Why was it that after Marcos, we were able to witness and experience two (2) Chief Executives who tried to do a Marcos? How was it that these two were able to turn a Constitutional Republican state into a veritable fiefdom? I thought that our Constitution had safeguards against dictatorial rule or at least protect us from any semblance of totalitarianism. How was it then that we continually produce lemons for presidents?
Is the answer generational, meaning, the generation that fought the Marcos regime, are themselves potential dictators disguised as human rights fighters? That these members of the counter-elite fought Marcos because of envy? That within the recesses of their souls, the reason for their struggle is not so much as to lift this country from the morass that Marcos did but for them to equal if not surpass the brazen-ness and bravado of Marcos?
Is the answer systemic, that the very democracy we so created is actually a tyranny disguised as a democracy?
Our body of law is supposed to protect and advance the welfare of the poor. But the nine year reign of the Arroyos just exposed the very nature of these laws as not so much to protect the poor, but were actually crafted to exploit the poor.
Much of the weaknesses of our institutions reflects the frailties of our legal and non-legal systems. These laws created or allowed monsters to thrive in our country and sets well-meaning people out of the power equation.
For example, you can be a president if you have at least 500 million pesos. A Jay Jaboneta for example can only probably get a Senatorial post but not a presidential one for it requires millions of pesos and millions of favors just to become one.
We can never have a president who will not be beholden to certain Big Business interests. And when that president's time is up, she then suffers what she or he did against the counter-elites.
By the way, watch the State of the Nation by Jessica Soho over GMA TV. It is one helluva news and public affairs show.