No turning back

What seems certain is that after the Mamasapano massacre there is no turning back for the Philippines.

There are still those who think that it is possible that we can conduct our politics and governance as “business as usual.” This column believes that it can’t.

Too much has happened that makes turning back not only impossible but undesirable. Indeed it can be said that Mamasapano is a watershed that we should take advantage of and use all our combined efforts for a final push to new politics and governance for our country. This is not to excuse President Aquino for his ineptness but to accept that we had a system that lent itself to make a thoroughly incompetent person as our leader. We deserve better than him.

We have crossed the Rubicon, whether it is of our own making or we have been forced to make a final attempt to change our society that has made so many of our countrymen poor and marginalized. Our task is to deal with causes for this unfortunate society. On top of the list is our system of government and political structure. At the same time to accomplish these we must include everyone in the process of renewal hence the idea of crowdsourcing a new constitution to give us a direction for our nation. We do not need to fear the instability that change might bring. On the contrary only change can bring stability to our country in the long term.

*      *      *

I like Adnan Syed’s answer to the question of what constitutes a stable society. Although he was writing on his country Pakistan, it finds itself in a similar situation as the Philippines as it teeters on turmoil.

He writes, “The ingredients of a stable society are not that complicated. Over the past century Europe, North America, East Asia, and Australia have managed to stabilize their societies by taking care of rather simple processes.

“Europe built its war-shattered economy in a period of less than a decade, showing that good things beget good things, on a rather quick basis. The negative vicious circle can be replaced with a positive feedback loop. But the key is to avoid falling off the cliff. The key is to work with the present infrastructure and strengthen it to an extent that it becomes self-sustaining.

“In that respect Pakistan is not starting from ground zero. It has a reasonably educated middle class that is finding it hard to channel its resources towards a prosperous society since it has to fend for its very survival on a daily basis. Pakistan has a semblance of democracy and the rule of law. Pakistan has the freedom of speech. The building blocks of a successful society are still there, though in a rapid state of neglect and decay.

“A stable society starts with every member of the society having the basic four rights for each and every individual member of the society: 1) Protection of life, 2) Protection of property and honour, 3) Freedom of speech as long as it does not endanger the first two protections, and 4) Access to healthcare and education.

“These four basic rights form the cornerstone of any civilized society. Once they are well defined, the priorities that enable these rights become well defined as well. The first two protections cannot be made possible unless the government starts developing the institutions that ensure these protections. These institutions are primarily the police, and the judicial system.

“Pakistan needs to start investing in its police services, with a goal of having a ratio of police personnel to the population not falling below a certain level. The present antiquated police system present in the cities and towns is grossly inadequate to form any basis of reasonable deterrence. One of the most comprehensive documents on the state of the Rule of Law was prepared by the USAID in 2008 that outlined the woeful state of the police in Pakistan. It points out that the inadequate attention towards the courts means that Pakistani courts are constantly underfunded, seldom attract better talent and remain mired in opaque bureaucracy.

“Rule of Law is a nice term for everyone to say. But it does not happen by itself. It requires resources and dedication by the society. And a society cannot move forward until it clearly understands that the four basic pillars are the first and foremost responsibility of any society towards itself, anywhere in the world.”

*      *      *

I have included in this column Bayanko’s statement on Aquino speech and rejoinder that was published in social media for my readers.

Bayanko on President Aquino III latest speech:

“The speech of President Aquino to the nation today about the Mamasapano operation where 44 brave SAF policemen lost their lives raises more questions than it answers. ?Firstly, the President takes full responsibility, admits bad planning, but blames the SAF commander whom he said had full knowledge of the entire plan.? Secondly, he professes his undying love for PNP chief Alan Purisima whom he said had contributed to the long preparations and the many operations in pursuit of the terrorists Marwan and Usman.?

By taking full responsibility, ipso facto he admits having been the one who authorized the operation and was responsible for its outcome. He also admits Alan Purisima was in charge of preparing the plan. But there he offers a caveat. While Purisima prepared the plan, it was the SAF commander who executed it badly. ?Now here is the rub. The bad planning excluded a backup plan and the president said there was no time for another one, therefore no possibility of rescuing the 44 SAF who came under heavy attack.

But who was in charge of preparing the plan? It was Purisima, as the president himself said. If it failed to include a backup plan, it can only be Purisima’s fault. If the plan was faulty, you cannot expect the SAF commander to execute well a faulty plan.

Rejoinder to Bayanko’s above statement:

“President Aquino has finally assumed full responsibility for the massacre of the 44 SAF policemen. He will have to live with its consequences.

The massacre could have been avoided with proper planning and a backup plan to rescue them in the event things went wrong. But as President Aquino admitted, it was badly planned and no backup plan.

PNP chief Alan Purisima stated he was not in command. Of course he was not. The president was.

Now that the president has assumed full responsibility, the finger pointing should stop. The buck stops with the president, period. What remains is to seek justice for those massacred.