Flopped

The opposition-instigated rallies of Tuesday and Wednesday this week reassure us that the political aftershocks of the congressional vote will be diminishing in intensity. What we saw were oversized streamers attempting to compensate for the sheer lack of numbers – pretty much like the congressional minority that sought to compensate for their lack of number by delivering longwinded speeches.

Considering the importance of the congressional vote dismissing the impeachment complaint against the President as well as the vociferousness of those groups that want her ousted, the two rallies may be considered as having flopped. These rallies were populated largely by the camp followers of candidates who lost in the last elections and the usual foul-mouthed leftist activists who seem to specialize in antagonizing the general public.

Several factors explain the opposition’s present predicament.

The most basic, and I have said this from the start of this turbulent episode, the highly contrived issues raised against the President did not merit the strategy of regime displacement.

The "issues", we will recall, were generated by a series of scandal-bombs exploded by the opposition itself. These were issues that were tainted from the start by a highly partisan agenda.

No amount of moralizing by the self-righteous spokesmen of the minority who posture as seekers of truth can erase the stain of partisan motive. The harder they try to browbeat the rest of us into accepting the terms of this self-appointed moral crusade, the more arrogant they will seem to the rest of us.

It is a self-defeating predicament.

There is something immediately dubious in an assembly of do-gooders and guardians of tired ideologies who look at "truth" through the straw of the partisan objective of discrediting, disabling and eventually ousting a sitting President. Most of us would rather assess the Truth in terms of the broad horizon of what is good for the nation at this conjuncture.

Which brings us to the second problem bearing down on this strange admixture of personalities and forces seeking to oust the President: they offer no convincing alternative to the present dispensation, imperfect as this dispensation might be.

The strategic objective of regime displacement raises the bar for political engagement of citizens. The issues must be very compelling. The alternatives must be very clear.

Although the forces out to oust the President have formed into such pretentiously appointed networks as the Coalition for Truth and the Black and White Movement, it remains for most of us that the "truth" is fuzzy and the options are blurred.

The third problem is the lack of leadership among the diversely inspired factions composing the anti-Gloria forces. These factions have constituted something better described as a Disunited Front.

In a vain effort to compensate for that lack of leadership, the anti-Gloria groups pulled out two widows from the pantry. But it is obvious that neither Cory Aquino nor Susan Roces, venerable as they might be, control the political agenda, enjoy operational command of the protest nor offer an alternative leadership option for the nation.

The problem of leadership for the anti-Gloria forces remains substantially unresolved.

Then there is the problem of competence.

When, in 2000, a movement evolved to impeach then President Estrada, those at the helm of this movement worked hard to muster the arguments, unearth the evidence and present a clear and compelling case for constitutional succession. By contrast, the past few weeks we saw raw politicians try to get by with impromptu strategies and tactics, haphazard evidence and crude soundbites.

What resulted from this was a ramshackle effort with overly ambitious goals.

The fatal strategic error occurred at the start of this episode. The effort at regime displacement was overrun by militants who rejected constitutional succession as an option. Then they rejected impeachment as strategy. When street pressure proved inadequate to displace the regime, they returned to the impeachment option. When the impeachment option, burdened by a clumsily prepared case, was unsurprisingly shot down, they returned to the strategy of a street uprising.

One political ad appropriately described the tactical confusion of the anti-Gloria forces as "trial by error."

In order to cover up their own bungling, the anti-Gloria forces are now found whining about, well, the expert counter-maneuvers of the ruling coalition. In any sport or transaction, competence is rewarded and incompetence penalized. The anti-Gloria forces now want even that universal rule turned on its head so that their incompetence is rewarded instead of penalized.

Lastly, there is the anti-Gloria forces confront problem of process.

They have exhausted all avenues of pressure and parliamentary politics. In all these avenues, they lost.

Now they are digging deep for new strategies and options – deep beyond what an intelligent public, critically observing the turn of events, would be prepared to accept as viable and credible. The anti-Gloria forces demand accountability from those who govern them but offer no option based on accountability, whether this be a junta or the installation of unelected persons to positions of power. The public could not accept that.

In the end, we witness Fr. Robert Reyes calling for a boycott of Jolina Magdangal. That is an option even his own loyal crowd could not accept.

The self-appointed Coalition for Truth meanwhile proposes the establishment of a "people’s tribunal" to continue to bludgeon the presidency with the "truth" they prefer to entertain. That proposal will serve only to undermine our constitutional institutions further.

In other climes and other places, that is more forthrightly called a Kangaroo Court.