After ZTE, after EDSA, what?

It is said that if you chain an elephant to a stake, it will learn to move about within the circle of its length. When you remove the chain, it will still move within its accustomed perimeter of mobility.

Bishop Francisco Claver and presumably many other Filipinos have their misgivings about the present situation and the possibility of a “world-without-end-series of EDSAs”. That there is an urgent need for change, nobody seems to contest. And so, the indignation mounts, the rallies increase in number, the seething discontent builds up — but only up to that invisible line. Everybody says something must be done. Except for a probinsyanong Intsik who has stepped up to the batter’s plate, nobody else seems willing to cross that line.

Every segment in our society has their own faults ‑ the elite who use their resources and influence to serve personal, family, or vested group interests, even if it means outrightly violating/bending the law, or treating others unjustly; the middle class who prefer to be left alone, never mind what is going on around them, for so long as their private lives are not obviously affected by it; and the  average Filipino who has little or no interest in national events because they cannot see how these have any bearing on their daily problems, and who, in order to cope, have also learned to use the “lagay” (bribery) and “padrino” (patronage) system, becoming co-parties to abetting this culture of institutionalized graft and corruption.

The deep division and polarization among our Church leaders, private business associations, professional organizations, the military and police, politicians, and ideological opponents – all point to the fact that while many say they want change, they also fear it. They feel threatened and uncertain as to its outcome. Everybody seems to be waiting for someone to start something. In the meantime, the situation hangs. Absent a discernible end point, the power of the status quo and the comfort of the familiar routines of daily habit will most probably prevail.

In both EDSA 1 and EDSA 2, Filipinos got used to a precipitating action from either the religious or military sector. That the CBCP has not behaved today as the late Cardinal Sin did in 1986 and in 2001 is a tacit signal from it that Filipinos should no longer act like children waiting for external guidance, but should behave instead as responsible adults and conscientious citizens. In effect, the CBCP is saying, “Don’t look at us. Think, decide, and then act by and for yourselves, in the way you deem best and for the common good.”

For obvious reasons, those in power or in the upper rungs of society would like the status quo to remain as it is. “Sandali na lang naman ang 2010. Maghintay na lang tayo (The year 2010 is just around the corner. Let us just wait). Let us unite instead of destabilizing the situation further.” The problem here is that while they are preoccupied with fire-fighting and self-preservation, the social cauldron is reaching its limit. When the people form the perception (and conviction) that every legal avenue and means prescribed by the law have been exhausted but have failed to resolve unanswered questions, then what a lawyer had described as the people nearing the point of “political action” becomes more appealing, albeit terrifying for those who have much to lose by it.

The present situation is on the proverbial razor’s edge. It is not about which side, or who, is more likely to prevail. It is not about who is or may be a qualified successor.

It is whether or not the average Filipino on the street can reach that point of internal realization where he/she will say: “Oo nga ano! Kaya pala ganito ang kalagayan ko (Why, of course! That’s why my situation is like this).” When and if that awareness breaks, then Juan de la Cruz will actively get involved. Things will move, because the people see the need — not only for change now — but, more importantly, to shepherd the process of change and prevent it from being hijacked:

• the way the Katipunan was split by the personality conflict between Aguinaldo (ilustrado) and Bonifacio (plebeian) and thus weakened the revolution against the Spaniards;

• the way the Malolos Congress delegates disingenuously wove plausible arguments of reasonability and love for peace in order to justify their accommodation to American tutelage and thereby isolate Mabini’s unrelenting insistence on independence (which threatened their economic interests and commercial goals) from influencing Aguinaldo’s mind; 

• the way some discredited businessmen and politicians who fled with the dictator in 1986 have managed to slowly come back to social acceptability and regain power;

• the way a similar set of vested interests are again calculating to ride the vehicle of social change, more for the protection of their self-serving goals rather than to help achieve the original motives behind the drive for change (i.e., equal opportunity to improve quality of life; lasting peace that results from mutual respect and equitable social dealings with one another).

Social change is a wrenching experience. Working our way towards the original motives behind change will entail a long and iterative series of trying out what works and what does not. Unfortunately, direct experience is the only path to civic evolution and political maturation, much like how a child grows up to become a moral and responsible adult. There is no short-cut or easy road. This is the implication of ZTE and of our failed EDSAs. What now?