Gibo ready for a sprint

With the statement from MILF chairman Mohagher Iqbal that the group will no longer seek independence, we could expect a better environment for negotiations between the rebel MILF and the Philippine Government.

The statement was made in a proposal for a comprehensive peace pact.

With that hurdle removed, negotiations will be brighter. More interesting is that it contains a summary of the “doables” from the 38-page MILF draft proposal for a Comprehensive Peace Compact (CPC).

By “doables” they mean provisions that the Executive can implement without need for Congress’ imprimatur.

This may be a good time to review a proposal from the We Citizen Advocates for Reforms Movement (We Care), Inc. (Kilusan ng Mamamayang Nagma-malasakit sa Bayan for what it calls a Semi-Federal.

I recently met with the author Atty. Dindo B. Donato who said that with a more positive atmosphere we must try harder to get an agreement done. However, lawyer Donato admitted that while the MOA-AD was constitutional it was unwise and he gives the reasons.

The paper has three parts. The first part analyzes the rational, purpose, implications and constitutionality of the scrapped GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). The second identifies the fundamental flaws of the agreement and recommends how these can be corrected if the peace process were revived. And the last on what he calls “proposals for bold alternative consensus points.” At the same time these proposals must be guided by the standard of the common good of all the people concerned, he added.

A semi-federal system would combine centralized law-making and decentralized law implementation.

*    *    *

I joined friends at The MOPC dinner forum with former Defense Secretary Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro. (Courtesy of MOPC president, colleague Babes Romualdez)

We were told to be there at seven and Gibo Teodoro was there five minutes to seven making organizers worried what with still some empty tables. But then, I told those in my table not to worry, this is Filipino time. Guests did come trickling in and by the time Gibo began to speak all tables were taken and guests properly seated. I was glad to hear the most qualified candidate for president in the 2010 May election.

He spoke extemporaneously and lived up to his reputation for his Galing at Talino. It was interesting even in a highbrow audience of government officials, media, members of the diplomatic corps — some were complaining that he may be speaking above their heads.

He did say immediately that he would not be talking about details on what he would do but more on principles of government that he believed in. Too philosophical, I heard someone say. But is not that what we want our leaders to be? That they set out a government agenda with certain goals in mind guided not only by general principles but also by particular actions that can make it happen.

Gibo was articulate and without notes answered questions from environment, nuclear power, to foreign relations deftly. He set the tone of his speech with the remark that the country needed continuity and stability. “This” he said after much study were the most important issues if we aim to advance the economy.”

But he quickly added that this does not mean we have to change our form of government. We can do it through “synergy”. The way I understood him it is possible under the present presidential system to continue the projects of an outgoing government. The incoming government can be persuaded to continue its projects and before long, the synergy between governments will stabilize the country. He meant that politicians can be made to work together and took up good issues and projects from the Aquino, Ramos, Erap and Arroyo governments that he would continue if elected. Synergy comes from the Greek word syn-ergos meaning working together. All evening I was trying to reconcile the principle of synergy and how it can work in the divisive atmosphere of our presidential system. In the end, I thought it would be useless to ask. After all, he was a candidate and he must please as wide an audience as possible including those who refuse to accept the intractability of the present presidential system.

In our table more than one asked how is he going to convey this idea to the masses? A lady guest also asked the question. His answer in so many words is that he would continue with his present strategy. The latest surveys shows him moving up if little by little with the approval coming mostly from the youth and students. If students consist the bigger bulk of the electorate then Gibo is ready for a sprint in May 2010.

*    *    *

If you think that it is only in the Philippines that government is at odds with populist demands, you are wrong. Obama may have won decisively in the last elections but he is hemmed in by populism.

In his article “The Populism Problem” for the New Yorker, James Surowiecki writes:

 “The electorate, we hear, wants Barack Obama to be more of an economic populist but less of an ambitious reformer. He has to aggressively create jobs but also be less spendthrift. This advice may be contradictory, but then so are the economic opinions of the many angry voters who are animating what’s being called the new populism.

Whereas the economic populism of the eighteen-nineties and the right-wing cultural populism of recent years represented reasonably coherent ideologies, this new populism has stitched together incompatible concerns and goals into one “I’m mad as hell” quilt. The people may have spoken. It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense.

In short, they don’t know why they’re against reform; they just are.

It’s a bit like Marlon Brando in “The Wild One.” Asked what he’s rebelling against, he says, “Whaddya got?”

Some of Obama’s difficulties echo problems in our own government:

“One thing voters do want is jobs. But even here populist sentiment is at odds with itself. People want the government to help provide jobs, but they also want it to cut the deficit. Of course, one can worry about rising long-term debt and still think that, right now, more deficit spending is crucial to the nascent recovery. But angry voters aren’t that nuanced in their thinking: they want the government to tighten its belt and fight unemployment at the same time.

The anger is understandable, and voters are under no obligation to be consistent.”