March of a Few Good Men

Alejandro Lichauco's analysis (below) validates what I wrote here previously: that the people will definitely accept a civilian-military government provided that the following requisites exist:

(a) a totally peaceful political environment---there's a recognition of human rights yet government has a tight rein over some civil liberties

(b) an economic system that promotes a level playing field---an economic environment that promotes entrepreneurship, property rights and capitalism yet at the same time, has the mechanism to assist disfranchised economic sectors and a system that promotes spillovers of economic gains.

(c) a social system that is nationalistic and ordered.

Filipinos want a quiet life. They want to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labours. They want to live in a society that promotes social order and peace. They don't care about politics for as long as politics does not affect their individual existence.

Indeed, a civilian-military revolutionary government would be welcomed by millions of Filipinos should the enlightened barons unite together and smash the prevailing archaic and chaotic order. I lament for those men who decide not to side with the truth and freedom for the sake of their own selves. I long for a few good men who would sacrifice their own freedoms and futures just to secure the freedoms and futures of their sons and daughters.

Why do soldiers exists? Why do they fight?

They exist because of the people. They fight against those who tyrannize the people. Sadly, they fight now to protect the asses of those in power. They fight for careers. They fight for promotions.

Have the flames of "We Belong" been extinguished? I remember Trillianes saying in one interview that should he lose, that's an indication that the people do not believe in what they are fighting for. He won.

I challenge Trillianes to prove me wrong in what I wrote in http://redbluethoughts.today.com. I challenge him to be the man he said he is. I dare him to speak out in this dark night and condemn the civilian leadership for being callous of the people's welfare. I dare him to be the leader he says he is. I dare him to lead the soldiers to this fight for freedom. I ask him to show the 12 million people who voted for him that they were not misled by him into believing of this vision of freedom.

When good men opt to be silent when it's the time to shout, that's a sign that we are in for a long night.


Either military or one-man civilian rule?
By Alejandro Lichauco

ANALYSIS

09/27/2007

Anyone reflecting even in desultory fashion on the growingly chaotic political scene and the equally growing economic harshness of the times shouldn’t find it too difficult to conclude that the political system under which we have lived since the “Edsa people power revolution” of 1986 simply will have to give way to a more sustainable or at least less chaotic political order.

Like it or not, there is a rising nostalgia for the order that prevailed during the years of the dictatorship — at lest during the first three years of the dictatorship. Martial law wasn’t the rule of the military. It was a one-man civilian dictatorship who ruled with the full backing of the military establishment.

There was, of course, from Day One of the dictatorship, opposition to it. It was an opposition led by the CPP-NPA, on one hand, and courageous band of civilian opposition led by former Senators Lorenzo Tañada, Jose Diokno and Jovito Salonga, on the other. But the opposition was really inconsequential although during that period, the NPA grew quite considerably.

The dictatorship was conspicuously supported by the business community, local and foreign, the diplomatic community led by the US government which openly supported the dictatorship militarily and economically and the IMF-WB. These were the main pillars which propped up the dictatorship and in fact, explained why and how the dictatorship endured for more than an entire decade.

What eventually broke establishment support for the dictatorship was the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. From that traumatic event began three years of street marches which would eventually culminate in Edsa. But the chain of events that may be said to have pulled the trigger against Marcos was the rebellion staged by the dictator’s secretary of Defense and vice chief of staff. Their rebellion was immediately followed by a small group of military dissidents, led by Honasan who holed up with Enrile and Ramos in Camp Aguinaldo and to whose rescue came the voice of the then influential Jaime Cardinal Sin who called on “people power” which lost no time in responding, and responding grandly. And the rest was history.

But the point to remember about the dictatorship was that for more than 10 years, the preponderance of public opinion supported a one-man civilian dictatorship. Not one year, or two years or even five years, but a good 14 years, in fact.

Even after the assassination of Ninoy, large pockets of the civilian population continued to be supportive of Marcos, or at least refrained from active opposition to it.

Now, the question: Did Edsa spell the end of a one-man civilian government which, incidentally, governed without benefit of Constitution and Congress?

Definitely not — because Marcos’ one-man civilian dictatorship was softly replaced by a one-woman government exercising extra-constitutional powers and governing as Marcos did through decrees.

Cory, in fact, ruled theoretically at least as a dictator, or least with powers unchecked and unrestrained by any Constitution or Congress and guided only by guidelines her government itself drafted. And she proceeded to appoint members of a Constitutional Commission who, without popular mandate, went on to draft the nation’s Constitution.

What did the Marcos’ and, subsequently, Cory’s one-person civilian government mean? It meant, to this writer, that the Filipino people are psychologically and politically disposed to accept a civilian dictatorship — long-term in the case of Marcos and short-term in the case of Cory. But one-person civilian rule just the same. Without Congress in the case of Marcos; and without Congress and the Constitution, in the case of Cory.

Both governments — Marcos’ and Cory’s — were, in truth and reality, governments with extra-constitutional powers. Meaning, to be blunt, a revolutionary government.

Don’t you think that’s political precedent enough, and a precedent which could well be foretelling for us a possible scenario of the future? A scenario which the people could possibly accept, as they accepted the Marcos and Cory dictatorships.

The alternative to a one-person civilian rule, of course, would be either the status quo or an outright military dictatorship.

But if you consider the status quo unsustainable at this stage, particularly a status quo under the regime of GMA, then you don’t have any practical option except to choose between a one-man civilian government or an outright military government. One would be hard put finding any other practical alternative.

At this point, unless a more practical scenario other than a one-person civilian dictatorship or a military dictatorship emerges, then we just might be forced to a choice between a civilian dictatorship or a military dictatorship. Or if you don’t find dictatorship a palatable term, then how about “authoritarianism?”

One final question: If a civilian dictatorship would be it, who will install it? Why, the military of course, as the military installed Cory.

You see how precedents can shape and even determine the future?