To act is to win

KUALA LUMPUR — Before I left Manila I was privileged to speak to a group organized by “Mahal Ko, Bayan Ko” at the Manila Polo Club. The topic was on “Why There is a Need for Charter Change Now.”

It is well known to those who understand that the quest for constitutional reform in the Philippines has been going on for decades and generations. More and more Filipinos are coming to realize that we need to change the structure of governance imposed on us by colonialist America. It no longer addresses our problems and needs.

Constitutional reform being a political issue has its supporters and critics. In this respect it helps to use Arthur Bentley’s theory — that all politics is a conflict of interests — as a tool for analysis. Through the years, interest groups have been divided into those who are for and those against it.

In the room of some 300 people representing several groups, among them the Concerned Women of the Philippines, the VACC, some mayors, a sprinkling of priests and nuns, a consumer group, environmentalists. I asked who of them was for Charter change. The winners, hands down, were those in favor, with only one or two against but it was punctuated with someone who shouted: “Yes, but not now.” It is clear who won the democratic vote in that room. So I asked them why is it that with so many for Charter change it has been put down again and again?

Most Filipinos both in and out of that room know the problems of the country — the debilitating cost of presidential elections at the root of graft and corruption in government, a generally ignorant electorate, lack of continuity in programs, personality oriented politics, weak local autonomy and a hostile environment for investments so badly needed. Charter change is a response to these problems.

But if Charter change were to succeed and address the problems, it would upset the status quo. It has its stakeholders who will fight to make sure it remains unchanged. The status quo favors oligarchs and I do not confine these to business oligarchs, some of them among the richest in the world. We also have political oligarchs and religious oligarchs, in short, interest groups with reasons not to upset the status quo. Each of these reforms is anathema to powerful interests but none more powerful than oligarchs who control media. It will be harder for business oligarchs to control government as it does now.

The most potent weapon of the anti Charter change vigilantes is to link Charter change to the incumbent president. Today it is President GMA. Tomorrow it will be someone else and reasons will be found. President Ramos faced the same resistance.

But no president has taken the brunt of so much assault as the current president for championing the cause. Why? President GMA actively supported the advocacy at the beginning of her second term. For a while, it seemed we would finally get it done.

In President Ramos’s case it never got to the point when he would have been condemned and vilified like President GMA. He buckled under the threat of a combined church-oligarchy threat led by Cardinal Sin and former President Cory Aquino. After 1986 any constitutional reform was simply tarred as a way to extend the term of the incumbent president as Marcos did.

On the surface it appears as if the state is strong enough and capable of pushing through the needed constitutional reforms. But it can’t and won’t be able to do so unless Filipinos are awakened to the fact that it is a conflict between the oligarchic few and the citizenry that constitute the nation. The people must recognize that in turning down constitutional form they are being used to protect the interests of the oligarchy.

The best route is through a constituent assembly, cheaper and faster. That is what they do in other countries. The anti-Charter change establishment accuse legislators as self-serving as if they were not elected by the people as their representatives. Why have elections at all if the same elected representatives are stopped from their fundamental task of lawmaking?

The swan song is that a convention is better even if it takes years, adds another layer of officialdom peopled by the same political pool. People forget that it was a constitutional convention that was subverted by Marcos to enable him to stay in power.

For the constituent assembly to succeed it has to be supported by a people’s movement. I would think in terms of combining the constituent assembly route with participation of the public through grassroots organizations.

There is work to do and the men and women in that audience can begin the work by breaking the barriers put up by the oligarchy by sheer numbers. But they must act and act boldly. Anything short of action is bound to be a stalemate sanctioned by theory and righteousness. Following Bentley’s teaching that the conflict of interest groups constitute politics, then the MKBK has work cut out for it. Every political force that matters is an interest group, “Anyone who comes into public life claiming not to have an interest is either deluded or deceitful,” says Bentley. He adds that “people matter politically only as members of groups, and groups matter only when they act.”

So is it with the Bishops-Businessmen’s group. They act in their interest. That is fine so long as they do not compel people to take their side because of their ecclesial authority or their clout as employers and or financiers of political campaigns.

Any campaign for Charter change to succeed must separate it from President GMA and do it on its own. Most of the men and women in that audience were multipliers. They can begin to work through their associations and then network with other associations to activate a pro-Charter change constituency. And finally they should bring their case to the representatives they have elected to Congress by letter writing and meeting with them.

*      *      *

I’m writing this column by a window overlooking tall trees, chirping birds and monkeys scampering about, and mountains partly covered by mist in the distance. This is Ampang where my daughter, Veronica Pedrosa of Al-Jazeera now lives. “The break will be good for you” she said after difficult days coping with bereavement after my husband’s death. Yes, but life must go on and writing columns is part of my life so here I am enjoying the serenity of her suburban house while I think of the Philippines I left behind.