Fish sanctuaries: A boon to Cebu's tourism!

Well, with Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) giving the path to a better future during her State of the Nation Address (SONA) via changes in our constitution which according to her preference should be done via a Constituent Assembly (Conass), it is time for us to give the pros and the cons on why we shouldn't have a Conass and why a Constitutional Convention (Concon) is the right ticket to change our constitution. But before we do that, allow me to reprint a short article on the meaning of "Coonass" sent to me by Mr. Paul Laurente. Let me warn you it's meant to be humorous!

"Coonass is a controversial term in the Cajun lexicon: To some Cajuns it is regarded as the supreme ethnic slur, meaning "ignorant, backwards Cajun"; to others the term is a badge of pride, much like the word Chicano is for Mexican Americans. In South Louisiana, for example, one can often see bumper stickers reading "Warning - Coonass on Board!" or "Registered Coonass" (both of which generally depict a raccoon's backside). The word's origin is unclear. Folk etymology claims that coonass dates from World War II, when Cajun GIs serving in France were derided by native French speakers as conasse, meaning "dirty whore" or "idiot." Non-French-speaking American GIs allegedly overheard the expression, converted it to the English "coonass," and introduced the term back in the United States.

There it supposedly soon caught on as a derisive term among non-Cajuns, who encountered many Cajuns in Gulf Coast oilfields. It is now known, however, that coonass predated the arrival of Cajun GIs in France during World War II, which undermines the conasse theory. Indeed, folklorist Barry Jean Ancelet has long rejected this theory, calling it "shaky linguistics at best." He has suggested that the word originated in South Louisiana, and that it derived from the belief that Cajuns frequently ate raccoons.

He has also proposed that the term contains a negative racial connotation; namely, that Cajuns were "beneath" or "under" blacks (or coons, as blacks were often called by racists). Despite efforts by Cajun activists like James Domengeaux and Warren A. Perrin to stamp out the term's use, coonass continues to circulate in South Louisiana and beyond. Its acceptability among the general public, however, tends to vary according to circumstances, and often depends on who says it and with what intention. Cajuns who dislike the term have been known to correct well-meaning outsiders who use the epithet."

For those of you who haven't gone south of the US border, you may have a difficulty understanding Cajun except for their unique style of cooking which is gaining international acceptance. As to the argument why I still believe that a Constitutional Convention is better than a Constituent Assembly, it is simply because in our very faulty system of governance, one of the problems we've been experiencing stems from Congress itself that for so long, they have become callus to the plight of the nation. They are equally a problem to this country as a bad president!

Let me stress that the electorate voted their respective congressmen and senators to enact laws that would benefit this nation. But what do they do? They quickly use and abuse their privilege to accuse anyone they dislike because they are immune from prosecution! Then they go into that circus called "Investigation in-aid-of-Legislation" yet for all the hoopla they have splashed through all the news media outlets, I don't recall a single law that was enacted that sprouted from the seeds of those dramatic investigations, which in reality was done "in-aid-of-re-election!"

I submit that holding a Conass is a most cost-effective way of changing the Constitution, because there is no question that a Constitutional Convention is a more expensive proposition. That to my mind is its only advantage. We really have to weigh this advantage to the negative of a concon. But if you look at the rabid opposition congressmen who will also partake in the discussion for cha-cha, I still believe that a concon is the better way to change our charter.

Expensive or not, when delegates to the Concon are elected, before they can assume their duties, they must be made to sign an oath not to run in the first elections under the new constitution. That way, we can be sure that delegates with selfish motives won't be crafting something that would make it advantageous to the concon delegate. This is something we could never hope to expect under a Conass because I'm sure that those politicians would be jockeying for positions when the new parliament is put in place.

I'd like to reiterate that in 1986, we wasted time when Tita Cory tasked 48 men and women to throw away the 1971 Marcos Constitution instead of returning back to the 1935 Constitution. Then those 48 men and women created her own Cory Constitution. See what haste has brought us?

* * *

For email responses to this article, write to [email protected]. Bobit Avila's columns can also be accessed through www.thefreeman.com