Red, Yellow Blur in Thailand

By admin | June 25, 2010

…written for The Diplomat.

The Red Shirts’ campaign to force the resignation of Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva got as bloody as it could last month—what could be bloodier than protesters donating 1000 litres of their own blood to splatter on government offices?

The protests, by the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, established protest camps in the streets of Bangkok from March through May, with the protestors at one point gathering more than 100,000 people in the streets, paralyzing the tourist and business centres of the city.

The government eventually ordered a crackdown that resulted in the worst political violence in the country in about two decades, with more than 50 people dead and dozens of buildings set ablaze by fleeing protestors.

If the intention of the Red Shirts was to grab global attention, then they certainly succeeded—the world watched as the Abhisit government teetered on the verge of collapse as images of Bangkok ablaze were beamed around the globe. The defiance of the Red Shirts earned them the reputation of provocateurs.

But is this fair? After all, the Red Shirts aren’t the original Bangkok protesters—that title goes to the Yellow Shirts. To better understand the tactics of the Red Shirts, it’s essential to understand the Yellows. In fact doing so gives a glimpse of how much, in some ways, the two warring groups in this divided country actually have in common.

The ‘Yellow’ People’s Alliance for Democracy led anti-corruption protests in 2005 and 2006 that triggered a coup that resulted in the ousting of the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. Believing that the government that replaced Thaksin was still influenced by the deposed leader, the Yellow Shirts mounted an aggressive protest campaign in 2008, quietly stopping their protests when Abhisit was made prime minister.

How did the Yellow Shirts do it? In August 2008, thousands of Yellow Shirt protesters occupied Thailand’s Government House, remaining in the government complex until September. The group was also able to disrupt railway operations and three domestic airports including Phuket airport, a major tourist gateway.

The group upped the ante in November by pushing for a ‘final battle’ to remove the elected government and attacked several physical symbols of power, such as the parliament building and the homes of Cabinet ministers, before storming Bangkok’s two major airports. The Yellow Shirts controlled the airports for 8 days, disrupting the tourism that is the lifeline of the Thai economy and stranding more than 300,000 passengers in the process. They agreed to end their protests in December of that year when a court order disqualified allies of Thaksin from running for public office again.

They chose yellow in honour of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the most revered figure in Thailand. The Reds chose their colour not in defiance of the King, but just to be different, and evolved into the anti-government group that has demanded the resignation of a leader they argue is illegitimate and undemocratic.

So despite their professed differences, the Red Shirts succeeded in replicating the Yellow Shirts’ tactics, grabbing the attention of world leaders in the process last year when their protests forced the cancellation of a major regional summit in Pattaya in April.

The similarities don’t end there. Both the Red and Yellow Shirts have been criticized for using undemocratic tactics to achieve their goals, and despite their claim that they espouse non-violence, both have been accused of instigating deadly violence. By shutting down Bangkok’s two major airports, the Yellow Shirts inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of passengers in Thailand and nearby countries, while by occupying a busy commercial centre in Bangkok for two months this year, the Red Shirts destroyed the livelihoods of local entrepreneurs.

In addition, both Red and Yellow Shirts have confronted the violent machinery of the state, when their peaceful and unarmed protesters were attacked by armed military and police (is brute force colour-blind when applied to groups demanding change?).

And there’s another similarity—both Red and Yellow Shirts wanted an end to corruption and tyranny in the Thai government, though such noble intentions were in both cases also tainted by incestuous ties with factions of the ruling elite. This is particularly unfortunate since veterans of the student movement of the 1970s are active in both of these warring groups.

The Red Shirts may have lost the short-term battle, but their democracy project remains unfinished. If the Yellow Shirts are really determined to permanently prevent Thaksin or his ilk from reclaiming power again, then they must use their influence in the Abhisit government to demand immediate political, economic and social reforms.

Something has to give. Failure to initiate reform will exacerbate the tensions between the two groups and risk the deadly fires that engulfed the capital last month spreading across the country.

Posted in east asia | Tagged | 2 Comments

No to another Mendiola gate

By admin | June 21, 2010

Malacanang Palace, supposedly the palace of the people, is now the fortress of a paranoid president. It is already reinforced with defenses that prevent ordinary Filipinos and foreign tourists alike from visiting or even taking a glimpse of the official residence of the most important public official of the land. Gate 7 of the palace is permanently closed, container vans are placed near the Mendiola gate to ward off protesters; and if these structures fail to deter the mob, the palace is still protected by electric fences. Big Brother can instantly detect any suspicious activity in the vicinity because of the CCTV cameras placed around the palace, especially in Recto and Mendiola.

But for the present occupant of Malacanang, these steel barricades and surveillance instruments are not enough to guarantee the safety of the First Family. Another iron gate is being constructed at the foot of Mendiola which would immediately block protesters from advancing beyond the historic Don Chino Roces Bridge. Not only would it deny citizens the opportunity to air their sentiments in front of the palace, which is essential in a democratic society, it is also named most inappropriately as Mendiola Peace Arch.

Building the so-called peace arch is a violent gesture on the part of the government and naïve acquiescence on the part of Mendiola school owners who approved the design of the structure. The new gate reflects the thinking of palace ideologues who interpret peace as the absence of dissent or contrary opinion to government propaganda. The aim of the palace is not to celebrate peace but to enforce it by depriving critics of any space to challenge the official lies peddled by government apologists. Perhaps palace subordinates still cling to the archaic belief that only the president has the right to speak in behalf of the people and they do not want to recognize the legitimate claim of the grassroots to address and represent the public as well.

The peace arch is worse than the barbed wire barricade in Mendiola Bridge because the gate is a permanent structure while the latter can still be removed by determined protesters. It symbolizes a dangerous version of peace because it actually names the place as an abode of stability when in fact it is a contested territory between the dominant and emerging political forces in society. It is obvious that the government is hell bent in reclaiming Mendiola as its exclusive domain.

The gate or peace arch is a repressive structure which was erected by the state to warn opposition groups that the existence of peace in the area is conditional – that is if the protesters will behave and submit to the wisdom of the steel structures in Mendiola. Dare to cross the gate and the protesters will receive a proper water and truncheon treatment courtesy of Malacanang’s resident firemen and anti-dispersal unit of the police.

Mendiola is the holy ground of the parliament of the streets. It is through this junction where student protesters stormed the presidential palace in 1970. Landless farmers were massacred here in 1987. Through the same road, Malacanang was attacked by Edsa Dos and Edsa Tres forces in 2001. In the past 40 years, many Filipinos fighting for an egalitarian ideal lost their lives in the altar of Mendiola. The Mendiola Peace Arch is an insult to the heroism of countless Filipinos who defied the Marcos dictatorship and those who continue to dream of a more just and humane society. The palace is wrong if it thinks the peace arch will make the Filipinos forget the traumatic and violent episodes which took place in Mendiola. You cannot heal the wounds of the past by building vulgar structures.

The construction of the peace arch is one of the last inglorious acts of President Gloria Arroyo. The Malacanang fortress testifies to the political isolation of Arroyo. Maybe her desperation to survive in the wake of numerous political scandals hounding her government had forced her to create a steel blockade around the palace. The economist who had advocated the removal of free trade barriers is the same pitiful politician who constructed steel barriers around the palace to protect her weak presidency.

The new president must not only choose his bachelor pad; he must also dismantle the real and symbolic fences erected by his predecessor. He must decide whether he wants to continue living in an elegant garrison or he can start the journey towards the promised land by first opening the palace grounds to the poor. The new president should be reminded that the ordinary poor cannot access the just path (daang matuwid) towards Malacanang because it is enhanced with several roadblocks.

But the new president is also a traditional politician who probably possesses the same political instincts that made Arroyo infamous. Maybe the new president will keep the gates of the palace and the peace arch closed so that protesters will be discouraged from holding rallies in Mendiola. If the president will do nothing about these structures, he should be prepared for battle. That peace arch, that repulsive thing will embolden the militants to stage bigger and more aggressive political actions in Mendiola. Rallyists will find other creative ways to reach Malacanang Palace. No metal roadblock, even barricades made from wolverine claws, can stop the advance of the people’s movement for genuine change. The overkill security set-up around Malacanang betrays the true sentiment of the party in power – it is afraid of the people. The gates are built to delay the victory of the people. But the poor, the fighting poor, will smash these oppressive structures which perpetuate the old order.

Related articles:

Who owns Mendiola?
Real and symbolic fences
Recto: Fake capital
Open the gates of Forbes Park

Posted in places | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Poverty and elections

By admin | June 15, 2010

The poor are glamorized victims during elections. They become VIPs – Very Imporant Poor – as candidates try to woo their support. Election then becomes a contest between politicians offering the best pro-poor platform. But platforms are not enough. Often the winners are those who distributed cash gifts and other small value items.

During elections, politicians are very critical of government policies that fail to curb poverty in the country. They see poverty and government failure everywhere. But after elections, poverty mysteriously disappears. The new winners belittle the impact of Really Existing Poverty in the country. They even accuse the lazy, noisy, and non-competitive poor of destroying the image of a progressive and soon-to-be First World Philippines.

To win over the trust of the poor, politicians depict themselves as saviors of the poor. Macapagal was the Poor Boy from Lubao; Ramos vowed to help the Mang Pandoys of the Philippines; Erap was para daw sa mahirap; Gloria was Inang Bayan, Ate Glo, and Gloria Labandera. Patronizing the poor is a sure-win formula, even if it is insincere.

Villar was aware of the power of the masa vote. This was evident in his campaign slogans, “Ang galing sa hirap ay tumutulong sa mahirap” and “Tapusin ang kahirapan” which made him an early frontrunner in the 2010 elections. Even Noynoy had to re-calibrate his campaign, initially focused on the anti-corruption fight, by linking poverty and corruption – “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Afraid of losing the support of the poor at the start of the campaign period, Noynoy had to pander to the masses by assuring them that he is also concerned about their plight – which was quite different to his pre-campaign pledge of “Hindi ako magnanakaw.” And most important of all, Kris (minus Baby James) was dispatched to entertain the crowd. Let ‘em eat Kris.

But the masa vote is ridiculed. The poor are condemned for selling their votes to the highest bidder. They are mocked for joining hakot rallies. The poor are stereotyped as unthinking beggars who are willing to sell their principles, kidneys and even their children for a small amount of money (preferably dollars).

These accusations are harsh and unfair. The behavior of the poor must be interpreted in the context of their concrete conditions. It is more precise to claim that the poor, because of their circumstance, are forced to make absurd and unreasonable decisions. But from their point of view, these choices may not be irrational especially if these will allow them and their families to survive during these difficult times. What we should ruthlessly examine is the unjust social order which perpetuates the exploitation of man by man. Those who deserve our politically-incorrect indignation are the defenders of this abominable social set-up.

The actions of the poor during elections are not necessarily uncritical. Their motives are more sophisticated than we think. There are voters who sell their votes in order to earn or acquire something tangible from entrenched political families. They believe that selling their votes is a wise economic choice because they do not expect the winners anyway to perform good politics after elections. Others just wanted to spite the electoral process, a meaningless political event for many people.

Money is not the only reason why poor voters participate in hakot rallies. They want to be entertained. And they do not want simple entertainment; they want politicians to entertain the crowd. They want to see the candidate warlords and landlords humiliated or even booed in public. They want to witness how politicians perform like clowns on stage. After all, these dancing and singing politicians will not be seen in public again after three or six years.

Maybe the poor are not hesitant to ask for money during the three-month campaign period because it is the only opportunity to demand something from politicians without being refused. And politicians during elections are very willing to distribute money to the poor because this cash hoard does not really belong to them. It belongs to the public, to the poor, to us.

Can we then describe the actions of the poor during elections as acts of resistance? The poor are unaware of their untapped political power. Today they sense that the only political option is to sell or not to sell their votes. But one day, and that day will come thanks to the power of collectives, the individual poor will realize the radical potential of being an organized poor. That solving poverty, defeating the oppressors, and reclaiming humanity are possible without the fulltime intervention of elitist politicians. That politics is more than just elections because real politics involve the conscious and bold attempt of the collective to assert its power in the community.

In summary, do not simply instruct the poor to reject vote buying. Organize them. Make them militants of politics fighting for democracy and justice.

Related articles:

Poverty indicators
Balik Probinsiya
Urban displacement
Poverty and system losses

Posted in election | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Lost generation

By admin | June 9, 2010

Part 1: The Committed Generations
Part 2: Senior Citizen activists
Part 3: Veterans

The Philippine-American War claimed the lives of one million Filipinos and nearly wiped out the country’s carabaos (we had to import water buffaloes from Indonesia after the war). In Balangiga, Samar Province, no adults were allowed to survive. Those who died in the anti-colonial struggle were veterans of the 1896 Revolution. They were young and brave Filipinos who fought and defeated the Spanish colonizers. They belonged to a generation that was ready to fight for the dignity, honor, and independence of the new nation. This lost generation, unfortunately, was replaced by sons and daughters of ilustrados whose preferred political tactic was to peacefully collaborate with the American colonial masters. So instead of building a nation based on the blueprint designed by the revolutionary leaders of Katipunan, the prominent Filipinos leaders in the 1920s and 1930s were scions of landlord politicians whose idea of radical politics was to beg for bureaucratic reforms in the American civil government.

Another war, the Second World War, led to one million deaths in the Philippines. In Bataan peninsula alone, the adult population was almost wiped out during the Japanese invasion. Those who survived the war are known as the country’s war veterans but we should also remember those who perished in the war especially members of the communist-led Huk army. These young idealist Filipinos could have provided an alternative politics after the war – politics that embodies the yearning of Filipinos for genuine emancipation from colonial bondage. But this generation, the generation of Huk fighters, was again replaced by ilustrados who were loyal subjects of the American and even Japanese masters. The revolutionary project was torpedoed once more by pro-US dynasties and oligarchs.

The next flashpoint in Philippine mainstream history was the 20-year Marcos dictatorship. During the Martial Law years, thousands of freedom-loving young Filipinos joined the anti-Marcos struggle. Some of them came from affluent families but have decided to risk everything, even their lives, to fight the fascist dictator. This generation produced the country’s new heroes in the postwar era. The loss is immense; these martyrs could have succeeded in parliamentary politics and could have provided a more patriotic type of leadership after the downfall of Marcos. Sadly, the vacuum was filled by showbiz politicians like Erap, trapos like Arroyo, and returning oligarchs like Noy.

The Marcos years hastened the maturity of young Filipinos in the 1970s. Activist teenagers were forced to act as adults to avoid incarceration or death. For example, the duties and tasks performed by college undergrads for the revolutionary movement were difficult and extensive like building organs of red power in provinces throughout the country. On the other hand, those who were imprisoned and tortured were deprived of the chance to interact with the rest of society. It is interesting to probe if the Martial Law political prisoners became older or younger during those years. Case in point: Satur Ocampo is 71 years old today but he was in prison for 9 years during the Marcos regime. Does this mean he is only 62 years old? But the torture marks on his body have also weakened him. Satur’s mind and willpower may be younger and stronger but his body could be older than 71.

In Japan, the concept of lost generation is related to the economic crisis in the 1990s which produced a generation of young Japanese with no full-time employment. Using the economy as a yardstick, we can describe migrant Filipinos (from OCW to OFW) as belonging to the lost generation. They are talented Filipinos who are forced to wander in other countries to pursue their dreams. Can the dollar remittances compensate for the loss of our skilled human resources?

The labor export policy also created another lost generation – the children of OFWs. They grew up while their parents are far away. Parenting in these modern times is accomplished through letters, telephone conversations, and internet chat. Often, OFW parents shower their children with consumer goods to ease the guilt of leaving their families. What is worse is that children of OFWs will grow old thinking that earning money and fulfilling a dream can only be realized by migrating to distant shores. Isn’t it tragic that a generation of Filipinos is holding on to a believable fiction that life is always better in other countries?

It is not only wars and economic difficulties that destroy the future of a generation. Today there is a real danger of “losing” the attention and support of young Filipino internet users. It is alarming to see young people who are withdrawing from the social because they are too enamored with their virtual lives. It is even more distressing to read and hear impassioned statements that young Filipinos are ready to fight for justice and democracy in the safety of their online communities. They want to change the world by blogging and tweeting about it. They are satisfied with facebook debates. Are we the lost generation of the early 21st century Philippines?

Posted in youth | Tagged , | 4 Comments

From womb to tomb

By admin | June 2, 2010

Local politicians often complain about the duties they are expected to accomplish as public servants. Professor Alex Brillantes explains the situation at the local level: ‘For many people, local governments ARE the government. They are the frontline, the firing line. People go to them for help, advice and assistance from womb to tomb.’ And as described by one local official, ‘During occasions of baptism, confirmation, wedding, fighting, death, burial, they go to you.’

The local official is not exaggerating since politicians are really expected to shoulder the financial burden of their constituents. They are supposed to donate a small or big amount of money every time they receive a request for financial assistance. There are members of Congress who are afraid to go home to their districts because they have no more money to give to their constituents.

That people seek monetary assistance from local politicians is an indicator of the failure of the national government to provide adequate social services at the grassroots level. For example, if there was an efficient universal health insurance system as was promised by the president, there would be no relatives of sick patients begging for money inside the offices of local politicians.

But politicians are also to blame for people going to them for financial aid. The precedent is set during elections, when politicians distribute small value items like clothes, food, school supplies and even cash gifts to buy the votes and loyalty of voters. Other election giveaways include movie tickets, eyeglasses, hats, kitchen aprons, shoes, graduation medals, water pumps, health insurance cards, scholarships and free burial services.

Politicians also often claim credit for the construction of various government projects even if public funds were used for the implementation of these programs. They plaster their faces and names on giant billboards to remind voters of the services and free items they have given to the community out of the goodness of their hearts. During campaign rallies, the beneficiaries of numerous social service programs are identified by politicians.

Instead of encouraging individuals and groups to be self-reliant, politicians are ready and willing (and even happy) to offer financial responsibility for the everyday needs of their constituents during elections.

The practice of asking politicians for money should be discontinued because it promotes mendicancy. Worse, some politicians justify corruption by citing the need to provide assistance to their constituents.

If gift-giving is the preferred tactic by politicians who want to win in elections, then only the rich and super rich candidates will win every three years. Rich politicians who won in 2010 will be defeated by richer candidates in the future.

Politicians should offer good governance and not their pockets. Let other groups and individuals practice charity. Politicians should not be distracted from their real work. Besides, distributing gifts to voters during the campaign period is a form of vote buying and it is illegal.

Politics versus Pork

But why discourage charity? Because solidarity is the better approach if we are sincere in helping the oppressed. Eduardo Galeano reminds us that “unlike solidarity, which is horizontal and takes place between equals, charity is top-down, humiliating those who receive it and never challenging the implicit power relations.”

If giving “pork” is to be dissuaded, what will legislators distribute in their territories? What “bacon” will they bring home to their constituents? The answer is simple: Politics. Distribute politics. Bring home politics. Promote politics. Practice politics.

Politics has a negative meaning since it is associated with power-hungry leaders and corrupt politicians but it should have a broader interpretation and value. Politics should not only refer to elections and to the persons who hold public offices; it should also involve the continuous but often tenuous interaction between leaders and citizens of a polis.

Politics is not something that only few people can enjoy; it should be familiar and useful to everybody in the community. Politics that truly empowers the oppressed; politics that promotes genuine democracy and solidarity in society. Politicians should bring politics, not Pork and monetary perks, to the grassroots.

Politics is more powerful than Pork. Infrastructure projects do not last forever since they can be damaged by natural elements and the next administration can order the destruction of these structures. If there is budget deficit, there is no Pork. After ten years, the people will forget the pork barrel initiatives of a politician. But politics is infinite since its source of strength is the inexhaustible will of the people. Through politics, the people can assert what programs and projects should be prioritized by the government. Through politics, the people can become the government.

The principal task of politicians, especially those who claim to be servants of the poor, is to create and enhance opportunities for the people to practice politics. Adopting the popular concept of good governance is part of the agenda but it is insufficient. Politicians should not just strive to be moral public servants, they must also believe in the primacy of political actions. Otherwise, performing personal acts of kindness will continue to be misinterpreted as a function of politics and this distorts the radical potential of politics.

A politician who renounces politics and concentrates on pork projects is a dangerous political creature. This is someone who deliberately obscures the political field which deprives citizens a better chance to engage in politics. The motive is to weaken and distract the political fighting capability of the people. A politician who rejects politics is a politician who is afraid of his constituents. He abandons the political project in order to embrace the politics of pork, whose sustainability is dependent on the personal generosity of the Mafia Master in Malacanang. In this case, the porky politician’s source of confidence is not the politics of the people but the violent machinery of the ruling State.

Practicing politics should be enough. Legislative performance can be easily measured by using various quantifiable indicators but how do we measure the “political” performance of politicians? It is the community who will judge the “politics” of politicians but History will give the final verdict. Let us include “politics” in the debates and we can begin by reminding the people that through their activities they can jolt politicians into action. It means politics is alive as long as the people are active and interested in creating a political event.

In summary: dump the Pork, practice Politics.

Posted in election | Tagged , | 1 Comment

McElections

By admin | May 30, 2010

Part 1: Senate Race – A Virtual Campaign
Part 2: Burgers, Fries, Coke, and Politicians
Part 3: Opinion Polls – “A Science without a Scientist”

Remember Ramon Magsaysay’s famous line – “Can we defend it in Plaza Miranda?” There was a time when politicians were capable and willing to engage in public debates, often in a town square like Plaza Miranda. They could speak for hours advancing their positions or belittling the arguments of their rivals. Through these debates, national leaders emerged and many of them were outstanding orators like Ferdinand Marcos and Arturo Tolentino.

Today campaigning has changed. Magsaysay’s line is no longer appropriate since the validity and popularity of a political statement is determined if politicians can defend it not in Plaza Miranda but on national television. For political partisans, the decisive question is – “Can we defend it in facebook?”

In the recent elections, candidates became winnable bets if they performed well in the talkshow-inspired debates of Harapan (ABS-CBN) and Isang Tanong (GMA-7). Candidates were given 30 seconds to one minute to address the public. They have to articulate their platform, discuss national issues, and mock their rivals in this limited time. They lose support if they speak too long.

Can you imagine asking Sergio Osmena to explain the Hares-Hawes Cutting Act in one minute and then Manuel Luis Quezon is given 30 seconds to oppose the measure? Unthinkable in the 1930s but in today’s real-time world where conversations between human beings have been reduced into 140 characters, it seems quite fair to require politicians to deliver instant soundbytes.

The debate format (and the TV medium) does not favor the untelegenic and slow speaker. On the other hand, the winners in McDebates are not those who said something substantial but those who delivered memorable quotes. For example, Chiz has already mastered the science and art of issuing “digestable” press statements while Erap’s one-liners are often headline news material. This is also the reason why TV broadcasters have been topping the senate race in the past decade. Poor Gloria Arroyo – for ordinary TV viewers, her masungit na mukha and insincere smile are always a turn-off.

What is worrisome is that McDebates have the power to influence the voting decision of the TV audience. Voters actually believe they could adequately and intelligently judge election candidates by watching these fastfood debates. They should recognize that the primary aim of giant TV networks is not to perform public service but to improve TV ratings.

*************************

Sensing that many voters behave like costumers in fastfood outlets, candidates are using “McDonaldized” methods in presenting themselves to the public. In other words, candidates have to acquire the features of a fastfood menu: easy to remember names (Noynoy not Benigno Simeon), bright and colorful images (yellow ribbon, orange check), intriguing slogans (Gusto ko happy ka!), and McSize platforms (Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap). Using superheroes is also cool (JusticeMan).

Candidates are “packaged” like a consumer brand. They have to be appealing to all types of consumers. They also have to use persuasive labels to clinch the support of discerning customers.

That voters can change preference throughout the campaign period is often mistaken as proof of existence of genuine freedom and democracy in the country. This so-called voter preference is no different from how neoliberaloids use the term consumer choice to defend the free market. We are free to choose as long as the choice is limited to what the single market has to offer. We are free to choose our leaders as long as the choice is limited to what bourgeois parties are offering.

But how do candidates determine the public sentiment? They hire PR firms which rely on opinion polls to measure the voting trend in the country. In the past, political parties use their ground machinery to investigate the needs and desires of their constituents. (Activists prefer to use the term Social Investigation). But today this political activity has been transformed into a pseudo-scientific (objective) enterprise. The masses and classes have been reduced into numbers. To empower the grassroots is to target the audience profile of TV networks.

PR firms are now more decisive in establishing the image and campaign content of a candidate. Parties and politicians have no choice but to submit to the wisdom of these modern-day astrologers and alchemists. They use various techniques to condition the minds of the public. The goal is not to democratize public opinion but to highlight a particular opinion, or emotion, or mood (usually, panic) even if it doesn’t serve the general well-being of the public.

*************************

May 10 didn’t start well. Long lines in voting centers, disenfranchised voters, erroneous flash cards, broken PCOS machines, bomb explosions, vote buying. But all these problems were instantly forgotten when the Commission on Elections announced that it already received 50 percent of election returns in the country just a few hours after the closing of voting precincts, For Philippine standards, this was fast, super fast. And this was enough to declare the auto polls as a successful election exercise.

The tragedy in the recent auto polls was not the malfunctioning of the machines but the immediate acceptance of the public that the machines delivered credible results. Equating speed with accuracy is a dangerous thinking but it is the dominant belief today. Anything fast is convenient, true, modern. Fast delivery of pizza, instant pregnancy test result, realtime conversations, live coverage of events, Wikipedia search results.

One reason why we are bothered about the slow canvassing of results in Congress is the fact that we have already accepted the results of the elections. For many people, they were not simple election results; they were super fast transmitted results and they have to be precise. To believe that the digital results contained erroneous data is to accept a dangerous idea that the realtime world of exchanges on our TV and computer screens is also infected with false reality.

If we are ready to believe that instant wealth can be created and then vanish in split seconds in the mysterious stock market, what is so harmful in the belief that trapos can also win and lose in a virtual game?

Behold the emergence of digital democracies.

Posted in election | Tagged | 1 Comment

Last Philippine President?

By admin | May 26, 2010

Written for The Diplomat….

Barring any unforeseen events or extra-legal surprises over the coming days and weeks, Sen. Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ Cojuangco Aquino III of the Liberal Party will likely be proclaimed the next president of the Republic of the Philippines.

Noynoy topped the exit polls and unofficial canvassing of the May 10 elections and, based on tallied results, he received more than 12 million votes, with the next candidate trailing him by about 5 million votes.

Noynoy’s apparent victory is historic for two reasons—he’s the first Philippine president to win an automated election and the first bachelor president. But it could also be a historic presidency for another reason—it could be the country’s last.

If the Lakas-Kampi Party, which still dominates the country’s Congress, succeeds in its plan to adopt a parliamentary form of government by amending the Constitution, Noynoy could be the Philippines’ final president.

Noynoy seemed to many destined to lead the country—his grandfather was the Speaker of the Congress, while his father was a senator and martyred opposition leader; his mother was herself once president. So when Corazon Aquino died last August, Noynoy’s supporters prodded him to run for president, reminding him of his duty to continue the legacy of his parents.

But it would be unfair to attribute the surge in Noynoy’s popularity solely to his ‘royal’ blood line. After all, for many, Noynoy has a spotless reputation as a public servant—no mean feat considering he was a congressman for nine years and senator for three. Throughout his time in public office, Noynoy has not, so far as we are aware, been involved in any corruption scandals or anomalous government contracts, and there were no reports of him having abused his position as a presidential son when his mother was president.

In a typical election year, even this squeaky clean record wouldn’t have been enough to win the presidency, but it seems Filipinos today are desperately looking for leaders like Noynoy.

Or to be more precise, Filipinos today want new leaders who are the opposite of incumbent President Gloria Arroyo. After nine years in power, Arroyo will step down next month as one of the most hated politicians in the country’s modern history, if surveys are to be believed. Aside from being accused of committing electoral fraud, human rights violations and abusing her presidential power, Arroyo is also embroiled in numerous corruption cases.

Noynoy succeeded in presenting himself as the antithesis of Arroyo, promising not to steal and vowing to prosecute Arroyo for all the alleged wrongdoings committed by her and her underlings. If Noynoy’s candidacy was jumpstarted by the death of his mother, his victory was made possible by fanning the anti-Arroyo flames in the country.

But like any heroic figure, Noynoy still had a real fight on his hands during the election. Throughout the three-month campaign, Noynoy had to fend-off criticism from rival political camps and overnight critics. Some accusations were baseless, such as Noynoy’s supposed mental illness. But there were also some more serious allegations that affected his campaign. For example, Noynoy’s qualifications as a national leader were questioned when rivals exposed his uninspiring legislative record, while others believe he exploited the memory of his beloved deceased parents to ‘inherit’ the presidency.

Meanwhile, critics from the left took him to task over the decades-old promise of his family to distribute a huge sugar plantation estate owned by the Aquino family to more than 10,000 small farmers. The estate, known as Hacienda Luisita and located in Tarlac Province, is the second-biggest family-owned plantation in the country and has become a national symbol of the continued reign of feudal landlords and oligarchs in rural Philippines.

So how did Noynoy address the legitimate issues raised by his political enemies? Asked about his lack of experience and underwhelming performance as a legislator, Noynoy’s spokespersons highlighted his integrity and sincerity as a leader. Noynoy for his part downplayed the land ownership dispute by accusing his critics of politicizing what he said is, to him, a simple business matter between landowners and farmer-tenants (Aquino was later forced to pledge to place the controversial estate under the land reform programme in the next five years).

But if Noynoy seemed evasive when responding to charges levelled against him, he was aggressive and precise in identifying the many alleged sins and weaknesses of his main rival, Sen. Manny Villar. Noynoy described Villar as a dangerous and corrupt leader no different from the incumbent president, and went so far as to describe Villar as Arroyo’s secret candidate. This propaganda drive was instrumental in undercutting Villar’s growing support base, which at one point threatened Noynoy’s once insurmountable lead.

During the last leg of the campaign, Noynoy’s celebrity sister was able to broaden the appeal of Noynoy among the poor by joining the campaign sorties of the Liberal Party. Noynoy also bombarded the public with TV infomercials (a move that contradicted earlier Liberal Party claims that Noynoy didn’t have the resources to match the deep war chest of his billionaire rival). After securing the official endorsement of an influential church group last April, Noynoy’s victory seemed assured.

And so it apparently was, according to exit polls and unofficial canvassing tallies. The poll body’s unfinished official count showed Noynoy leading by more than 5 million votes over his closest rival, meaning that even claims of irregularities would be unlikely to tarnish Noynoy’s win. Indeed, Noynoy’s lead is one of the biggest in the country’s election history.

But this landslide victory has been overshadowed somewhat by Noynoy’s failure to completely vanquish the party of the incumbent president. Not only has President Arroyo succeeded in her unprecedented bid to clinch a Congress seat, her party remains the biggest political bloc in the lower house.

Arroyo has the numbers for the speakership, and even if she fails in her bid to become speaker of the House of Representatives her party remains a formidable threat to Noynoy’s new government (Arroyo could use the Congress’s impeachment powers to win concessions from the executive branch).

And should Arroyo become speaker of the lower house, she could ‘command’ members loyal to her to pass a resolution that would empower Congress to amend the Constitution and adopt a parliamentary form of government. Lakas-Kampi Party members, including Arroyo, have been advocating this change for more than a decade.

The only impediment to such a plan in the past has been the recalcitrant opposition of the senate. But today, Noynoy doesn’t have enough senate members to dictate the chamber’s leadership, meaning an anti-Noynoy leadership could end up controlling the senate and working with a pro-Arroyo lower house to undermine the new government. If this happens, and the Constitution is amended, the next national elections might be to select the country’s members of parliament for a parliamentary system of government.

As the new leader of an impoverished nation of more than 90 million people, Noynoy is faced with a daunting task. He has to turn around the economy, restore public confidence in government and unite a deeply divided nation. But with a soon-to-be former president having decided to postpone her retirement from politics, Noynoy’s attention might, sadly for the Philippines, be divided into two: fulfilling his promises to the nation while trying to protect his presidency from those who want to steal it.

Posted in election | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Flashpoints: Philippines and Thailand

By admin | May 20, 2010

I’ve written several articles for The Diplomat about the Philippine 2010 elections. Some of them have been reposted in this blog. In the past week, I submitted these short election updates:

1. So Far, Not so Bad
2. Disenfranchised Voters
3. Philippine Elections: The Good, the Bad, and the Funny
4. Replace or Retain Voting Machines?
5. Election Bugs
6. Battle of the Endorsers
7. And the Winners Are…

I’ve also written weblog reports about the ongoing political tension in Thailand. My focus is the citizen media coverage of the protest crackdown in Bangkok. These roundups were written for the Global Voices:

1. Thailand: Protest blockade ends in violence
2. Bangkok clashes: Pictures, Videos and Twitter reports
3. Thailand: Red Shirt protesters remain defiant
4. Thailand: Arson in Bangkok, protests spread to other provinces

“Smorgasbord of snippets”

On the new batch of senators – Their mandate will end on 2016. Six of the 12 winners are incumbents, while four are former senators. Two are children of former presidents, three are children of former senators, and three are grandchildren of former senators of the Republic. Four are actors and five are lawyers. Seven are from Luzon Island, four are from the Visayas, and only one came from Mindanao. Nine are candidates of the opposition. The top senatorial candidate received more than 18 million votes while the 12th senator garnered almost 10 million votes. Surprisingly, a TV/film star topped the senate race. No actor won in the 2007 senatorial elections.

On effective endorsers – There are winners, losers, and endorsers during elections. The list of winners and losers are now posted online, but it’s also worthwhile identifying the effective endorsers in the recent elections. Candidates need endorsers to improve their ratings, but sometimes even the most famous celebrities can’t reverse the sentiment of voters. It’s not enough to buy the support of well-known individuals and groups; candidates should first and foremost convince the public that they are superior over their rivals.

Unbelievable numbers – The recently concluded automated elections in the Philippines were immediately hailed as successful for producing quick and credible election results. Indeed, the counting and transmission of votes were quick. But were they accurate? Some candidates are claiming they were cheated and they say they have the numbers to prove it. The auto polls are now finished but canvassing of results is still ongoing. Reports of auto fraud continue to rise prompting some analysts to rethink their earlier judgment about the auto polls.

On the PCOS machines – Filipinos may be satisfied today with the performance of the PCOS but once the euphoria has died down maybe they will remember the flaws of the PCOS machine which affected the credibility of the automated election system. Maybe Filipinos will cite the inadequate security features of the machine and the awkward ballot design that was used in the elections. There are more advanced voting machines used around the world and the government should seriously consider looking for better alternatives than PCOS. If the government opts to use the PCOS again, it should correct the weak features of the machine. More importantly, the poll body should start training its personnel so that it will be more competent in handling the next auto polls

Who are the Red Shirts? There are Reds, Yellows, Blues, and Pinks in Thailand. Let’s call them Thailand’s colored protesters. The political drama in Thailand can be compared to the Edsa Dos experience of the Philippines. I believe Thaksin is Thailand’s Erap but there are obvious differences. The Red Shirts are not the original provocative rallyists of Bangkok. The Yellow Shirts were more daring. Now these Yellows are in power

Check out my shelfari profile and review the books in my library.

Posted in east asia, election | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Price of freedom

By admin | May 9, 2010

…written in 2007

If you believe in democracy, then vote on May 14. If you want deserving candidates to win, then encourage others to vote as well. If you want to remove incompetent leaders, then volunteer to guard the counting of votes. This is our duty as responsible citizens. Our vigilance is the price of freedom we are enjoying today.

Forty-five million voters are expected to flock the polling centers next Monday. First-time voters will comprise a significant block. It is hoped they will make informed choices. We trust the capability of the young to be more discerning in voting the next leaders of the country.

Some of our young voters have expressed disappointment over the electoral process. We cannot blame them. Election-related violence and visible signs of impending poll fraud have forced many of our youth to turn their backs on the elections. But we must assure them that their votes will make a big difference this year. Refusing to participate in the elections will allow traditional politicians to dominate and manipulate election results. Our youth must be reminded that elections may not bring fundamental reforms in our society but a change in leadership is a step forward in our crusade to uplift the conditions in our country.

Cheating can be abetted if only few people will dare to pinpoint how politicians are exploiting the weaknesses of our electoral system. We need more warriors who will stand up, speak and fight against the enemies of freedom and democracy.

We can start by voting wisely. It may mean nothing to others, but through voting alone, we can actually hinder poll fraud incidents. We can deny flying and ghost voters the chance to use our names during Election Day. By filling up our ballots (please don’t leave any blank spaces), we can be assured that no name of candidates we abhor will be added in our ballots. If the forty-five million registered voters will all vote on May 14, we can discourage poll fraud operators to pad the votes for certain candidates. We can make it difficult for dagdag-bawas architects to implement their evil plans.

During the next few days, we can still engage candidates to specify their program of action for the next three to six years. Now is the right time to review news articles, election podcasts, interviews and candidate profiles in order to be certain whether we will be voting for the right leaders the country needs at the moment.

Our starving people may find it hard to refuse cash gifts and other forms of bribery offered by desperate candidates. We should stop blaming the ‘beggar mentality’ of voters; instead we should start doing something to expose and punish politicians and candidates who are engaging in bribery. There are worse examples of vote-buying which are usually overlooked. Shouldn’t we also condemn the following: media payola, payment in exchange for religious endorsement, collusion with big business in exchange for protection, and accepting dirty money from crime and drug syndicates?

Three months of election campaigning have revealed the flaws of our election process. We should now embark on meaningful, sincere and quick election reforms in preparation for the 2010 elections. The Comelec, with the help of peoples’ organizations, can easily identify the roadmap of change we need to implement. Otherwise, we will continue to produce election results with little credibility which further undermines the elite-dominated system we call democracy.

Posted in election | Tagged | Leave a comment

Family feuds

By admin | May 6, 2010

Membership in a political party isn’t required to win in Philippine elections since political families are more influential in delivering votes for their relatives and anointed candidates. In small municipalities, the candidate who belongs to the biggest family is sure of winning in the polls. If there are several big families in a city or province, the family with the biggest war chest dominates the elections. Old political dynasties have the advantage since many voters look up to them as local monarchs.

The local elections can be viewed as a battle between rich families seeking to maintain or grab power in a particular territory. Sometimes the feud between political families can be settled peacefully, especially if all parties are willing to compromise. In 2004, President Gloria Arroyo united all families in Cebu Province which helped her gain a one million vote lead over her main rival in that province alone. Another way to end the rivalry of political dynasties is to divide a province or create a new district through legislation. For example, political tension in Cavite Province was somewhat defused when Congress subdivided it into seven legislative districts.

But most of the time, political families are violently resisting the idea that another family is trying or preparing to challenge their leadership in a city or province and they use all means necessary, including violence, to remain in power. The bitter rivalry between the Mangudadatu and Ampatuan families in Maguindanao Province resulted in a gruesome massacre which claimed the lives of 57 civilians last November. Most of the country’s election hotspots are areas where two or three families are competing for dominance in the elections. Many voters are delighted to see these families ‘destroy’ each other in the campaign, but many are also worried that the verbal fighting might turn into a bloody duel between the candidates themselves and their supporters.

And there’s another aspect of the family feud in Philippine politics worth mentioning – candidates are challenged by their own relatives in the polls. This is hardly surprising in small towns since all politicians are related by blood or affinity to most residents in these places. Still, news of a power struggle inside the same family continues to bewilder many Filipinos since family ties are highly important in the country’s culture. Some examples involve former presidential daughter Imee Marcos, who is facing off against her first cousin for the top local post in Ilocos Norte Province. Governor LRay Villafuerte of Camarines Sur Province is publicly feuding with his father, Congressman Luis Villafuerte. The major election rival of the Mayor of Mabalacat City in Pampanga Province is his eldest daughter.

Elections are interesting and at times funny in these places because feuding family members are cleaning their dirty linen in public.

But to democratize Philippine politics, dynasties must be dismantled. If this isn’t possible at the moment, citizen groups must continue to work for a better political system where everybody, not just family members of oligarchs, has an equal chance of participating in the elections.

All in the family

‘Power, wealth, and prestige tend to merge in the same hands.’

This was written in the 1960s by a university professor who proved that politics in the Philippines is dominated by only less than 200 families. More than 40 years have passed but this analysis is still valid. Then and now, Philippine politics is controlled by select political dynasties.

The Arroyo Family is the most powerful political family today. President Gloria Arroyo, whose father is a former president of the Republic, has been in power since 2001. Her two sons, brother-in-law and sister-in-law are all members of the House of Representatives.

The leading presidential candidates in the 2010 elections have many relatives in politics as well. Senator Richard Gordon is the uncle of Councilor JC De los Reyes. Senator Noynoy Aquino and former Defense Secretary Gibo Teodor are second cousins. All of them are running for president. Aquino is the son of former President Cory Aquino. Two cousins of Teodoro are members of Congress.

The wife of Senator Manny Villar represents the city of Las Pinas in Congress. Former President Joseph Estrada’s eldest son is a senator. His other son is an incumbent Mayor of San Juan City.

Many members of the senate also belong to influential political families. Senators Alan and Pia Cayetano are siblings. Their father was a former senator as well. Senator Bong Revilla is also a son of a former senator. His brother is a mayor of Bacoor, Cavite. Senators Chiz Escudero and Migz Zubiri are children of veteran politicians. Escudero’s father is a congressman who used to be a Cabinet Minister of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Zubiri’s father is the governor of Bukidnon province. His elder brother sits in the Lower House. The sons of Senators Rodolfo Biazon, Miriam Santiago and Edgardo Angara are members of the House of Representatives. The daughter-in-law of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is also a legislator representing a district in Cagayan province.

In 2007 former Senator Kit Tatad described the senate body as a ‘mad and shallow Family Ball.’ He went on to lambaste the goal of some political families to dominate the senate:

‘Political dynasties are either appreciated or hated, tolerated or feared. But even in the worst of cases, dynastic family members try simultaneously to occupy as many different offices as possible, or else they alternate or rotate in holding on to a particular office that allows them to exercise power. Never do they sit together in the same office at the same time.’

The 1987 Constitution clearly prohibits political dynasties. Article II, Sec. 26 of the 1987 Constitution says, ‘The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.’ There have been proposals in the past 20 years to pass an enabling law that would ban political dynasties but all of these were ignored by Congress. Indeed, why would lawmakers pass a bill that would prevent their immediate relatives from running for public office?

Many politicians believe that it is not wrong to promote political dynasties because it brings stability to a province or region. They claim that their relatives have the proper education and breeding that make them qualified to run for public office and also insist that it is the voting public which demands the continued reign of political dynasties. These self-serving arguments are ludicrous but only few would dare challenge the political dynasties in their local fiefdoms.

The holding of elections is an opportunity to bring about a change in the country’s leadership. In the Philippines, elected leaders are barred from running again after three terms which give other families and individuals the opportunity to occupy positions of power. But no genuine change will happen as long as political dynasties are allowed to poison the democratic potential of Philippine politics.

Posted in election | Tagged | 2 Comments