Siege mentality grips Malacañang

Actually, it is totally understandable. They got the scare of their lives. That Oakwood mutiny was more than a protest rally against military corruption. It was well funded and the civilians behind it were apparently deadly serious about grabbing political power. Those young idealistic officers were either expertly used or they could have been parties to the crime.

What bothers Ate Glo and the rest of her Palace crew however, is the lack of public sympathy to their heroic efforts to preserve our democratic institutions. They are particularly disappointed with media practitioners, always pointing out that guys like us would have been the first victims of repression if that Oakwood mutiny managed to install their ruling junta.

This is why Ate Glo had been particularly testy not just with media but with the business community, and that poor lawyer of Piatco got it. It is obvious, an observer close to the Palace told me, that a kind of siege mentality has gripped Malacañang in the past few days. They are making a headcount of people and ala Bush, for us or against us, no middle ground.

This siege mentality prevents them from fully understanding why people in general, not just media practitioners, expressed strong sympathy for those young officers. It also prevents them from addressing valid issues raised. Jose "Boy" Montelibano writing for an on-line website explained the reason for this strong and almost instant public bonding with the young officers.

"It was the discontent that a shocked public shared with the mutineers; it was the powerful projection of idealism that made many Filipinos set aside their dislike of angry men in uniform and, instead, reward them with sympathy and admiration. A strong connection was made in so short a time between mutineers and a public awakened by a live drama that was captured and broadcasted by an ever-alert mass media."

Trillanes and company made a lot of people think. Even as leftist lawyers instinctively went over to the side of the mutineers, the leftists in general were at a loss on how they should respond to the mutiny. Should they consider them ideal opportunistic allies or should the military officers still be considered fascists to be condemned? Here is one thought I picked up in one of the e-groups I subscribe to.

"My criticism is that the nat-dem position is asymmetrical; the nat-dems (as well as the other factions) condemn the GMA administration and Reyes, but they are soft on the coup plotters. Revolutionaries should defend liberal democracy from a fascist onslaught. (I am not saying that they lick GMA’s boots or act like the GMA apologists.) That was a lesson from the antifascist struggle in the 1930/40s. Tell the comrades to read Dimitrov, even the devil that is Stalin. At least Stalin realized that the main enemy was fascism, not the bourgeois democrats."

That comment drew this reaction: "Of course, that didn’t prevent Stalin from reversing course in 1939 and agreeing to the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact (the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement)... This is the same kind of opportunism that we see now, with Sanlakas allying with PMAP. The guiding principle seems to be that whatever topples the democratic state is good, and the devil take the hindmost."

Still another message in the e-group made it clear that "Trillanes and company and Gringo are fascists; ok, fascists who are handsomer than the GMA pigs (that seems to be the other problem with GMA’s crew – no one has the personality or even plain good looks that works on television). We know the fascist past of Gringo. Has he reformed? Read his national recovery program–many of the solutions are fascistic."

Another writer in the e-group summed up what the left should understand. "At least under the present undesirable set-up, you can publicly say all you want against all the isms. Under the Gringo-Erap junta, mag-underground na tayo, which would make it far more difficult for you and me to spread our differing messages. The issue is not whether to support GMA – to hell with her. The main issue is whether revolutionaries will allow Gringo’s and Erap’s forces to grab power, undermine civilian authority and impose an open dictatorship."

Going back to the mental state of siege at Malacanang, I guess Ate Glo, Bobi Tiglao and company should re-read the last sentence of the article on Oakwood published by The Economist. "Filipinos, beset by conspiracy theories, are in danger of overlooking one obvious explanation of the mutiny: that young, idealistic but immature officers, upset by shortcomings in the institution they serve, decided simply to protest in a manner that they calculated, correctly, would get the attention of the nation."

That is exactly what I have been writing in this column. Granted that these officers were used by Gringo and Erap and all the usual suspects, they nevertheless gave a barometer reading of underlying discontent with the status quo. They got all our attention. What do we do next?

Military Academy

The only high official who I feel is responding positively to Oakwood by doing something about institutional shortcomings is Gen. Narcisco Abaya, the AFP Chief of Staff. I guess we are lucky this happened during his watch because he has what it takes, particularly the credibility, to address the problem the way it should be.

Gen. Abaya’s move to ask the DBM to procure military supplies by electronic bidding is one big and good step that addresses the problem of corruption raised by the young officers. His proposal to abolish the Philippine Military Academy, drastic as it sounds, is another proposal worth serious consideration.

When Abaya was asked by the magazine Newsbreak if it is possible for the military to ever completely go back to the barracks after 1986, EDSA 2, etc., the General answered with a truthful No.

The General then came up with a shocking and controversial proposal. He told Newsbreak "one of the things that could help in the process is to abolish the PMA. It perpetuates the class system which develops a culture..."

In place of PMA, the General proposed the adoption of an OCS, an Officer Candidate School like in Australia, where a college graduate takes a one-and-a-half-year preparatory course. He doesn’t spend four years with his classmates come hell or high water.

That makes sense to me. I was listening to Ces Drilon interviewing retired AFP officers who were graduates of the ROTC system and they too agreed that it is dangerous to have our current system of just one military academy where most officers in all branches of the military are trained.

Let prospective officers finish any four-year college course before going to officer school. This way, the young officer would be more mature than fresh high school graduates, more self assured and in a better position to approach a military career on a more professional basis. Being idealistic is one thing. Being naive, as in allowing their idealism to be used by politicians, is quite another.

We haven’t really addressed this coup problem from the inside out beyond talking and writing and producing voluminous reports. Maybe we should listen to Gen. Abaya. He seems to have some bright if unorthodox ideas to fix our problem for the long term.

Single women

Dr. Ernie E shares his analysis of why more women these days prefer to stay single.

Nowadays, 80 percent of women are against marriage as they finally realized with wisdom that for 60 grams of sausage, it is not worth buying the whole pig.

Ouch!

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]