Not just politics

I keep reminding those who keep asking my personal take on the 2016 elections that it is  too early to conclude what the political alignments will be in the forthcoming elections. For those who are interested, the best any observer can analyze is the current positioning of different groups and potential candidates in preparation for any political opportunity.

The political landscape will not be final until sometime around October of next year. One year is infinity – more than a lifetime – in politics. This means anything can still happen.

The word Byzantine originates from an empire whose capital was Constantinople which today is known as Istanbul. Today the same word has become an idiom to describe politics. Byzantine now means “highly complicated, intricate and involved.” It also means “relating to intrigue: scheming and devious.” The media prefers to focus on the manifestations of political maneuverers  because they resemble telenovelas and attract higher viewership, listenership or readership. However, there are now political plots within plots that are attempts by all groups to reshape the political environment for their advantage. These subtle plots are harder to discern and the outcomes are very unpredictable even to those involved  because, of the Byzantine nature of Philippine politics.

However, it is important to note that politics, in every country in the world, are also complicated and subject to intrigues. The power game within the Politburo of China is even deadlier because the losers end up in jail accused of corruption or treason. In Malaysia, the main opposition leader is in jail accused of sodomy. In the United States, the struggle between the Tea Party and the business establishment for control of the Republican Party is now the subject of many books. I could cite more examples in Russia, Brazil, Mexico and, of course, Thailand where the military is prone to using coup d’etat as a political tool.

But since our interest is Philippine politics, let me cite one case study of politics here that I find especially intriguing and unfortunate at the same time. One of the offshoot of the Typhoon Yolanda recovery period is the public exposure of Tacloban politics which is truly byzantine. It reminds me of politics in Syria – without the bloodshed.

In Syria, there are several opposing parties who are constantly fighting each other but also form temporary alliances at specific times. The Kurds are fighting ISIS and Turkey because they want an independent Kurdistan. Turkey is against the Assad regime and ISIS but consider the Kurds as terrorists because 15 million Kurds live in Turkey and want independence. The United States is fighting ISIS but need the support of the Kurds for ground troops. At the same time USA is an ally of Turkey.  The Free Syrian Army, supported by Turkey and the USA, is against the Assad regime and ISIS and wants an alliance with the Kurds who may be fighting ISIS but is not at war with the Assad regime. In Iraq, both Iran and the USA are fighting ISIS. But in Syria, Iran is supporting the Assad regime while the USA has asked for the Assad regime to step down from power. This is truly byzantine.

In Tacloban, there is open verbal conflict between the Romualdez forces and Ping Lacson, the rehabilitation czar appointed by P-Noy and presumably supported by DILG Secretary Mar Roxas. In a highly revealing interview Tacloban Mayor Romualdez accused Ping Lacson of not being interested in his job as rehabilitation czar and of failure to account for the P6 billion that was supposedly earmarked for Tacloban’s reconstruction. In a recent interview, the mayor also said that the first time he met Lacson was in Malacanang when he (Lacson) was a lieutenant in the Metrocom, then one of the dreaded instruments of martial law enforcement.

The mayor is a scion of the Romualdez clan which has dominated Leyte politics for three generations and whose godfather used to be the powerful Speaker Romualdez. The clan’s iconic worldwide symbol is Imelda Romualdez Marcos. The two clans – Marcos and Romualdez – are still dreaming of a political reincarnation with Bongbong Marcos as a future presidential candidate.

During the anniversary of Typhoon Yolanda, there were demonstrations against the administration in Tacloban.  Romualdez was asked if his political allies were involved in the demonstrations and why were the demonstrations only in Tacloban when the destruction affected so many provinces and cities in the Visayas. His answers provide some fodder for political insights.

The mayor stated that the demonstrations were led by an organization called People Surge. He then practically said that there was no possibility that his clan could join an alliance with People Surge which has been accused of being either a leftist organization or a front led by Communists. During the Marcos martial law, the Communist Party reached its peak strength and waged armed conflicts with the Marcos-Romualdez regime. However, the mayor gave the alleged Communist front permission to demonstrate. In politics, temporary alliances are common whenever there is a benefit to both parties and there is a common enemy.

When asked why the demonstrations were only in Tacloban, Romualdez had an insightful answer. He said because the organization leading the protests knew that media presence would be heavy in Tacloban that day. It would be interesting to speculate how many demonstrators would have participated if there was no media coverage.

People Surge is also an interesting political phenomenon in this country. At first glance, their list of demands seem quite reasonable. Some demands, like scrapping the “no build zone,” which refers to areas prone to calamities, may be debatable but seems non-ideological. However, buried in the midst of their demands is this statement:

“ Immediately pull out local and foreign military forces and suspend all counter-insurgency programs in typhoon-struck  urban and rural areas. The continuing presence of these military forces causes anxiety and economic sabotage and thus intensifies hunger and poverty in remote areas where farmers are constrained from tending their farms for fear of military harassments. Re-channel the budget allocation for defense to a pro-people relief and rehabilitation program.”

This demand means pulling out government forces from Leyte and most of Samar. Will this not mean that the New People’s Army (NPA) will be able to militarily control this whole region? Why not ask the NPA to cease all armed activities during the rehabilitation period? And if we re-channel the entire defense budget, does this mean People Surge wants the government to disband the entire Armed Forces? Which armed force will then be left to provide security for the Filipino people? Perhaps, the answers to these questions can enlighten us as to the political agenda of the group behind the demonstrations in Tacloban.

Tacloban is just a microcosm of Philippine politics. There are now alliances within the P-Noy administration and the UNA opposition group that may or may not stay together for the 2016 elections. The entire list of potential presidential candidates have not yet publicly surfaced. The Left has learned to become more “media-savy” and even how to manipulate events for wider media exposure. But the biggest political question is still whether the Yellow Forces and PNoy can rally behind a single candidate. That will be the biggest political game changer in 2016.

Many will say this is “just politics.” But it is politics that will determine who will govern this country. It is “not just politics” because it will determine the kind of future – brighter or bleaker – for our children.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]