Fundamentalism of Black and White

On the day of the Maguindanao massacre, I was invited to speak on “Program towards a Centrist Reform Agenda, 2010 and Beyond.” In the audience were local politicians, NGO representatives and community organizers. The meeting was sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. It has a new resident representative, Dr. Peter Koeppinger who was formerly posted in Laos and Cambodia. But my invitation came from Francis Manglapus, the new Lakas-Kampi-CMD secretary general. I am not too keen about foreign foundations although they perform a useful function in promoting debate on vital issues.

The Lakas-Kampi-CMD, whatever its internal conflicts has had a networking relationship with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for a long time. The latter sees itself as a promoter of centrist democracy, sometimes referred to as social democracy and also as Christian democracy. But its remit has had to be expanded to help bring about a dialogue between religions as well. Calling itself a Christian democracy would have shut out Muslim democrats who have an indispensable role to play in bringing about good governance and peace in the world.

I remember this shift in thinking and changing its name was discussed and voted upon during a conference held in Mexico. The wider, more encompassing term of Centrist Democrats was adopted worldwide. That particularly applies to its work in the Philippines where its networking partner, Lakas, now Lakas-Kampi broke ground by working on a Christian-Muslim partnership in a single party.

Dr. Koeppinger emphasized the foundation was not here to import political ideas. The work of the foundation springs from Germany’s own experience of struggle on how to rebuild democratic institutions after World War II. But Filipinos will have to find their own way in their particular circumstances.

*      *      *

The subject of my talk was on “Constitutional Change for Electoral and Political Reform,” and as I warned Francis, I may not be the right person to talk about that because I am against a presidential election in 2010 before constitutional reforms are in place.

It was fortuitous that just a day before I was in Ramon Orosa’s talk show Heartbeat on Global Destiny to discuss Tony Abaya’s column on possible post election scenarios. It was grim.

There were two main areas where difficulties might arise – the machines themselves and the ballot that would include possibly about 300 names. The front page was for national officials and the back for local officials. We can discuss the issue to death but we are too far gone in the election mode. All three of us agreed we are at the mercy of Murphy’s law which holds that anything which can happen will happen.

The problems may be technical but it is connected with our political inability to push for substantial reforms that would have restructured the body politic. A more efficient and honest electoral system, whether automated or not, would have been easier achieved if we shifted to parliamentary federal government.

The given is we have a largely ignorant electorate and if we wanted to be democratic then that factor has to be taken into account. India has always been cited as a good example. It is probably one of the largest democracies with illiterate millions but it is able to conduct honest, free elections with the results known in a few days at the most. By the way, India has a parliamentary federal government. Voters are helped by a structure that allows them to vote for parties. These parties are represented by symbols of parties, not names of individual candidates. No wonder the results come out quickly.

*      *      *

A slew of machinations successfully put aside constitutional reform for the sake of the 2010 presidential elections. The mantra was presidential elections first before constitutional reform. That was tragic. Honesty is best achieved when the conditions are favorable to it but what we have now is a system that encourages dishonesty. Yet we are being pushed to correct the dishonesty endemic in the system that the oligarchs do not want change.

*      *      *

One of the NGOs that has been in the forefront of the opposition against the Arroyo administration in particular and constitutional reform in general is a group calling itself the Black and White Movement. By its name alone, we should have heard the alarm bells ringing. To me, such a way of thinking is the breeding ground of fundamentalism of the Christian kind. It is too complex a subject to discuss in one column but if we are to move to a centrist philosophy of government such fundamentalist teaching that everything is black and white should be removed from our political lexicon. That is also one of the reasons why there is resistance against the Noynoy-Roxas ticket. They are the candidates of the Black and White Movement and I shudder to think about its implications. Another post election scenario we should be warned about?

*      *      *

If black and white is the philosophical underpinning of the opposition then it goes directly against a centrist agenda. It is important to keep this in mind. Could it be that we have neo-con strategists in our midst directing this agenda?

There was a strategy in place as far back as 2004 to paint the Arroyo administration so black that any support for constitutional reform that might enable her to continue to govern was doomed. That does not mean that her government is faultless. It only means that there was also an attempt to overthrow her and when this did not succeed, the campaign to blacken her and her government went in earnest against her…and constitutional reform.

Critics claimed she would use it to extend her power. So it is the fear of term extension that should have been addressed. As far as I know term extension was never even mentioned in any of the house resolutions whether for constituent assembly or constitutional convention. Still there was confusion and the result was a misunderstanding of constitutional reform. It is unfortunate that no less than the American ambassador appeared on television to push for honest elections at the height of the debate. Who could argue against that? The real issue was what should come first – constitutional reform or politics as usual?

In the end, the drive for honest elections came down to make constitutional reform its enemy.

*      *      *

Some political watchers are asking whether it is still possible to forestall the dangers we face in the 2010 elections. Yes there is and my answer is still the same – constitutional reforms first before elections.