by the dictatorship that came before it. Why would any serious proponent of Charter change want to do that? Bongbong Marcos himself knew better than to demean Edsa in his carefully planned route to the presidency.

In so framing their message, the makers and sponsors of the advertisement effectively triggered a debate on the whys and wherefores of Edsa, rather than on the current realities that a valid push for Charter change seeks to address. It is a debate that those who were at Edsa would definitely not shirk.

Rather than promote them, as the ad claims, Edsa ended the monopolies that the Marcos dictatorship created, entrusted to his favored cronies, and fattened with behest loans. Edsa welcomed foreign investors even as it terminated the United States’ hold on the country’s largest military bases, which had served as the linchpin of American control of our political and economic life. The 1987 Constitution contains some of the most progressive provisions one can find in any country that is aspiring to modernity. It explicitly bans political dynasties, a provision that, however, could only be activated by legislative action. The Constitution itself cannot be faulted for Congress’ failure to enact a law corresponding to this constitutional declaration.

I doubt that President Marcos or his first cousin Speaker Martin Romualdez would wish to premise a productive discussion on Charter change on the supposed failures of Edsa. They are back in power; the last thing they need is to open old wounds and awaken dormant animosities. That advertisement does them a disservice; I don’t believe they’re behind it. [bold mine]

Indeed, Mr. Marcos has managed to endear himself even to Edsa veterans by differentiating and distancing himself from the policies and impulsive governance style of his autocratic predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. Why would he risk antagonizing them by blaming the post-Marcos Constitution for the country’s supposed stagnation?

Many of Edsa’s champions are hardly dogmatic in their views about the most suitable form of government for the country, whether this be presidential or parliamentary, unicameral or bicameral. I understand that the members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Charter were themselves divided on many questions.

What is objectionable is when politicians propose to open the Constitution to amendments primarily for their own private agenda. The basic charter of any country should be no one’s personal tool. It must be treated as a collective covenant — the product of the positive law-making power that resides ultimately in the people of a given state.

It’s important to bear this in mind because one of the oft-cited items in the Cha-cha agenda is the proposed shift to a full parliamentary system, where the occupant of the most powerful position in government is chosen by members of parliament rather than by popular vote. This system enables individuals who may not win the popular vote at the national level to bid for the office of the prime minister. Whatever the justification for the shift may be, it should never be to merely accommodate the ambitions of anyone who is not electable nationally. By the same token, opposition to a parliamentary shift must not be motivated by a mere wish to ensure that a “strong” presumptive candidate is not denied the presidency in 2028.

The parliamentary system has its advantages (e.g., it closes the gap between legislation and execution) and disadvantages (not the least of which is the relative ease with which parliament can be dissolved and, with it, the government of the day.) The choice of the best form of government is not an exact science. In any given system, what spells the biggest difference in outcomes is the political maturity of citizens who choose their nation’s leaders.

December 19, 2023 @ 10:15 am.

Atin ang Ayungin!

`ATIN ITO’: The birth of active citizenship
Randy David

The English translation “This is ours!” doesn’t quite specify the addressee. But the original Tagalog “Atin Ito!” does—it is addressed to Filipinos. As Edicio dela Torre, one of the leaders of the new advocacy group “Atin Ito Coalition” makes clear, this is a call to deepen Filipinos’ awareness of the contentious issues surrounding that portion of the South China Sea (SCS) we call the West Philippine Sea (WPS). China claims “indisputable sovereignty” over almost the entire SCS, including many features that are several hundred miles away from the Chinese mainland.

With growing awareness and understanding of what is at stake in that body of water we regard as part of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the hope is that a new generation of Filipinos will learn to value their country’s patrimony and play a more active role in shaping and protecting the nation’s future. This is a goal that cannot be overstated, especially in a society that has tended to cultivate greater loyalty to family and clan than to the abstract entity called the Filipino nation. Not surprisingly, Akbayan is the lead convenor of this new movement, for active citizenship has always been its core advocacy.

In many ways, the coalition breaks fresh ground. It is the first time since the Japanese Occupation that a Filipino nationalist movement is directed not against the United States or its puppet regime but against an Asian power. Atin Ito! actively supports the Marcos government’s opposition to Chinese aggression. More significantly, it shows that it can work closely with the country’s defense establishment in the pursuit of a shared goal—the assertion and protection of the country’s maritime rights in the SCS.

No other progressive group that has been a mainstay in anti-government protest movements has dared to take such a move. Working with state forces even on a limited basis has never been in the DNA of Filipino social movements. Doing so is fraught with risks, not the least of which is how to maintain the movement’s autonomy and credibility while pursuing effective areas of cooperation and resistance in the face of a bullying foreign power.

This is an improbable relationship that has been forged on the anvil of many ironies. The spokesman of the new coalition, the former radical priest Ed dela Torre, once headed the Christians for National Liberation, an underground organization that had links with the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines. He was detained for six years in the jails of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the father of the current president.

Many leaders of Atin Ito! cut their activist teeth in the historic movement to kick the American bases out of the country, culminating in the 1991 Senate vote to reject a new bases treaty with the United States. In the ‘70s and ‘80s, no activist seriously believed the claim that the Philippines needed the American bases in Subic and Clark as a deterrent to Chinese aggression in the SCS. That was a different time. Given its own internal problems, China then was in no position to be an aggressor. In contrast, the US bases had been the main driver of American intervention in Philippine affairs and a source of unceasing irritants between the Philippines and its former colonial master.

Following the departure of US troops from Philippine soil, the country’s defense now became its own responsibility. Yet, notwithstanding President Fidel V. Ramos’ program to allot to military modernization the bigger portion of the wealth unlocked by the bases’ conversion to civilian use, there was no urgency to upgrade the country’s defense capabilities. Our military’s dependence on US assistance was so chronic that new agreements had to be devised to allow American troops to return to the country without violating the letter of the Constitution. With that intent were the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreements conceived.

China, in the meantime, was quietly building its military power to match its phenomenal economic growth. Far from projecting its ambition to become a military superpower, however, it peddled itself as an eager player in the global capitalist system. Before long, it became the destination of choice of foreign companies that sought to maximize profits while freeing themselves from their countries’ restrictive labor and environmental laws.

All that changed when Xi Jinping became the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and concurrently the chair of the Central Military Commission in 2012, and China‘s seventh president in 2013. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Scarborough Shoal standoff, the first serious confrontation between the Philippines and China, happened in April 2012, soon after Xi became China’s “paramount leader.”

The Atin Ito! coalition acknowledges the futility of engaging China in the military arena. But, by providing the Filipino youth concrete opportunities and occasions to reach out to and manifest their solidarity with fisherfolk and frontliners in the WPS, the movement aims to raise a generation that values peace but does not cower in fear before a foreign bully.

public.lives@gmail.com