A view on 2010

I received a faxed invitation from former President FVR for the 10th FVR-RPDEV Lecture Series. The title of the lecture is on “Six Year Socio Economic Peace Program”. It looks ok until I open the next page with the names of those who will make the presentations: 2010 presidential candidates without former President Erap, Makati Mayor Binay, Senator Manny Villar, and Vice-President Noli de Castro, all leading contenders with the exception of Binay, unless they have also quit from the race as Senator Panfilo Lacson has done.

In principle, I completely agree with the RPDEV’s effort to put some reason into the campaign for the election of the next Philippine president. That seriousness has been missing in the campaigns of the wannabes.

* * *

I have been piqued by Senator Manuel Roxas II’s condescending attempts to be the candidate of the masa — driving a pedicab, wearing a necklace of bawang to ward off con-asswang, calling himself Mr. Palengke and of course making so much noise about his coming wedding to ABS-CBN’s Korina Sanchez. Surprising huh? After a long engagement they chose their wedding date to be as close to the presidential elections. Expect a circus and display of showbiz excesses not to my taste in what should be a private event. But this is the Philippines.

* * *

I have good words for former President FVR but RPDEV lecture implicitly sideswipes parliamentary government through Charter change at the height of a debate on whether we will have presidential elections or shift to parliamentary and elect members of parliament in 2010 instead.

I don’t know what criteria were used for the presenters. For the moment it seems all are acceptable to “US Good Housekeeping standards.”

At the bottom part of the invitation it says it has the support of Weber Shandwick Worldwide. This public relations firm has extensive connections around the world and has had some dealings with the Philippines, some of them politically sensitive.

As its brief says, Shandwick Worldwide has “helped move global agendas, change attitudes, shape images, and expand the influence of organizations and ideas.” They have launched successful public affairs campaigns for major corporations, governments, trade associations, coalitions, and nonprofit organizations.”

* * *

My reservation about the lecture is a personal one. I would have been happier had the former president lent his name to Charter change to shift the country to a parliamentary system of government. (CNP: with a plan to evolve into federalism slowly). I think that he, more than anyone, knows better that six years is too short for a good president and too long for a bad one. A parliamentary system could address that. But as I have said, it is a personal opinion.

For a long time I had wished that the former president would have been the statesman who should have led us into systemic change in government. He had more than enough opportunities to bang heads together and develop Lakas CMD (now Lakas-Kampi-CMD) with a party program capped by the vision of parliamentary government. That is the reason why Singapore and Malaysia went ahead to become powerhouses while the Philippines lagged behind. Theirs were authoritarian democracies that got the job of nation building done.

At the time, he believed the country should not suffer from periodic six-year presidential elections that made havoc of any vision or program for the country. Presidential elections were money-making feasts based on money and popularity. Even with the best of intentions, a six-year socio-economic peace program under a presidential system would be doomed. The system, with a largely ignorant electorate, does not lend itself to stability or continuity as we have seen it happen time and again. It might have been different if we had an outstanding charismatic leader rising from our own soil, courageous enough to confront the ghosts of our colonial past. There is a better chance in a parliamentary system for such individuals to rise up within their parties and get elected as a prime minister. Essentially it does not depend on individuals but on parties that are voted upon for their programs and policies.

* * *

I was surprised that for a newspaper that usually digs up the smallest details on the subjects of their political stories they forgot a very important detail on Randy David. Their headlined story did not say that he once served as the chairman of the board of trustees of the Magsaysay Awards Foundation. Did the reporter know of it? There is nothing wrong with being the chair of the Rockefeller funded awards group in Asia. But it is an important detail especially if he is being set up. It is to challenge President GMA who has been a target for regime change since she was elected in 2004.

David might be his name but he is not David in the biblical sense if he has a strong backer in the shadows. What is it they say? Things are never what they appear to be. With his background he may not be a Goliath but he has a Goliath to back him up.

Not surprisingly the elitist Liberal Party was quick to endorse his candidacy. They are in the same boat.

The Liberal party is supported and helped by a German foundation with a remit to help promote Western causes, one of them being a type of liberalism, that often wreaks havoc on Asian societies with distinct cultures and social mores.

* * *

Sometimes we can learn more from other people. HDS Greenway writing for Global Post in Boston wrote in his analysis of the Iran election crisis that America should be reminded “Iran is not the Philippines, circa 1986, and America should avoid overt calls for the overthrow of the Tehran government.” (What does he mean by that?)

President Barack Obama should not be tempted to treat events in Iran today as simply another example of “people power,” against Ferdinand Marcos during President Ronald Reagan’s administration he adds. 

Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war wrote “he had helped persuade Reagan to withdraw support from Marcos”…As Greenway suggests there is no one in the Iranian political scene that can be considered “our man,” as Marcos was. It is interesting to speculate who will be their man in the Philippines come 2010 with so many to choose from.