Based on reports, two contending groups are in a collision course--all in the name of Power.
There is one claiming to be poised to strike for the sake of true change. Another is also poised to justify a continuity of the reforms already established by the current administration.
Former defense secretary Norberto Gonzales' claim about these so-called "coup" is very interesting. He says he is for "change" in the country. He wants nothing more than change the very structure of leadership of this nation. His line is being parroted by Peping Cojuangco, who claims to have a big role in the ouster of former president Joseph Estrada in 2001.
These two names---Gonzales and Cojuangco have been involved in two political exercises already along with Boy Saycon, who is rumoured to be doing the rounds and convincing some sectors.
Nothing wrong with the "aim" of these people--the only question that comes to mind is--how true and serious their desire to change is. For one, Gonzales served the Arroyo administration for nine long years. During those time, what change or changes happened? Nothing. Gonzales just served the interests of his principal. How about Peping? He was given the responsibility of "reforming" national sports but what happened? Nothing, and the condition of our sports organisations remain dismal.
How about Boy Saycon? In the early part of the Aquino administration, Saycon was severely reprimanded by the president for dipping his fingers on sugar smuggling. What the president did was ask several Customs officials to fire Saycon's men out of the bureau.
Are we so secured to know that if these men succeed in re-asserting themselves to power, they will pursue the people's interests and not their own?
Ask me if the people being convinced by these three personalities are convinced and do not know what these men did when they were in governance and you'll find that the very reason why their attempts would fail and fail miserably is the very fact that their records as government officials pale in comparison with those who truly worked for changes, even inside the Aquino administration.
Besides, what would happen is what I call "perpetual destabilisation"---where contending political groups would try to outsmart each other knowing that there is now a serious absence of leadership.
The question really is very simple--do we allow Aquino to continue the remaining one year and a half in power or do we allow a transition council to manage our affairs, especially correct the electoral process so that we get a fair election come 2016?
Honestly, a transition council is our best bet to correct the monumental flaws of this decrepit system. This is the most rational solution to the absence of leadership which we now experience.
However, what prevents us from supporting this initiative is the knowledge that these names are involved in this enterprise. We know that these people are advancing their own personal interests and like those whom they are criticising right now, they are equally guilty of amassing wealth from the public coffers, and worse, advance the interests of names in Big Business who wants to monopolize their hold in the economy.
Political exercises which involve some form of military action are always motivated by economic interests.