Our children's country

There is a difference between the need for constitutional change to improve the structure for governance in our country and the resistance to President GMA extending her term. It is that difference that needs to be recognized and understood. The reasons for constitutional reform have to be taken for what they are. The case against President GMA is a separate issue. Filipinos who would otherwise recognize that difference are often misled by the propaganda of the keepers of the status quo.

The strategy is simple: local oppositionists with the help of foreign predators mount a campaign of hate against the leader of the country. That leader is consequently disabled from suggesting any constitutional change. The disabled leader, no matter the reasons and the necessity for constitutional change is constrained from implementing reforms vitally needed because of this. For lack of a better name, it can be called the Marcos syndrome.

Filipino leaders’ hands are tied. The enemies of reform have successfully equated constitutional change with a return to a Marcos dictatorship. Any other explanation on why we need to change our Constitution is deemed unacceptable and non-negotiable. Consequently, the Filipino nation is at the mercy of the stakeholders of the status quo. Under these circumstances, our future is indeed bleak.

Today that leader is President GMA. She is the figure Filipinos are made to hate to enable enemies of reform to block constitutional change. She is not the first or the last Filipino leader to be so maligned to disable her from leading the struggle for constitutional change. There were other leaders before her who suffered the same fate if in different guises. Former President Ramos would have wanted constitutional change but he was stopped from doing so. I happen to have come close enough to that campaign to know more than what the public knows.

Our task is to identify the different groups opposed to constitutional change and their reasons. After all, pluralism is the nature of democratic politics. But it can equally be said that the debate on constitutional change can only be settled in the ballot box.

There are those who are for constitutional change that would remove the limitations for foreign ownership of land. There are others who consider the presidential system as the principal reason of corruption because it costs billions to win an election. Today there is another group agitating for constitutional change because it is the only way to bring peace in Mindanao. Surely these different issues can be put forward to the nation and be voted upon. The wonder is that each time we tried, from generation to generation since our forefathers first formed this republic, attempts at constitutional change have been frustrated.

*      *      *

I do not know how long it will take to bring about constitutional changes so badly needed by the country. Happily, the next generation is already taking up the burden. I thought it was Michael Mastura who had written a letter to the editor to explain the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity. No, he said, that was my son, Ismael Mastura. On the other hand, it was my daughter, Veronica of Al-Jazeera who trudged through Mindanao’s jungle for an exclusive interview with Murad, the MILF leader.

*      *      *

Thanks to them the struggle will continue. To Ismael Mastura the creation of a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is the systemic change that will push the country forward, not those squabbling senators who want to be president in 2010.

“Bangsamoro Juridical Entity can serve as a catalyst of change for the Philippines. In political science, we either change the rulers (election/reform) or change the system (revolution). With the current system offering no viable economic alternative other than a labor export economy, it can be said that the Philippine development paradigm has reached its peak.”

But why call it a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity? Why not a state in a federal Philippines? It would be the same, General Esperon explains. Bangsamoro juridical entity could be federal state in a Philippine federation.

Ismael’s letter was published in the other paper. But because it is a message that should reach as many Filipinos as possible, I am printing portions of it in this column for STAR readers. “The Philippines, therefore, needs genuine (systemic) change and that change can begin with the BJE. The rest of the country can follow suit through federalism. Federalism will change the way our leaders see accountability. In a federal state, they will have to please their people not Manila. Each state will have to strive to be investor-friendly, otherwise, they sink deeper into the quagmire of poverty.

He describes the much-maligned BJE as a “win-win” solution. “The Philippines will get to keep its territory intact, while enjoying economic progress because of the peace dividends gained from solving an age-old separatist problem.

The Bangsamoro people, on the other hand, will have to become hardworking, progressive citizens of a new region, (or) else they remain in poverty. In any case, they will have no one to blame this time but themselves.

Interestingly, he puts a heavy burden on President GMA. He says “she can still be a great president if she exercises political will. The peace process was a centerpiece of her presidency at the start of her rule, although it is not in the interest of the group of “yumaman sa Mindanao” settler (dayuhan) Manny Pinol.”

Ismael also writes on President GMA’s programs to encourage entrepreneurship or generate more jobs in the provinces. “From where I come from, the government is literally the largest employer because few investors go there. In such a situation, entrepreneurial skills do matter. GMA has these two programs to be proud of, unlike the opposition which is ‘puro batikos wala namang programa’ except just to get into power.”

The young Mastura is not afraid to be controversial even if parliamentary has now been classified as a bad word among unthinking Filipinos. “A parliamentary system, another viable change, is a form of government in which people get elected because of their party’s platforms not because of their popularity, personality or money,” he adds.

He is also not averse to acknowledging the work of the panel that negotiated the initialed the key points for a final agreement. “In hindsight, the government’s peace panel must be commended for their peace efforts. Considering that most of the panel’s members come from the military, the senators should take the cue from them: the Bangsamoro rebellion can’t be crushed militarily – neither with the brilliance of Marcos nor the ineptness of Estrada the warmonger. Let us stop all this griping and ‘all-talk’ policy that lead to no concrete solution to our people’s poverty. Enough with self-interest! Country first!”

And finally, he writes that for the Philippines to move forward we must push for systemic change. “We must adopt federalism and the parliamentary form of government. Let the BJE lead the way. To prosper, Philippines needs systemic change through BJE.”