The Philippines' Prolonged Political Crisis

The Philippines’ Prolonged Political Crisis

By Ronald Meinardus

If there is one ray of light in the protracted political turmoil besetting the Philippines it is that, thus far, the situation has remained peaceful. Just how tense things have become is reflected in a recent statement of a close advisor to beleaguered President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who told foreign correspondents that we are “one notch short of getting violent.” With both sides mobilizing their supporters for huge demonstrations, even a minor incident could turn into a full blown vicious outburst. Such a violent escalation could, in turn, become the pretext for the military to step in and restore “law and order.” This, I hasten to add, is a worst case scenario. The fact that it is hardly debated publicly may indicate that it is not considered a likely development.

One and a half months after audio tapes surfaced allegedly showing Mrs. Arroyo cheated her way into office, the political crisis in the Philippines has entered a new stage. While in the early weeks of the turmoil the political momentum for the president to resign grew, Mrs. Arroyo’s position was stabilized when the Roman Catholic hierarchy publicly stated it would not join the clamor and the military also refrained from getting involved. Considering the very negative mood earlier, the neutrality of two key players blew new life into the besieged presidency.

Still, the political crisis is far from settled. There is a general feeling that the country has entered a period of a drawn out political stalemate. While the supporters of the president maintain Mrs. Arroyo will never resign, her opponents claim she has lost the moral and the political authority to govern.

Once more, Philippine politics is extremely polarized. How one perceives the president has become the single most important issue, transcending established ideological and partisan allegiances. “Churches, officials in government, men in uniform, the business community, teachers, students, and even families are divided,” said a former member of the Arroyo cabinet who resigned recently.

With more or less all major political forces having opted for one or the other camp, voices of compromise are scarce – and hardly heard. This, too, makes an amicable solution difficult and improbable.

Today, many public debates focus on the question why the present situation is different from 1986 and 2001, two defining dates in Philippine history, when massive demonstrations led to the downfall of presidents considered unfit to run the nation by major sectors of society. In both people power uprisings (as they have come to be known) the Roman Catholic hierarchy and eventually also the armed forces joined the movement thereby tipping the balance in favor of the demonstrators.

Arguably, the most important difference today is that the public has shown little if any inclination to go to the streets in large numbers. For many left leaning Filipino intellectuals who tend to idealize the popular protests of the past, this people power fatigue is a painful disappointment. The people’s passivity challenges the widespread perception that in the end of the day the masses will take their destiny into their own hands. Filipinos seem to have learned their lesson. Few would argue today that the two previous revolts led to an improvement of the quality of their lives. Many would even say, and empirical data justifies their claim, that their situation has worsened. A recent opinion poll conducted by a reputable survey institute revealed how fed-up the people are with being sent to the streets by political agitators. When the Social Weather Stations (SWS) published its findings, the local media focused on the falling trust ratings of the president. Equally newsworthy I found the result that only two individuals out of more than 500 respondents opted for “people power.”

There are indications that the political conflict will return to the halls of Congress, from where ideally it should never have left in the first place. Following initial hesitation, the opposition seems willing to impeach the president. This is a reasonable option, as it is constitutional, and importantly, gives the accused president a chance to defend herself. It may be expected that the president will repeat her claim that she did nothing illegal or even criminal. Her supporters will argue that while speaking to an official of the Commission of Elections (Comelec) may be morally objectionable, it is a common practice in this land. “There has been no candidate who hasn’t called the Comelec to ensure that his votes didn’t disappear during the counting or in transport, given the amount of cheating that goes on during every election,” wrote a commentator who is known for her support of the president.

While friends and foes of Mrs. Arroyo will probably always disagree who should lead this country, they agree that the current political system is in dire need of radical reform. The president herself came out with the revealing and also incriminating remark that “our political system has degenerated to such an extent that it is very difficult to move within the system with hands totally untainted.”

In the midst of the crisis, various political sectors have come out with proposals aimed at remedying the situation. A consensus is evolving that the Philippines is in need of a new constitution. Among the formulas proposed is to transform the present presidential system to a parliamentary and federal form of government. One influential proponent even suggests that the new constitution should be ready as soon as next February so that the people may decide on it in a plebiscite. Considering the seriousness of the endeavor, any such haste seems inappropriate. At the same time this hurriedness is unrealistic. One condition for constitutional change is a basic consensus among the major political forces. The assumption that this consensus may be achieved any time soon is wishful thinking. As long as major political players question the legitimacy of the president, the political stalemate in the Philippines will continue.

Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and a commentator on Asian affairs. Send comments to liberal@philippines.fnst.org