I HAVE just read, with extreme fascination, a discussion paper published by Norberto B. Gonzales, secretary of national defense and national security adviser under former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It has a title that immediately grabs you: Revolution Now?
After going through the piece, the question that immediately comes to mind is: Revolution? How? And who?
The paper proceeds on a very idealistic premise. It proposes a peaceful, bloodless revolution even as it warns against the intrusion of sinister forces that, according to the writer, are already preparing for a power grab, given the current state of discontent in our country.
It also acknowledges that two previous “revolutions” had been mounted – the one in February 1986 that ejected the Marcos dictatorship and the one in 2001 that caused the “forced resignation” of President Joseph Estrada. The first only saw “the restoration of old oligarchic rule” and the second “failed to change the unjust systems.”
There was in fact a third “revolution” of sorts. Not the failed EDSA Tres that Estrada’s supporters tried to mount but the one that catapulted Benigno S. Aquino III to the presidency. Like the first two mass movements, the last one was launched with high hopes for meaningful change in Philippine society. And, like the two, the results have been distressing – which, apparently, is why “Revolution Now” is being proposed.
Now limping towards the end of his six-year tenure, Aquino and his administration are clearly the object of this new clarion call for change. Aquino’s promise of “Kung walang kurap, walang mahirap” (Where no one is corrupt, no one will be poor) has become nothing more than a bad advertising slogan. His Tuwid na Daan (Straight Path) style of governance has been like a provincial dirt road, bumpy, with potholes aplenty and anything but straight.
I actually do not doubt that Noynoy Aquino and many (or at least some) of those who drafted him to run for the highest office in the land had the most noble of intentions. In fact, it must be acknowledged that those noble intentions have seen some meaningful improvements in our country.
But like a badly tailored suit with one arm longer than the other and the buttons not properly sewed on, the Aquino government has only been consistent in its inconsistency, whether it is in the dispensation of “justice” or in the apportionment of largesse drawn from the national treasury or in acknowledging faults and taking responsibility for mistakes and not passing on the blame to everyone but itself.
Indeed, Aquino’s presidency has aptly confirmed the adage that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
One reason, of course, is the fact that – like all past Philippine presidents – Aquino was quickly surrounded and continues to be surrounded by individuals and power blocs with special interests to protect and larcenous agendas to promote, as well as incompetents and deadwood. And, in fairness to him and his predecessors, the total system – political, social, economic, cultural – is designed to frustrate the best laid plans of mice and presidents.
This brings me back to the idealistic paper prepared by Norberto Gonzales, who we may recall, was one of the pillars of the much-maligned Arroyo government that Noynoy Aquino ostensibly replaced.
With due respect to Gonzales and to the National Transformation Council, to which he plans to present (or has presented) his treatise, the following questions needs to be asked by simple-minded individuals like myself:
1. Who will lead the “revolution”? Who will spearhead the establishment of a “revolutionary transition government,” dissolve Congress and the Comelec, write a new Constitution, reconstitute the Supreme Court and “overhaul the entire justice system”? It would help if the proponents were to present a list of these sterling individuals who, like Caesar’s wife, are beyond reproach, the better for the citizenry to vet them.
Will they be able to withstand the vicious scrutiny that has characterized legislative inquiries and media commentaries? Do they have any past associations that raise red flags? Do they have proverbial skeletons in their closets or, at the very least, have they been cleansed of past transgressions like Saul after his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus?
2. Who will constitute the “unicameral consultative assembly” that will serve as the “legislative advisory body of the revolutionary government”? Will they not be the same powerful families, warlords and political dynasties who currently rule over the fiefdoms that constitute what passes for the Republic of the Philippines? And will they not “aspire to win at all cost” to remain in power, thus perpetuating “the root of evil in our electoral system”?
3. Will this revolution be able to uproot the “old oligarchy” peacefully, without any bloody resistance? Will the wealthy families and business conglomerates that control virtually every aspect of life in the country be willing to let go of their privileged status without any struggle?
4. Will the overhaul apply mainly to the system of government or will it include a total cleansing of society and the interest groups that make it up, including the clergy?
5. Granting that peerless, perspicacious, selfless and noble leaders can be thoroughly vetted to constitute the revolutionary council that will overhaul the system, how will they deal with those who are less noble, like rotten apples threatening the rest? Will they apply the Duterte solution? And wouldn’t that be bloody?
I’m sure I’m not the only one eager to know the answers to these questions. I’m sure, too, that if these questions can be satisfactorily addressed, many of us will willingly, enthusiastically march to the beat of revolutionary drums. ([email protected])
