The current situation in the Philippines could hardly be more conducive to a military coup. This is a heavily militarized country, the civilian government is discredited unpopular, the President has little democratic legitimacy, there are mass disturbances on the streets, important sections of the army have already rebelled, and there is no obvious civilian successor to the President.
Concerns about the consequences of the last few tumultuous days were clearly put by Winnie Monsod in yesterday’s paper:
COUNT ME OUT of the protest actions at the Edsa Shrine and Makati City disguised as a peaceful celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Edsa People Power Revolt. It is not because I don't want to celebrate it -- that event showed not only us, but an admiring world, the best of the Filipino spirit, and is therefore worthy of recall. But I refuse to celebrate it with people who are cynically using the occasion to further their own political or personal agendas by invoking "the greater good." Truly the last refuge of scoundrels. By doing so, they are destroying all that the Edsa revolt stands for: the spirit of self-sacrifice for the motherland, with no thought of personal benefit. And what is more, they are encouraging military adventurism that may end up at first with a military/civilian junta, but will, if world experience is any indication, surely metamorphose into a military dictatorship, a la Myanmar with its 44-year-old military rule. That will truly be the height of irony: They want to change Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (with assertions of her "illegitimacy" that so far has not been substantiated), and will end up with a regime that they may not be able to change at all. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Winnie Monsod makes the case for the status quo well, but there are good arguments on the other side too.
With the president so clearly dependent on retaining the support of her leading generals, in some ways the Philippines already has a form of military/civilian junta. The options that are presumably being weighed at Camp Crame are whether to proceed with a civilian figurehead or with a full-blown military government.
There is no denying there is a great deal of self interest on display in the present fluid situation, but the march to Ninoy’s statue on Friday was not just a protest. For many, it was a recognition of the 20th anniversary of the most positive event in the history of the independent Philippines. The marchers had every right to mark the event in this peaceful way.
Dong Puno made a good point about the military on his talk show last night. Of the four post-Edsa presidents, the only one to earn the respect of the military was Ramos, one of their own. Does that mean only a former military leader can hope to govern the Philippines successfully?
Mlq (who was a guest on the show) had a good answer to that. In his view the relative success of the last three presidents had less to do with their military background or lack of it than with the “assurance of power”. Ramos was confident in his position; Erap, despite his charm and charisma, could not control his inner court, let alone the wider forces in the country; and as for Gloria, as mlq said, “you can just feel her insecurity”. So while Ramos’s military background obviously helped, it was not a necessary condition of his successful presidency.
Like most people here I think, I think military rule would make a bad situation in the Philippines far worse. When I was a teenager I lived in Buenos Aires during the military dictatorship. As anyone who lived through martial law in the Philippines knows, life under military rule is a pretty weird experience. It is not just a question of the arbitrary use of violence (in Argentina 30,000 people “disappeared” during the junta’s six-year reign), or the lack of a free press, it is the general sense of insecurity and irrationality that prevails. Soldiers show up in unexpected places, checkpoints are set up for no apparent reason, people look scared and uncertain all the time. And of course, as Winnie Monsod points out, once they arrive, military dictatorships are like unwelcome guests at a party, long after it’s time to go they stick around--Burma has shown that.
The risk of a military government is a real one, but the thousands of people who have taken to the street over the last few days have done so because they believe that the current regime is just not viable. In the end, the choice is quite simple: stick with the Arroyo administration despite its many faults because of the fear of something worse, or call time and take your chances.
It is a high stakes game.
Postscript. In the unlikely event that you have not popped in on mlq in recent days, do so at once! He's at his inimitable best and I especially liked this one - from the heart.
Solita is the most sober voice I have heard in this whole mess. Sigh. She would have made a great senator. If only she knew how to sing...
Posted by: carlos celdran | February 28, 2006 at 07:34 AM
I also used to think that Prof. Monsod made a lot of sense, but now I don't. I listened to her speak out so passionately against Erap just before EDSA 2. What's the difference between that situation and now? Erap at least had an unquestionable mandate. And what's the difference between martial law and a state of emergency?
Posted by: Carla | February 28, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Good questions Carla. Another thing about Winnie Monsod is that she acknowledges all the harm thta the current administration is doing to the political process. In recent weeks she has written excellent columns about the harm done to the concept of a neutral civil service by the Mike Luz debacle and about the ongoing disster at Comelec, and yet her conclusion is to support GMA. I don't get it -- she didn't even vote for her -- she went for Brother Eddie.
She just seems to have such an aversion to the political opportunism of the opportunism (of which, let's be honest, there is plenty). Yet wasn't there political opportunism in 2000/2001 -- notably by the Vice President at the time?
Posted by: torn | March 01, 2006 at 02:27 PM