Thoughts on stillborn revolutions
February 26, 2009 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
What, Apolinario Mabini asked, is a revolution?
By political revolution I understand a people’s movement aimed at producing a violent change in the organization. and operation of the three public powers: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. If the movement is slow, gradual or progressive, it is called evolution. I say people’s movement because I consider it essential that the proposed change answer a need felt by the citizens in general. Any agitation promoted by a particular class for the benefit of its special interests does not’ deserve the name (of political revolution or evolution).
But let me suggest that it is equally valid to define a revolution as simply the replacement of one government, with another, against the will and in defiance of the institutional processes, of the government that falls. This means that whether that forced change is peaceful or violent, the process is the same: a the government that falls and by so doing, has its institutions repudiated.
Mabini said that by instinct and temperament, most people prefer change through evolution rather than by revolution, but that if development is blocked by the government, then a revolutionary situation arises:
But evolution is not possible where the social organization is not adjusted to it, just as a plant grows and flourishes only in suitable soil. When the government takes measures for the stagnation of the people, whether for its own profit or that of a particular class, or for any other purpose, revolution is inevitable. A people that have not yet reached the fullness of life must grow and develop because otherwise their existence would be paralyzed, and paralyzation is equivalent to death. Since it is unnatural for a being to submit to its own destruction, the people must exert all their efforts to destroy the government which prevents their development. If the government is composed of the very sons of the people, it must necessarily fall.
There continues to be a debate concerning public approbation of martial law. It is said Marcos himself was surprised by the docility of the public and the manner in which he successfully rounded up the opposition, padlocked the legislature, and cowed the courts. Metro Manila -his own political creation, a throwback to the Greater Manila established as a temporary wartime measure- erupted in protest by 1978, the famous noise barrage on the eve of the elections for the Interim Batasang Pambansa; yet 1981 would mark his apotheosis as dictator and his proclamation of a New Republic, officially burying the old Third Republic; by 1984, however, close to a third of the Batasang Pambansa was oppositionist, with bailiwicks in Batangas, Cebu, and places like Cagayan de Oro City. He was unpopular in large swathes of the sugar-producing regions, and the coconut-producing ones, where his efforts to establish monopolies under Benedicto for sugar and Cojuangco for coconut had spectacularly ruined those once-lucrative industries.
Still, opposition, perhaps, percolated upwards and not downwards until Marcos’ economic mismanagement eventually led to a pincer movement, with the majority and the elite both edging towards the same conclusion: the dictator had to go.
Marcos’ mistake was to galvanize opposition among those with a means to oppose him, by eventually seizing and engaging in extortion, the property of those who left well enough alone and had never engaged in politicking in the manner of his wealthy opponents.
To be sure, he’d already alienated the majority of people much earlier than that, as demonstrated by the noise barrage in 1978; but in 1983 he finally lost the middle class and in 1984, when he famously threatened the Makati Business Club, he finally lost the upper class as well. He lost major urban centers, too: Baguio, Cebu, Davao became even more firmly esconced as anti-Marcos bailiwicks of the opposition.
Over the past few years, I heard veterans of the Marcos era express the firm conviction that sooner or later (and sooner rather than later) it would duplicate Marcos’s mistake and start muscling in on the corporations of its enemies, then muscle in on the corporations of its critics, and finally, start gobbling up the corporations of the uninvolved; at which point, the tide would turn against the government. This is, incidentally, a mistake Estrada made, surrounding by many of the same crowd that had porsued similar tactics during the Marcos era.
This is significant because of how tightly intertwined our society is; the upper class relies on the middle class for its mananers and they manage the masses who are employed; and all are tied, up and down, by ties of church, club, and school, the whole compadrazgo culture strengthened by the rituals of births, graduations, weddings, and funerals. Declaring war on a so-called oligarch is a declaration of war on a cascade of families belonging to the middle class and the masses. Which is why the goings-on among the higher political and business echelons of this country are avidly followed by everyone else -each one having a stake, major or minor, in the outcome.
This administration hasn’t engaged in Marcosian engulf and devour tactics with one exception, the Lopezes; with all others, it has bared its fangs in public while showing every inclination to reach a mutually-profitable accommodation in private. But what sets it apart from the dictatorship is that instead of engulfing and then devouring, it seems to have hit off on a novel scheme: to leave everyone pretty much alone, and instead, carve out new financial territories for itself and its friends. In this case it left only one traditionally entrenched opponent, the Lopezes, while leaving everyone else, hostile or not, alone. Transco, for example; and even its assault on Meralco has been better camouflaged by restricting most of the action to the boardroom, the use of government shares as a battering ram and when that was thwarted, the sale of those shares to San Miguel Corporation which then floated, for public consumption, the rather tantalizing possibility that San Miguel can lower electricity costs by engaging in data transmission through electrical lines: establishing a new monopoly on virgin commercial territory and incidentally, driving a wedge in the otherwise united front presented by the existing telecoms companies.
History is never repeated; circumstances neither emerge nor combine in the same way at different times; for this reason, one argument perpetually put forward as some sort of mitigating factor in judging the present administration’s political maneuvers has always left me skeptical: the President is no Marcos, the times aren’t at all like Marcos’s time, you do not see, for example, the outward manifestations of the New Society and its methods for thought and crowd control.
But of course. Every generation learns from the one that came before. And even the same players learn from the past.
According to some accounts, the Palace is hedging its bets and going slow on Charter Change, because of the public perception that it is in bad odor in Washington; one interpretation goes as far as suggesting the Palace is spooked by the possibility of Washington tacitly blessing a coup should any effort to prolong the President’s stay in office proceed. Others suggest that the Palace all along prefers to be in “legacy mode,” all the better to improve its chances in 2010, while maneuvering for a succession it can control.
The same accounts suggest that a modus vivendi between the President and Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. was ratified in Qatar, and that the President’s visit to San Miguel Corporation’s headquarters was the public manifestation of this agreement. At the very least, it kills two birds with one stone (knocking the Lopezes off their perch in Meralco, and placing the capstone in the carefully-built electric, power, and energy fiefdoms the administration’s made possible), while keeping all others, including Charter Change, at the very least on the back burner and in play.
Some links to past readings by way of a backgrounder on the Marcos years and the anniversary of the Edsa Revolution: Marcos in retrospect, part 1 and part 2; the enduring strength of the idea that one can create a New Society; and some observations on the Philippine political culture.
To come full circle, though, as the Inquirer editorial Veto power suggests, the ultimate lesson might be, that if a revolution, and its acceptable manifestation in our country, People Power, is to succeed, it requires, at the very least, the repudiation both of the government People Power topples, and of its institutions including its constitutional rationale.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
Madonna on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 9:08 am
Revolution or evolution? As per Mabini’s explanation of evolution — the Philippines is not evolving, it’s regressing. With how things are going, it is not hard to come up of a scenario of a Philippines in the future where only two classes of people remain in the country: the rapacious elite in the minority and the teeming and impoverished masses in the majority. Who wants to belong in either group?
The masses are powerless true in terms of social mobility, with only OFW-ism as a remaining choice, which in itself has been a failure as a poverty-buster. But does the decent segment of a the uppermost classes in fact want to be lumped as also a preying, thieving gang as most of the oligarchs are known for? Structural change should something to them and they have a stake in its results.
The way I see it, most Pinoys with a modicum sense of decency are virtually being driven off this land by a gang of thieves and degenerates.
UP n grad on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 9:16 am
Does the reference to Mabini then imply that the only valid revolution of recent years was that by Polpot where he nulled out the executive, judiciary, legislative as well as the classes A-B-C of the population? the same metrics suggests that Marcos did it too, then, when he castrated the Supreme court, the legislative and the rules-of-succession for the executive.
Another more recent, of course, is when USA invaded Iraq. Maybe that is an action worthy of consideration — to ask Uncle Sam to execute a revolution in Pinas. But surely, Filipinos by now can manage its own destiny, wouldn’t we think?
ramrod on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 9:21 am
“People Power, is to succeed, it requires, at the very least, the repudiation both of the government People Power topples, and of its institutions including its constitutional rationale.” – mlq3
Manolo has spoeken.
I don’t know with everyone else but I don’t see this happening at all. The semblance of “repudiation” we see around us is more like sound bytes, exposes (which crash and burn due to lack of solid evidence) and statements from otherwise mobility-impaired leader types. This would mean that as long as Gloria keeps her Oligarch friends close and the Lopez’s in a short leash…she definitely holds the upper hand.
On the other hand, what if all this is really just that, sound bytes and personal political ambitions from the divided opposition? What if by deciding not to decide, deciding not to act – the people have shown their mandate…allow Gloria to lead us through the recession and beyond?
Just a thought…
ramrod on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 9:32 am
“But evolution is not possible where the social organization is not adjusted to it, just as a plant grows and flourishes only in suitable soil.” – mlq3
I will beg to disagree with this. If we consider Darwin’s theory of natural selection – the organism will evolve to adjust to its environment, the weak of course will perish but the strong will survive and flourish.
If we have an adverse environment (political, social, economic, etc), the Filipino will bear the brunt of its force, survive, and evolve into a stronger, more determined and deliberate organism with a purpose of becoming more empowered to make or find other constructive options better than destroying institutions or more graphically described as “burning the house down.”
ramrod on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 10:07 am
Suitable soil may not mean providing the right physical environment only but may also refer to the mind. If the seeds of evolution fall on suitable fertile minds (not necessarily us) of perhaps the youth and the generations to come, we may yet find changes in the future.
of course theres always the possibility that we may not live to see these changes but even Moses didn’t live to see the promised land…
J_AG on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 10:30 am
Great piece by MLQ3. As long as the economic supply chains are kept running. The mechanism of the markets are kept going there will be no revolution. Civic groups keep the country evolving. It also helps that we do have a de-facto church state link up. It sucks but it is the reality on the street.
The almost revolution of Edsa I and Edsa II happened simply because credit simply dried up in both the formal sector and informal sectors of the economy.
It happened almost overnite for most people. The problem started to brew as early as 1981 and burst into the public space only in 1983.
The same with Erap… The migration of the failure of the worlds bond markets went into a deep tailspin right after the Asian crisis which was followed up by the Russians defaulting on their debt then Argentina’s problems started to stew.
It did not help that Erap was seen to be almost completely asleep at the wheel.
That more than anything else convinced the Americans that he had to go. Erap had political will for all the wrong reasons. He felt he could bypass institutional frames just like when he was a mayor.
mlq3 on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 12:23 pm
UPn, I’d go back and read Mabini in full if I were you, before jumping to conclusions. In my personal opinion he remains the best guide to the pitfalls of government and the challenges of keeping a nation-state on a firm ethical footing. By his own definition the New Society was not a revolution, since it was plotted, and accomplished, by one man.
The EQualizer on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 2:02 pm
“We have long accepted the need to level the playing field in business and economics.”
Yeah,right!
The real Pacman now owns:SMC,Petron,Meralco
Carl on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 4:04 pm
I agree that it was a combination of the behest loans going sour, the collapse of the coconut and sugar markets, the debt moratorium, which resulted in very severe remedies prescribed by the IMF (which the government and the Central Bank had to meekly accede to because they were held by the scrotum) that conspired in bringing about the discontent and unrest that eventually did Marcos in.
And, even if it first broke out during the last year of Ramos’ term, it was the Asian financial crisis that also eventually brought down Erap, because the full effects of that crisis were felt well into Erap’s first years in office. I also agree that Erap’s reckless and incompetent bumbling didn’t help.
Without those harsh economic conditions to fan the flames, I would be bold enough to say that EDSA I and EDSA II wouldn’t have happened.
So, since by most accounts, the Philippines has managed to dodge the worst of the present economic crisis, would this portend favorably on those presently in power?
Phil Manila on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 4:34 pm
‘It’s all about markets.’ Ummmm.
Not to forget that the Boston Tea Party was a major catalyst of the American colonies revolution against Great Britain.
ramrod on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 5:43 pm
If we believe that Filipino is just a product of the environment and circumstances ie markets, money and food deprivation as well as its satisfaction (carrot and stick), we are saying that we are less than human but beings no different from Pavlov’s canine subjects or Skinner’s products of radical determinism and that we have no actual control of our lives and no hope of ever charting our own destiny. If all this is true, then by all means we must throw away all our copies of Og Mandino’s books because they don’t apply to us.
There is another school of thought though, based on the experiences of Viktor Frankl, someone who survived the Nazi concentration camp – a place where the environment is designed to break down every vestige of humanity and by all intents and purposes should turn men into automatons or regress them into animals…but something else happened…
“ If a prisoner felt that he could no longer endure the realities of camp life, he found a way out in his mental life – an invaluable opportunity to dwell in the spiritual domain, the one that the SS were unable to destroy. Spiritual life strengthened the prisoner, helped him adapt, and thereby improved his chances of survival. â€
Man’s Search for Meaning, p. 123
BrianB on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 6:03 pm
The only relevant question: what do the people want and what are they willing to do?
Easily answered if you’re American, European, Chinese, Mexican, Chilean, South African, not so easy when you’re Filipino, Indian, Indonesian, etc.
ramrod on Thu, 26th Feb 2009 9:33 pm
Even deciding to do nothing, or not to decide, is still a decision…
supremo on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 12:43 am
Don’t expect a revolution in the Philippines any time soon. Filipinos will not revolt as long as some of them can get jobs overseas and remit some money home.
UP n grad on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 12:46 am
You know what will be revolutionary — that in 2012, Filipinos look back to 2010-elections and say “… Wow!!! That went well. The new Malacanang resident and the members of Congress are great at their jobs!”
UP n grad on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 1:04 am
It is not the drama surrounding the upheaval that defines “revolutionary”, the effect on the lives of the citizenry should be the measure of success. And in this regards, a large enough proportion of the population having seen Filipino “surge-the-gates” upheavals don’t look kindly at that instrument for bringing positive changes to the lives of Filipinos.
bpga on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 1:41 am
Agree, it is the election results in 2010 that will bring about the revolutionary changes- a la YES WE CAN. But first we should stop doing orchiectomies on new voters. The older ones? They are questionable if they will deliver the true calling of our nation. Most of the old ones have been there, done that and most probably will do it again. Matigas na ang mga ulo, kumbaga malonak na ang mga utak.
Carl on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 8:44 am
We are actually witnessing a revolution of sorts in the U.S. It’s being done in a very peaceful and democratic manner. Via debates and wranglings in congress and the media. No guns are being fired, but lots of verbal shots and upheavals.
In barely a month in office, Barack Obama has changed government radically. From the Republican-era government geared more toward rich, white, Christians who don’t want to share their wealth with the less fortunate, into a pluralistic, compassionate government.
This is no easy task, given that Reaganomics created a sense of entitlement for America’s rich folk through the “magic” wand of tax cuts for the wealthy and that Greenspan’s easy money policies created a false sense of wealth that turned out to be bubbles.
But Reaganomics fooled most Americans into having delusions that anyone could become a Bill Gates or a Donald Trump. That is why Republicans could create a clown like Joe the Plumber who, while hardly a top-income earner, would vigorously attack Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy. While that looked foolish to most observers around the world, it actually resonated with many of the redneck Republican constituencies. America is actually a very ideologically divided nation. That Blue and Red divide is very real.
But Obama has seized the bull by the horns and has immediately pressed his advantage to create tremendous changes in the way America governs. He has audaciously front-loaded his agenda and is really transforming U.S. government in ways that were unimaginable just a few months ago.
Obama is fortunate to have had a clear-cut victory in the last elections. He clearly has the mandate and is not wasting time capitalizing on it. This is true leadership.
It doesn’t mean that Obama is not running risks. Nobody can say for sure whether his programs will work. But he has evaluated the risks and thinks it’s worth taking bold steps to change the way things are done. In the end, the electorate will decide and he’s prepared to take that risk.
Our problem in the Philippines is not only the choice of candidates. Even if there may be an Obama out there (I’ve noticed how some Presidentiables have already copied some of Obama’s campaign lines. Binay was among the earliest.) It’s also the number of Presidential wannabes. If six or seven candidates run for the Presidency in 2010, the victor will not have a majority to claim as a mandate. He or she will be hampered by too much horsetrading and dealmaking.
Manolo has long advocated run-off elections. That is worth considering, if we want to have determined and decisive leadership. We must also have parties that present clear ideas and ideologies, so that programs are well-defined and not just done in an ad-hoc and arbitrary way.
UP n grad on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 10:32 am
Binay and the others may mouth Obama-ism’s, but will he follow-through? I have this impression that none of those elected into Malacanang actually followed through (in their first 3 years in office) the promises that got them elected. I can’t be right. Filipinos could not have been consistently fooled by the presidential candidates.
What was Dadong Macapagal’s top-three issues, and did he deliver? What were Erap’s top three issues, and did he deliver? What about Makoy?
ramrod on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 10:51 am
“It is not the drama surrounding the upheaval that defines “revolutionaryâ€, the effect on the lives of the citizenry should be the measure of success.” – UP n student
Bravo! I couldn’t agree with you more. Thats it, there must be an IMPACT in our lives, a change of heart, paradigms, empowerment, and behaviour – otherwise all those pain, suffering, kapit-bisig getting hosed, tear gased, clubbed, arrests, summed up as “learning experiences” would have been for nothing and we still “won’t get it!”
ramrod on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 10:52 am
UP n grad pala, sorry…
ramrod on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 11:09 am
“Our problem in the Philippines is not only the choice of candidates. Even if there may be an Obama out there (I’ve noticed how some Presidentiables have already copied some of Obama’s campaign lines. Binay was among the earliest.) It’s also the number of Presidential wannabes. If six or seven candidates run for the Presidency in 2010, the victor will not have a majority to claim as a mandate. He or she will be hampered by too much horsetrading and dealmaking.” – carl
I can’t for the life of me understand why everytime my friends and I get the time to discuss presidentiables, pros and cons, the cons outweigh the pros. Not one of the presidential hopefuls makes the grade, if its not corruption, its heavy handedness, or questionable motives, or associations, even “un winnability?” So after a long debate and 2 cases of beer later, someone would give up and jokingly mouths “coup” na lang and start a new order, cleanse the system…etc…and then we give up…and just enjoy the night…maybe its just us…
ramrod on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 11:13 am
“So, since by most accounts, the Philippines has managed to dodge the worst of the present economic crisis, would this portend favorably on those presently in power?” – carl
I believe most people don’t see the difference between economic crisis and no crisis at all, Filipinos have been in a recession-way-of-life for an eternity.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 1:10 pm
mlq,
Edsa 1 brought back the rule of law as the bedrock of our system. That is why it is revolutionary. It was a 180 degree turn from a system based on decrees.
The issue about Edsa 1 being a disappointment comes from the perspective that it should have brought about an economic upheaval as well, an overthrow of the feudal system as it were.
Here we can see a divergence of political philosophies or approaches. Those who believe that the rule of law precedes all development see things as evolving from there. Those disappointed with Edsa 1 start from the premise that an economic upheaval precedes political freedom, which, basically, is founded on the belief that the rule of law is possible only when an economic oligarchy is eliminated first.
World history has shown the gradual evolution of systems from monarchies to democracies. But revolutions are only the dramatic transition points, in that the act of revolt is an inevitable part of the process or progress towards democracy.
The difference between Edsa1 and the classic revolutions is the transition or revolution from one man rule to the rule of law was done peacefully. In that way, Edsa 1 represented a paradigm shift in the conduct of revolutions.
The question then is what political philosophy guided Edsa1, was it economic upheaval precedes transition to a rule of law or does rule of law allow for economic freedom to flower?
Madonna on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 1:28 pm
“does rule of law allow for economic freedom to flower?”
Easy answer. Rule of law post-Edsa I did not allow for economic freedom to flower. Very obvious. 23 years later. And the country is much worse, as far as indicators for the well-being of majority of Filipinos are concerned.
J_AG on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 1:58 pm
One man rule of law to a rule of law of the jungle….
The evolution was from monarchies to liberal representative governments. Why this predilection in using terms like democracy.
A revolution is about regime change. An attempt at a societal shift. Except for the revolutions in China, USSR and the U.S. most countries went through the evolutionary process.
In the three cases previous wars had essentially weakened the prevailing power structures economically in all three cases.
There is no such thing as an economic upheaval. Unless a massive natural disaster occurs. Markets are not machines that are seen as engineering systems by economic engineering technocrats. They are an important part of social institutions that depend on human relationships. When disputes arise over control and possession of material values even brothers will go to war. When arbitration and dispute mechanism’s are not in place you will have political conflicts.
Hence politics are integral to the resolution of economic difficulties. They are inseparable. Most mainstream economic technocrats are only versed on very narrow quantitative aspects of economics. They see themselves as scientists unfortunately. Hence without exception they almost always get blindsided. They are no better than witch doctors.
Edsa I happened simply because Marcos did not put in place a clear process of succession. All his economic technocrats failed to see the massive pressures building up in the financial system. They were totally blind to the political economy embedded in institutions. The very institutions that they thought would hold up. They were not trained otherwise and were operating with blinders.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 2:05 pm
The question remains can economic freedom occur in a society where the rule of law is not held as the first principle?
Madonna, would we have been better off under one-man rule?
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 2:12 pm
Jag,
by economic upheaval I meant an economic revolution an overthrow of the oligarchy, the feudal system
mlq3 on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 2:24 pm
which is why, if one adopts this divergence, the middle and upper classes and the portion of the masses that made the transition to middle class since 1986 (a very big chunk, and the most revolutionary change of all, the leap from serfdom to middle class in one generation!) are more in the tradition of the “glorious revolution” in the uk while the increasingly beleaguered left and others look to the paris commune for inspiration.
mlq3 on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 2:45 pm
well ninoy was very clear about it, the goal as he saw it was to solve the succession problem by convincing marcos to set in place a transition; as for the ultimate goals, it was a return to the status quo ante, as he pointed out a minimum was a return to the bill of rights enshrined in the 1935 constitution written, as he put it, “by the founding fathers.”
as for what edsa achieved, a return to the status quo ante broke the logjam the country was in. if you refer to the chart on gdp in alba’s paper:
Economic briefing by Dr. Michael Alba
we have never reached the spectacular growth we achieved post edsa, which was brought to a halt by the coups of gringo/enrile.
BrianB on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 2:48 pm
Economic revolution? Manuel, I understand, economic upheaval resulting to political and social revolution but what the heck is an economic revolution? Something like the New Deal or the industrialization of the late 19th century?
Sefdom to middle class. Manolo, daming poor na never naging serfs. Even the Lopezes and Aranetas have very poor relatives, and I mean dirt poor. Di sila serf, poor lang.
The serf-to MC people are quite useless in improving our non-democratic situation. Some of them are worse in attitude and beliefs than the current feudal lords. At least feudal lords have finesse and they know who to respect. The new MC can be very annoying, and definitely not worth dying for in my opinion.
Why even bother wrapping an idea around real people (and that’s 90 million very real individuals)?
Blackshama on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 3:25 pm
MLQ3
EDSA 1 toppled the Marcos regime and the Constitution that propped it up. EDSA 1 may have lived up to its promise but Mrs Aquino lost no time in replacing the old toppled establishment with a new one not different from the old. The Marcos regime may have fallen but the institutions that supported it were never replaced.
A revolution requires a REDISTRIBUTION first in the wielding and exercise of power, political and economic. None of this ever happened.
You also missed out the role of the Church in your analysis. The pretended power of the Church also has to be redistributed and this is the reason why Mabini himself favoured a Filipino National Church. The National Church should be under the revolution.
None of this happened. The Aglipayan revolution was killed right from the start. The Roman Church still is not a National Church even if it is headed by Filipinos.
I also dispute your analysis that the present regime has left most us alone. The GMA regime’s Marcosian tendencies have been revealed time after time. First in its state of emergency decrees, curbs to SMS messaging etc. But in a more integrated wired society, GMA can’t pull out the plug without pulling her own plug. I agree with you that she’s no Marcos. The technological times are so different. But GMA is always in test mode, continually re-adapting the old ways into the new. The Bayani pink and blue parade is an outward manifestation of Neo-Marcosian ideology. The only diff is that MMDA personnel are civilians while Marcos used the Military. Another difference is that it turns over the nationalist and ideological cliches in colour. Who would have thought that pink and blue can be ideological colours?
This is the same reason that everyone is reminded that Nazism can arise again or as the Eastern European Roman Catholic bishops have reiterated, that Stalinism can rise from the grave. While it will have the trappings of capitalism and liberalism, it will still enslave.
mlq3 on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 3:32 pm
i agree, brian, in that if one considers a middle class as the bedrock of a liberal democracy, it ain’t necessarily so unless they’ve been indoctrinated in civics (hence i fully agree with your advocacy of teaching kids the bill of rights, i saw that up close during the anti cha cha campaign when kids were utterly clueless about the constitution, much less how the society it envisions is supposed to operate). the old middle class always aspired to be upper class but was indoctrinated enough in liberal democracy to criticize the upper class and work, at times, for political change for the interests of the many and not just the few. but they’ve been driven out and left; theyve been replaced, and possibly in greater numbers, but the new middle class as you pointed out may have more in common with the warlords etc .
mlq3 on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 4:17 pm
shama, main point was, she has avoided the central mistake that eventually doomed fm, which was, to muscle in on the business and upper class’s interests. as the upper class does, so does the middle/manegerial class follow, which is why every time there was a rally people waited to see, as with 1986 and 2001, if the big bosses would descend from their penthouses, signalling the middle class to take the plunge; they never did, or never in unison so as to send the signal that this was crunchtime. the church on the other hand has gone back to the instincts of cardinal santos rather than sin even as rome stripped the archdiocese of its territorial influence. no difference between fm and gma being in test mode or figuring out that the fetish for “technical legalism” as fm himself put it, is very strong in our society, and turning it to their advantage. she, like he, has a shrewd appreciation of the latent powers of her office and the use of patronage.
BrianB on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 4:20 pm
mlq3, my point is, why rely on the Filipino’s ever-changing attitudes? The idea and idealism should be good enough given that we’re not exactly trying to be original here. The Bill of Rights as center to our democracy is nothing new. In fact, it IS the constitution. My advocacy therefore is simply the simple no-frills ENFORCEMENT of the constitution. I honestly don’t like much of the Filipino as is, but nonetheless I would be happy enough if rights were in the foreground of day to day life, not in the background or in a dark corner somewhere.
Banking on the current feelings of Filipinos… that, as Benigs would say, is as sure a way as any to the the poor house.
Besides, I bet my life Filipinos would appreciate the constancy of old beliefs and principles to the progressive ideas of the sociologically aware. Given that pinoys are self-conscious, insecure, unsure of themselves, and always in denial of their own thoughts and feelings.
rego on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 4:22 pm
I believe most people don’t see the difference between economic crisis and no crisis at all, Filipinos have been in a recession-way-of-life for an eternity.- ramrod
And some are just not mature enough to give credit where credit is due….
Carl on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 4:37 pm
If by rule of law we refer to the corrupt legal system that has prevailed post-Edsa, the balance of power only shifted from a single dictator to a thousand tinhorn despots.
And regarding peaceful transitions from one-man rule to democracy, EDSA was not unique. Spain was much more successful when it peacefully transited from one-man rule to a Monarchist democracy. Not only was it generally peaceful, it also resulted in great economic gains for the country. Per “The Economist†(May 15, 2008 edition) Spain is the 8th largest economy in the world, ahead of Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Russia, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and Saudi Arabia. EDSA failed to bring about economic improvement. So Spain’s transition trumps EDSA in more ways than one.
I agree with J_AG’s observation that Marcos contributed to his downfall by not instituting a clear process of succession. To his credit, at least Franco planned his succession well. And the benefits are obvious.
As for the transition of a big chunk of the masses to the middle class, that is primarily due to Marcos’ instituting the export of labor as a policy of government. That is not a result of EDSA. All administrations, post-Marcos, simply carried on with this Marcos brainchild.
It’s not to say that the policy exporting our of human capital is laudable, but, let’s be honest, nobody else has come up with a better economic idea. Until today, the OFW phenomenon continues to be the bedrock of our economy.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 6:36 pm
BrianB,
Capitalism to communism or the other way around is an economic revolution. Sudden and arbitrary redistribution of wealth, the prohibition against private property, a complete turnaround from private enterprise to complete nationalizarion is another example.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 6:42 pm
shama,
“A revolution requires a REDISTRIBUTION first in the wielding and exercise of power, political and economic. None of this ever happened.”
EDSA with a new constitution and the importance it placed in the rule if law rather than one-man rule provided the tool for the REDRISTRIBUTION you speak of. Redistribution is only possible under a just society and that is one that operates under the rule of law
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 6:45 pm
Karl,
monarchist democracy sounds like an oxymoron and a euphism to one who believes that a republic is the only true democracy
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 7:00 pm
Karl,
what happened in Spain was a succession from Franco to Jaun Carlos.. The transition came when Juan Carlos moved away from francoism to a more liberal society. It was not an easy transition as an attempted coup by franco remnants proved
Carl on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 7:02 pm
If there was any redistribution of wealth due to EDSA, it was from one faction of the elite to another faction. More of a sideways redistribution, rather than top to bottom.
The Marcoses surely had to give up some of their wealth. So did Jose Campos, Lucio Tan, Antonio Cojuangco, Antonio Floiriendo, Danding Cojuangco. But, as we can see today, they got to keep most of their wealth. They continue to be just as wealthy and powerful. It was all a matter of sharing some of the wealth with Peping, Tingting, some Aquino Administration officials and the Kamag-anak, Inc. And it wasn’t even all that painful for them because they only gave up what they had to pony up to Marcos, anyway. In most cases, they even gave less than they would have given Marcos, so they ended up with net gains. That’s why Imelda is so mad at these cronies.
Carl on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 7:26 pm
Monarchist democracy may be an oxymoron, but it exists in the U.K., in Spain, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. All of these practice a much more transparent form of democracy than the Philippines. And, despite the connotations of a monarchy, these countries are far removed from feudalism. Unlike us.
The transition from Franco to the King was planned by Franco from the time the King was a young boy. Franco took a personal hand in the upbringing, training and the studies of the King. So it was planned and orderly. And the transition to democracy was also planned, albeit in stages, in such a way that the militarists would be slowly eased into accepting a democratic state. There were bumps, to be sure, but the attempted coup was carried out by a handful of low-ranking soldiers and was easily crushed, although they managed to hold some parliamentarians hostage for a while.
Had Marcos not been overly paranoid, and had a planned succession, he most likely would not have been overthrown. Marcos’ problem was that his wife wanted to succeed him and he knew she wasn’t the right choice. Marcos was henpecked, while Franco wasn’t. Franco had the luxury of being able to choose the successor he most saw fit, because his wife didn’t meddle.
FreeSince09 on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 7:51 pm
Our Country is still stuck in a feudal fiefdom mindset. Period.
The moment the ruling classes become decadent and mismanage is the day their will ber uprsising
UP n grad on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 8:43 pm
Marcos in thinking of succession probably thought of the question — “Who should be next president? None of the presidentiables are qualified.”
His mistake was for him to think that he had responsibility for the question when the succession-responsibility (look at the constitution!!!) is for the President to leave the office on schedule at the end of his term and to depend on the people choosing the next Malacanang resident.
Same mistake that Hugo Chavez is committing — none from the rich, none from the middle class and definitely none from the poor — not a single citizen is better-quzlified than me (the idiots say) so “President-forever” — FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
cvj on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 8:56 pm
I do not get the distinction between the ‘old middle class’ and the ‘new middle class’ and why you liken the latter to the warlords. Where is the dividing line between old and new?
Madonna on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 2:08 am
Manuel B,
I think everyone here does not want to go back to one-man rule as per the Marcos era. However, nothing really changed post-Edsa I as far as power relations are concerned. Sure we got surface-level free elections back and democratic institutions, and so forth. One thing that you could not discount was that at least during the early years of Marcos (I was not even born yet and when Edsa I happened, I was in elementary school — but I heard from the older people that the early years of the Marcos era was ok — there was a solid population policy, order and so forth), the greater part of the people were united under a vision of his New Society — a society where more or less people would be economically better off. I think Marcos sort of mixed the goals of socialism or communalism of the pre-hispanic datu rule and constitutionalism as per liberal democracy (rule of law) — what he didn’t expect was the opposition from the landed oligarchs, which was a power tour de force. He wanted to break feudalism — but got cronyism instead. He ushered in his own set of cronies to fill in the power void.
Now, let us for one instance assume that Marcos’ goals as far coming up with a more equitable society were real and the country as a whole would be better off, with a more robust economy and better quality of life for the majority — that is, before he declared Martial Law, what’s the danger of revisiting his ideals and goals and adopting some of it in our present situation?
The crucial question is: is the goal really of the all parties, classes, groups, for the welfare of the country, that is, for the majority of our people? Are we united or do we just assume that everybody could fend for him/herself, as so many who are too liberally inclined (steeped in the Western ideals of individualism) believe (we still hear a lot of “it is the fault of the voters for electing such clowns/fops”)?
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 3:23 am
cjv, pls. refer to my old philippines and new philippines columns and my elections are like water, etc. pieces for pcij where i first explored this distinction. it’s the socialization and acculturation that spells a deep difference between the two. which is why the old middle class was a force demanding more liberal democracy particuarly in the 50s and 60s but after panicking in the late 60s and 70s briefly tried to restore it then voted with their feet when they got squeezed out by post edsa populism, warlordism and so forth; it helps explain why they gravitated to emigration abroad while the new middle class formed by the ofw experience seem less touched by exposure to liberal democracy abroad (for those exposed to it) but also, why they are more interested in harsher methods with exposure to saudi, etc. nondemocratic regimes…
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 3:27 am
i disagree, i think franco would have been very surprised with how juan carlos turned out, he tried to mold him but it seems juan carlos had a keener instinct of what would save the throne. if you read preston’s biography of juan carlos, it was a close shave, the falange was utterly shocked by the king’s embarking on a democratic and socialist liberalizing of the government and society. the falangists perhaps failed to notice their kids were tired of the old conservatism and embraced a liberal regime; and the last gasp of the right, the attempted coup in what was it, 1981, collapsed when the king threw his prestige behind democracy in public and behind the scenes asserted his royal authority to prevent the muntiny from spreading.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 3:31 am
carl, if you look at the “glorious revolution” of the british, it approximates what you describe, but the distinction for them as for us, was that it cut the monarchy and the presidency down to size; allowed for the expansion of growth in the periphery. it took the cork out of the bottle and you only have to look around you to see the huge number of new middle class areas in the metropolis and as far as cavite and laguna, all formerly fields, and in the provinces. the growth has taken place and even the powers held by certain groups have become more diffused, though i do think there’s been a dramatic reconcentration over the past few years.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 3:32 am
brian because you have to ask, who, exactly, is really interested in a no-frills application of anything?
Carl on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 6:29 am
What bothers me about holding up EDSA as a model is that it was mostly, as Madonna points out, “surface level”. Surface level democracy, surface level rule of law, surface level wealth redistribution, surface level reforms. Nothing substantial.
To me, EDSA is typified by Joker Arroyo and Teddy Boy Locsin – lots of high-falutin’ hot air, but no real substance. Even it’s centerpiece, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, was merely lip service. It didn’t target the problem at the source. No support services, no infrastructure.
EDSA was a lazy man’s revolution. All “palabas” and motherhood statements. But it didn’t do the bricks and mortar work. It didn’t go to the nitty-gritty. In many ways, it was a big hypocrisy. Leaders exalting democracy, yet making backroom deals with warlords and private armies. Big programs with no follow-through. If I were to pick just one word to describe EDSA, I would have to go with EMPTY or HOLLOW.
EDSA should not be held up as a model because it is a failed model. You cannot move forward and succeed if your very model is a failed one. We need to reinvent the wheel on this one.
Phil Manila on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 6:31 am
I dunno.
In political terms, revolution is classified as part of ‘politics by violent means’ along with war and terrorism. In this regard, EDSA was more of an evolution.
The main cause of revolution is a crisis of legitimacy. A government facing difficult political, economic, or social problems would be perceived as acting ineptly and/or unjustly. Such government would lose the confidence of the elites of society and the latter’s ‘revolutionary’ leaders would mobilize the masses to overthrow the existing regime and create a ‘new political order.’
BrianB on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 7:11 am
#
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 27th Feb 2009 6:36 pm
Manuel that’s POLITICAl revolution, the one’s you’ve cited, i.e. change in government, political beliefs from conservative to liberal, from libertarian to socialist.
BrianB on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 7:18 am
“brian because you have to ask, who, exactly, is really interested in a no-frills application of anything?”
No one has to manifest interest; o-frills enforcement is inherent in the law. Kung sa philosophy speak pa: contingent yan.
Carl on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 7:47 am
I saw Academy Award-winning director Steven Soderbergh’s excellent movie “Che – A Revolutionary Lifeâ€, with Benicio del Toro as Che Guevara. I was impressed by how the Cuban revolution paid so much attention to detail. How they made sure to lead by example and not just to mouth empty propaganda. How they made sure that the revolution paid attention to the bricks and mortar work that had to be done. Leaders went out to the fields and got their hands dirty. They didn’t just hang around in airconditioned offices.
I am no fan of Fidel Castro, but that movie gave me an appreciation of why, despite being choked with embargos, penalized with sanctions and constantly facing threats of invasion by the richest, most powerful country in the world, Castro’s revolution endures. Yes, Castro probably has a tight-fisted hold over the nation. Surely, there is curtailment of freedom.
But repression alone does not explain why Castro’s revolution prevails. With the tremendous odds against them, if Cuba’s government is not doing some things right, the dam would have burst by now. There is a lot of poverty, but health and basic services seem to be attended to. There is want, but not hunger. And their leaders seem to be attuned to the people’s needs, avoiding ostentation and leading by example.
That’s what we don’t have. Our leaders hide away in airconditioned ivory towers. They don’t go out and lead by example, leading the way, instead, with bad example. They don’t do their homework nor get their hands dirty (unless we refer to sticking their hands into the public till). There is no empathy with the people they serve.
Karl Garcia on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 7:50 am
Many people think that edsa was just that “an agitation promoted by a particular class for the benefit of its special interest.
Of course some of those who were there will say otherwise.Some might say I was there on my own volition I would not give a hoot about some group’s personal interest.
Now as to what happened after a revolution, The French revolution for instance created Napoleon, some still respect him,some still want to spit on his grave. Same thing with Cromwell.
Now as to the others say about economic turmoil’s link to revolutions.
Because of the American war the world’s resources (at least Europe’s) were depleted, that made Antoinette allegedly say “let them eat cake”.
Who ever took advantage of this situation among other things instigated the french revolution.
In summary, Mabini may be have just been pissed off with the past revolutions when he said “Any agitation promoted by a particular class for the benefit of its special interests does not’ deserve the name (of political revolution or evolution.” But we cannot deny that there was always self interest by a particular group in any so called revolution or political evolution.
Karl Garcia on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 8:23 am
Ramrod,
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 8:42 am
Manolo, i’m acquainted with your description of the Old Philippines versus New Philippines but what i am unclear on is your conclusion that the former is more democratically inclined. I find apologists for the Administration in particular, and paternalistic dictatorship in general, among members of both categories (Old and New Middle Class).
Madonna on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 9:39 am
Perhaps Pinoy sociologists should be given more say in the discourse to get more insights on how our people think, feel within the society in general, having undergone our own unique history. I think we should both distrust the liberal eggheads and the aloof leaders (but who cry for “people power” and manipulate the airwaves and the papers time and time again). Why? Just because they were found wanting of results during their watch or rule.
I agree with Carl, Edsa I was all hot-air, a paean to American style individualism (our freedoms, our rights), but with the haciendero patron-client mindset and power relations back with a vengeance (which Marcos tried to destroy).
The ideology of post-Edsa I was a combination of paternalistic Spanish style of leadership and American-style liberalism (with economic policies such as deregulation, privatisation).
I recently read this piece by Michael Tan in the Inquirer — how to bridge in the two divergent thoughts, moral renewal (seen as a hypocritical ploy by the public led people and leaders who have not been really “moral” in practice) and the more radical solution (Pinoys are not war-freaks and are less inclined to outright violence). His proposal was how to connect our own people’s exercise of timeless principles (e.g. “mali yan”, eto ang tama) and how to connect this to society or to the public space. I’m not really sure if this would resonate with the public.
Harping about our individual rights/freedoms is not futile but maybe just a little off in its approach and comes bizarre with how it seems in my personal observation we Pinoys are more inclined towards communalism (not exactly group-think), but a more consensual way of arriving at solutions or approaches. Certainly, we are not like the Americans, deep down in how we interact with each other and in arriving at political decisions. Another observation is that by now, our people are much, much wiser — less trusting of the old institutions or groups — of the Catholic Church, of Cory Aquino and her posse, the pols.
J_AG on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 11:01 am
Once again everyone is getting confused with terminology. Private sector capitalism led to mixed capitalism with state capitalism the extreme end of the capitalist structure. The branding that is the use of the word communism is wrong.
The Stalin model failed as it was built on a more severe from of capitalist imperialism. Direct control has given way to sphere’s of influence. Governments are about arbitrating the natural conflicts within a society. That would mean almost entirely economic conflicts.
The premier capitalist country the U.S. still dominating. The last twenty years has seen the rise of three new players. India, China and Brazil. Russia is remaking itself after the breakup of the Soviet Empire. The world economy is still the G-7 plus the original EU before the inclusion of the Central and Eastern European states.
When nation states moved to fiat currency systems they effectively gave management control of the economy to the government. The history of the 19th/20th century shows us a repeating story of crisis after crisis that has increased the role of the state in economic policy. It is no different in the 21st century. The role the U.S. has played in the global economy is coming under severe strain. Everyone and his uncle knows that if there was a severe and sudden collapse it would leave the world at great risk as the state that has provided for the international public good for security would retreat into itself. Hence in spite of its problems it remains still the safe haven.
Destroying a landed based oligarchy is a political revolution. It is not an economic upheaval. You cannot destroy the landed oligarchic system without the political revolution. The landed oligarchy is the political economy.
The Philippines still lacks the notion of nationhood. It may never come. Just like the likelihood of there becoming an African nation. The process of global integration cannot be held back. It would be most difficult to replicate the developmental model of the more advanced economies of the world. We are in essence products of their economic evolution.
Note to all re Che Guevara…The effort to romanticize him is regrettable. He was totally immersed in violent struggle. His purges after the victory forced Fidel to send him away. He was not interested in building up society. He was good though in destroying the old one.
Though sometimes one can fantasize of doing to certain sectors of Philippine society what he did. Simply exterminate them….
But that would open more cans of worms unfortunately.
Our process will be long and complicated. Joey Salceda recently said of our condition relative to the global crisis. We at this time have to be thankful for being poor. We are still in a cave so this storm will not affect us much.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 1:24 pm
apologists indeed, but do they express a majority opinion, i think not, as the opinion polls even divided along income lines shows. you can look at the forces propelling the decline of the one party state and the imperial presidency here at home, it was staffed, expressed, and propelled in large part by the old middle class that actually took american democratic values to heart. when confronted though, by the end result of the changes they wanted, they left the country.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 1:28 pm
No, Cuba had as we have: a pressure-release valve; there have been waves upon waves of refugees/escapees and that is what purged cuba of the democratically/entrepreneurially inclined.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 1:30 pm
empty or hollow compared to what? and what sort of completeness do you want? a cultural revolution, mao style?
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 1:37 pm
Marcos tried to destroy? That seems a stretch. Tried to supplant, maybe, which is different. If you want to see what the Sociologists say, pick up “The vote of the poor,” published by the Ateneo. On another note, Tan doesn’t seem to have taken into account the big difference between contemporary society and all that’s come before: the breakdown in the transmission of culture. people are increasingly not learing what is “mail” and what is “wasto” from elders, they learn it, if at all, from each other and from media. And neither (peer pressure or media messages) are particularly effective at promoting anything other than consumerism.
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 1:44 pm
Which opinion polls and what do they show?
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 1:51 pm
Do you mean that when they realized that the beneficiary of democratic reforms would be the EDSA Tres crowd and the politicians like Erap and FPJ? If true, doesn’t that show that the ‘Old Middle Class’ are elitists at heart?
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 2:26 pm
not exactly. when they saw it was going to be at their expense. i don’t think one should underestimate how alienated the middle class felt when doctors, lawyers, teachers, the professional classes, in other words, who’d saved up and managed to buy 10, 15, 20, 30 hectares of land found themselves the first and most effective targets of land reform while the upper classes moved heaven and earth to dodge the law. same applies to the manner in which the lina law alienated property holders not wealthy or well connected enough to flout it by means of goons or the courts. since they could not fight, flight was the answer, considering the deterioration, as well, in law and order (rapes, carjackings, kidnappings, home invasions) in the 80s to 90s and resugent once more.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 2:27 pm
most surveys on the president and her doings. i think tony abaya explains this well in http://acabaya.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-more-edsas.html
Bert on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 2:46 pm
There is no need for any EdsA, or a revolution if you may, if it can be helped.
What we need, to be able to reach a situation where there will be a modicum of self-satisfaction for everyone is an UNSELFISH leader, a driver who knows how to go through evading the potholes along the way, who can drive us to the desired destination without having to succumb to the temptations that befall others that took the wheel.
People are people, put them into the shoes of the oligarchs and they will be as oligarch as oligarchs could be, and vice versa. This reminds me of one time I asked a jeepney driver who was cursing a policeman, after parting with his earnings for a purported traffic violation, if, by a good fortune, he becomes a policeman himself, will he not be doing the same thing? He just smiled and could not answer.
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 2:54 pm
ah i see, it’s land reform that alienated the old middle class, but doesn’t that mean that it is they who have ‘more in commmon with the warlords’ in terms of aspirations? By contrast, what did the ‘new middle class’ do to deserve such a comparison?
Carl on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 3:04 pm
Manolo, not a cultural revolution a la Mao, but EDSA should have gone much deeper than superficial reforms. Empty speaks for itself because EDSA fell far short of accomplishing what it promised.
I have heard apologists for EDSA, such as Joker Arroyo, say that eliminating one-man rule and establishing democratic processes were achievements enough.
I disagree with that thinking. It’s like saying that deregulating an industry or opening a sector to competition is enough. The markets will take care of themselves. That’s a lazy man’s alibi. Even Allan Greenspan will now admit that engagement and vigilance are the price of freedom.
I believe that nothing should be left to chance and that there should always be support and monitoring. It wasn’t enough, for example, to simply enact a Land Reform Law. The law by itself would not fix the problem. The support systems should have been in place first. And, quite honestly, that law was not very well thought out and was shot full of loopholes.
Despite much talk of recovering ill-gotten wealth and doing away with cronyism, the Aquino Administration left Marcos and his cronies largely untouched. Very little ill-gotten wealth was recovered from either Marcos or his cronies. The facts speak for themselves: the Marcos cabal is making a comeback and Marcos cronies have only gotten richer.
Crony capitalism was never eradicated. All administrations after Marcos continued to have their cronies. Most, if not all, the Marcos cronies were able to wiggle their way into the good graces of the Aquino Administration and after.
In order to succeed there must be vision and dedication. None was present in EDSA. And, as for Joker Arroyo and Teddy Boy Locsin, they sold out, and have taken cover under a jaded and cynical facade.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 3:40 pm
hold on, what did edsa promise? an end to dictatorship, a return to democracy, the democratic space to initiate reforms without it being done by decree -that is, reforms within the context of compromise and consensus.
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 4:03 pm
(Re: 3:40pm) Yes, i do remember Rene Saguisag (then with the Cory Cabinet) saying, after the first Congressional elections in 1987, that ‘now it is all up to Congress’ which says that the Cory Admin really did not really set its sights on a goal beyond democratic restoration.
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 4:07 pm
which means that we are holding the EDSA actors to a higher standard than they set for themselves.
Carl on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 4:22 pm
Ganun ba? Then Cory Aquino shouldn’t have stayed on for 6 years. They shouldn’t have set up PCGG and made sweeping promises such as undoing the mess the dictator left. When Marcos left the country, just proclaim democracy, declare elections and then resign after Congress is established.
Maybe we set higher standards than what the Aquino Administration set for themselves. The administration musn’t have been speaking with one voice, because there were other voices promising other things. And people within the administration certainly helped themselves to all the trappings of power. Para sa akin, cop-out ang excuse na hanggang tig-restore lang sila ng democracy. A revolution doesn’t work like that. The vision and the ideals have to follow, otherwise, like I said, it’s an empty revolution.
cvj on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 5:02 pm
Carl, you have a point. It was only in 1990 when they realized ‘oh sh*t, we don’t have enough electricity’ or ‘oh sh*t, we don’t have enough flyovers’. Also, she failed to set an example with Hacienda Luisita which would have prevented the cleavage between EDSA Dos and EDSA Tres crowds. That being the said, I wouldn’t use ‘lang’ when it comes to restoration of democracy.
Madonna on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 5:14 pm
“Marcos tried to destroy? That seems a stretch. Tried to supplant, maybe, which is different.”
Manolo, Look, I am referring to the quasi-social engineering that at least the old dictator gave a shot at in the beginning. It is not a coincidence that some of our younglings who were not even born when Edsa I happened are studying his texts — and agreeing with their ideas and goals.
The supplanting came when he saw that he had such stiff opposition from the landed oligarchs. And I guess this was actually the real reason for declaring Martial Law — not the communist insurgency. The Lopezes had long maintained that they were the victims of the evil dictator. But lookit, the Lopezes are not exactly babies or innocents in the political arena. They are the very epitome of the oligarchical system — engaging in incestuous relationship between business and politics, and protecting their interests and turf. They are in the mass communication and public utilities sectors — and weld influence over the minds of the public — then and now — did you think the Apo Ferdie would just stand by as the Lopezes use the might of their public influence to counter the ideals of Marcos behind his back? Martial Law was declared to reign in the power of the oligarchs I maintain. The middle class was overwhelmingly supportive of Marcos in the early years.
Compare the Lopezes with the Zobel de Ayalas — who are recognized as the closest to true aristocrats that we could have — one great reason to uphold our Spanish heritage — decent, socially-aware and averse to publicity. They have never engaged in politics directly. Only indirectly. Yes, they are behind the MBC, the big business posse of Cory Aquino. The MBC as a social force is mainly concerned with calibrating power dynamics — and of course defending liberal economic policies. They have been aloof, however in social policies (for example, have we heard them condemn the Catholic Church for directly opposing a population policy?). Cory’s main mistake is for letting the Catholic Church dictate to her many, many times.
The crux of the matter is that liberal economic policies don’t mean shit: deregulation and privatisation was like throwing chunks of meat to a few hundred wolves while 80+ million sheep watch in the sideline.
“If you want to see what the Sociologists say, pick up “The vote of the poor,†published by the Ateneo. On another note, Tan doesn’t seem to have taken into account the big difference between contemporary society and all that’s come before: the breakdown in the transmission of culture. people are increasingly not learing what is “mail†and what is “wasto†from elders, they learn it, if at all, from each other and from media. And neither (peer pressure or media messages) are particularly effective at promoting anything other than consumerism.”
Transmission of culture: I think the great block here is the influence of the Catholic Church and other religious groups. Tan made a great point of differentiating the universal way people and across social classes could judge situations as “tama” or “mali” — versus exceedingly value-laden, moral-driven judgement of “masama” and “mabuti”. Masama and mabuti are prone to moralizing and thus, falling trap to the edicts of religious authorities and other self-interested groups.
Carl on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 5:41 pm
You make a good point, cvj.
BrianB on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 6:56 pm
I think like most Filipinas, Cory is capable of managing her own conscience in such a way that the bad things she was responsible for get buried or thrown out with utmost efficiency. There’s a saying, There’s no such thing as an accident in the kitchen. So when a child gets “accidentally burned, that means his mother hates him.
mlq3 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 10:57 pm
recently i ran into someone who’d been in the aquino cabinet and he shook his head and said, you know, when we were discussing land reform, we didn’t know half the things people do now…
the aquino government was an example of the perils of too much open dialogue and democracy, too many contending voices -but it’s what the public wanted. as for realizing all the things too late, well, see what they were up against in 1987-1989 and you’d go oh shit, too.
revolutions never end up the way they were intended to end up, and if you are engaged in a democratic project the broadness of the vision and ideals will mean a lot of compromises and lost opportunities along the way.
this is monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.
UP n grad on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 11:15 pm
A worse form of monday-morning quarterbacking is Gringo Honasan-etcetera surging-the-gates instead of waiting for next-elections because they thought Cory failed to deliver on promises made.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:27 am
i’d agree with you except for two things. if you look at coconut and sugar, what did marcos do, with an absolute monopoly on the police power? i’ve heard that what ariel querubin was dying to do, should a new government replace gma, was to be given authority to run after the warlords and their private armies and crush them once and for all. this happened once before, when fm crushed the private armies in luzon and the visayas -actually, just sent in the army and confiscated their arms, the only ones who resisted were the iglesia ni cristo in that famous siege.
but he was more interested in establishing a coconut and sugar monopoly, not in expropriating the estates. the succesful land reform ,by all accounts, that he undertook was limited to rice and corn lands.
marcos was faced with a situation where he not only wanted a third term, but was frustrated in his other efforts, such as shifting to a parliamentary system where he could continue as pm. then and only then did he embark on martial law to break the logjam and protect himself from persecution after leaving office. this is the original sin and everything else is a fig leaf to disguise the essential nature of the power-seeking effort at the heart of it, an effort that upset the entire direction of a predictable cyclical change in power and a loosening of the grip of the political class on power.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:28 am
did gringo et al surge-the-gates because of a failure on cory’s part to deliver on promises made, or rather because they felt she should never have embarked on the foolishness of democracy?
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:44 am
it’s the dilemma of the new middle class having been exposed to best practices overseas and immediately dropping whatever they picked up the moment they come home, and preferring to live in splendid isolation behind their new gates. this is because they haven’t been acculturated into the whole sense of civic duty and responsibility that somehow could make the old middle class, from time to time but not all the time, go beyond their own interests and work for expanding the democratic space for all.
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:47 am
Ariel Querubin wanted to run after the warlords? No wonder he’s locked up.
ramrod on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:15 am
He’s disarmed a number of private armies in his time and stubbornly refused to give back the weapons back to these goons even with pressure from superiors.
Phil Manila on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 5:48 am
mlq3,
From the link you provided, I was able to read the notes of the historian Leon Ma. Guerrero, another great patriot, on Apolinario Mabini’s La Revolucion Filipina.
‘Righteous, perceptive and farsighted beyond the measure of his contemporaries and successors, the very embodiment of the intellectual in a revolution, …. Among the Filipinos he was one of the few who knew what it was all about.”
From Guerrero’s insights above, I say Mabini’s early death in 1903, robbed the Philippine revolutionists of a great thinker, idealist ideologue if you may, to guide General Aguinaldo in the 1900s and the young Philippine nation forthwith.
We lost our way since then.
Carl on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 7:39 am
While Gringo et al represented the right-wing outlook that the military is the best guardian for the country, Gringo and his cohorts had lots of ammunition on account of incompetence, lack of vision and disorderly governance of the Aquino Administration.
Manolo, it would help if you confronted the reality that EDSA was, to be kind, revolution-lite, instead of a true revolution. It restored democracy in some form (superficial, in Madonna’s words), but it failed to bring about a truly democratic and egalitarian society. It failed to bring about a better life for the majority, and it failed to transform the feudal structures that continue to beleaguer our country.
It doesn’t help to be too defensive about EDSA. It would be better for everyone to admit that, as a model, it was flawed. And that we can come up with a much better model in the future. I believe that glorifying EDSA is dangerous because it sets the bar at too low a level. Excellence cannot be achieved by setting mediocrity as the barometer.
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 9:12 am
“this is monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.”
More like Black Thursday remembrance.
Manolo, killing helpless farmer on Mendiola? If it was Erap, Ramos, Arroyo, Magsaysay, Garcia, Laurel, etc. that wouldn’t have happened.
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 9:14 am
“the aquino government was an example of the perils of too much open dialogue and democracy, too many contending voices -but it’s what the public wanted.”
Really, Manolo, so why lsten to a few dozen hacenderos and not listen to 15,000 farmers right outside the Palace gates?
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 9:22 am
Besides, Monday-morning quarterbacking can’t apply to critical citizens like me. I wasn’t in congress during Cory’s time but a wee lil boy. I imagine even then I would’ve protested the massacre and the slowness of land reform. Even then, I imagine, I would’ve seen through her when she was talking too much with relatives of Luisita.
But this one is real double-guessing: Joker Arroyo, as her Executive Secretary, roved to be of a weaker constitution than what people know of him. I guess now we know Joker is weak willed. Stubborn, yes, but he doesn’t have a strong mind.
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 9:46 am
The danger of dismissing EDSA as ‘revolution-lite’ are the following:
(1) it may lead us to take for granted what it has achieved and increasing the chances that we may lose even that;
(2) More importantly, this i could do better than that mentality could lead us to underestimate the difficulty and unpleasant side-effects of implementing more fundamental changes (like wealth redistribution). After all, based on Manolo’s account of middle-class resistance to land reform, isn’t the middle class also to blame for the failure of this program?
So while it is just right to highlight what EDSA failed to achieve, it is for our (aka the Middle Class) own protection to respect what it did achieve.
After EDSA, the Left did refuse to use the word ‘democracy’ and preferred ‘democratic space’. Maybe they have been, once again vindicated and this is now conventional wisdom (i.e. commonly held belief). For me, one lesson learned is that if we should have listened more to the Left.
UP n grad on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 10:30 am
My perception is that EDSA1 is perceived a failure because it failed to reduce cronyism, graft, corruption and thievery and larceny. And the instances of graft and thievery occurred at all levels, from the highest levels down to the baranggay; from congressman-and-above, mayor-and-above, local-judge-and-above, government-clerk-and-above to the kotong-cop or the DMV-clerk and even the elementary school teacher.
UP n grad on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 10:41 am
Corruption and thievery participation by the Left —- extortion (power-line or cell-towers bombed; buses and places of business set ablaze) making a mockery of the call for the GREATER-GOOD. ….
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 11:18 am
“My perception is that EDSA1 is perceived a failure because it failed to reduce cronyism, graft, corruption and thievery and larceny”
It failed not for any lack of law, because we have it, and not for any lack of evidence to prosecute, we have it too. It failed because someone powerful refused to inconvenience her relatives or have been brought up to fear some of them.
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 11:49 am
BrianB (at 11:18am), spot on!
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 11:51 am
Madonna, just read your comment. My thinking exactly. Probably the reason why many old people still has a fondness for Marcos and blamed everything to the influence of Imelda. I guess Marcos was such a man who lacked depth as a revolutionary and lacked sophistication as a leader. First thing he did was become a monster worse than the ones he was trying to kill. Just couldn’t resist the temptation, and once he had it all found himself utterly lacking in concrete vision.
Really one of the first things I learned in college and they were truly keen on injecting to our sense: don’t be a revolution for you will only be a worse monster than these… [old landed class]
Carl on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:20 pm
cvj, the attitude of being overprotective (some may even say being overdefensive) about EDSA is not without merit, especially when placed in the context of what could be the alternative. And much more so when the basis of comparison is Martial Law under Marcos.
But that’s somewhat of a negative conditioning of the mind and doesn’t take into account more positive alternatives, such as instituting genuine reforms and addressing the gross inequality of wealth. It’s like talking down expectations in order not to come up short.
My problem with glorifying EDSA is that it could be delusional. It seeks to make people oblivious to EDSA’s very real shortcomings. How can we change and improve on EDSA if we sweep its failures under the rug?
EDSA did have to contend with many difficulties. But they weren’t any more daunting than those elsewhere.
Spain, after Franco, had to thread the needle between the military, the different ideologies, fierce nationalistic aspirations and the clamor for payback from those who suffered under the dictatorship.
South Africa under Mandela had a very difficult balancing act contending with racial and class struggle, making sure these did not destroy the economic base of the country.
Lula of Brazil, a lifelong union organizer, had to balance wealth redistribution with growing his country’s economy.
They were, by most measures, successful and surmounted the odds.
I do agree that bringing about democracy is great. But to say that democracy alone is enough, without evaluating what real gains it brings about, I think, shortchanges the people.
I’m confident that the people will no longer tolerate dictatorships. But I’m also aware that people will not take anything at face value anymore, after several disappointments. Henceforth, they will first evaluate what’s in it for them before they commit to anything.
UP n grad on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:39 pm
A serious problem with EDSA (and this romantic aura around metro-Manila’s “surge-the-gates” to impose a new order on the entire country) is the disrespect of the points of view of the non-Metro-Manila citizenry.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:50 pm
there has only been a major deviation between the two because of the cebuanos despising estrada and adoring gma. but before that, cebu was even more anti marcos, and earlier on, than metro manila. the political attitudes of most urban areas outside metro manila -and, since the 1980s more filipinos are urban residents than rural- is not so different from metro manila, either. but indeed, this president has more effectively mobilized rural *leaders* than her predecessors, in the manner of thaksin, with much the same emphasis on the urban-rural divide.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:55 pm
cjv, there was no middle class resistance to land reform, because the middle class cannot resist the coercive powers of the state. in a sense, the poorest and the richest are in a position to resist the state, but not the middle class. but what ended up was the middle class resenting the state, and the larger society which seemed poised to bring their social economic and political status down, they, being after all, the front liners at edsa. and so, they started to leave and have been leaving for a generation now.
J_AG on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:55 pm
On MLQ3 post at 2:26PM, Sun. Mar. 1st.
The fact that the so called professional class thought it wise to put their savings in land is clear indication of a land based culture and not a savings culture based on industrial capitalism’s productivity gains denominated in savings invested in capitalist structures and systems. It is mostly non-existent.
The clear institutions of capitalism almost thoroughly absent backed up by a tolerable system of justice that is most critical in commerce and industry. A clear and unequivocal trust in institutions of the state. Here most people are already taking up positions to be close to the perceived next President to benefit from government largess’s directly or indirectly. The Danding or Joe Con model for business development. The Chinoy model being, simply wait for the winner and buy him or the people around him. They the more experienced merchant class in the country. In the PRC the state went into partners with the old established merchant class and produced the private capitalist in China. Failure in business there would mean imprisonment or execution.
It is a wonder that in spite of the loss of trust in capitalist structures in the advanced economies it falls to government to restore the faith and trust in the economic system.
Here in the Philippines the trust extends mostly to family mostly and not to community. Hence a few families control the state. elections are about the competition amongst the few. That change will come with the change required in economic system and will take generations.
You cannot redistribute wealth which does not exist. As it is the total per capita income in real terms is only Php 15,000 per anum. Changing the historical distribution of factor endowments is primary but so is the change in mindset required for individual opportunity to blossom.
Land is still seen as the best inflation hedge against the profligacy’s of government abuse of monetary policy.
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:02 pm
Carl (12:20 pm), in terms of moving forward, we have the same positions, i.e. addressing the unequal distribution of wealth.
One thing you’ll notice though (as exemplified by UPn Grad’s comment after yours) is that those who favor the status quo are also afraid of ’surge-the-gates’. So one tactic they use is to emphasize the urban-rural divide (i.e. Metro Manila versus the provinces) to distract people from the division between rich and poor (regardless of which province they come from).
Elitists sense that the next people power would be against them and the Middle Class is afraid (rightly so) that it would be collateral damage in such an upheaval. So which side to take?
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:07 pm
ah, i see that manolo has already made the point about GMA emphasizing the rural-urban divide (just like UPn Grad).
ok manolo, perhaps not outright resistance but more of tampo i.e. exit over voice.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:36 pm
more than tampo essentially political and economic refugees is what they ended up, cjv.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:39 pm
there is no reason why officialdom couldn’t learn from the british and the japanese in finding a way to remove political power from the upper class without resulting in a revolution. inheritance taxes are the answer, and a view that aspires to change conditions in a generation, which allows the currently wealthy to enjoy the fruits of their labor without permanently trapping their wealth in their hands. in one generation the british destroyed the political power of the landed aristocracy and the generation after that, went after the power of the business moguls. it can be done here and avoiding the kind of immediate distributive vendetta-mentality that causes panic and distributes poverty and not wealth.
Madonna on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:41 pm
“the aquino government was an example of the perils of too much open dialogue and democracy, too many contending voices -but it’s what the public wanted.â€
Wrong, Manolo. What the public wanted, then and now was/is results. Period.
Cory listened to her big business posse, the Teddy Boy Locsin/Joker-ian paean to rights/freedoms for their own sake. What are rights and freedoms for if they could not empower the individuals truly? — freedom and rights in general arise from economic power. And there she failed. And failed miserably. Ramos was better — he knew the middle-class mindset, being from the same class — looking back, it would not been too bad had we given a longer shot at the position. He was a good leader and could unite the warring politicos, the Right and the Left, even the Muslim insurgents. It was Ramos who was ready to widen the “democratic space”. And I participated in rallies to shot down Steady Eddie’s move towards Charter Change — brainwashed out of Edsa I’s (non)-vision
BrianB,
Marcos was a social revolutionary. I am just re-discovering him. Marcos was a middle-class guy, just a great failed one — his enemies were too powerful. In the end, he had to resort to state power and authoritarianism to bail him out.
Marcos’ great weakness also was economics — he had a great vision for the country before he declared Martial Law. He should have consulted more political economists — not dyed-in-the wool technocrats steeped in laissez fair economics which is premised on societies already out of feudalistic structures.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 1:51 pm
Marcos was not middle class, did not see himself as such, listen to his own description of himself and his origins. He saw himself as part of the provincial political baron class. And later on, winked at references to his being a descendant of Limahong.
http://kyotoreviewsea.org/interviewspotlite.htm
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 2:01 pm
ah, ok makes sense you are investigating marcosian thinking if you’re disilussioned with post-edsa, madonna. such are the origins of most fascistic thinking.
Carl on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 2:10 pm
cvj, regarding the fear of “surge-the-gatesâ€. Ironically, it seems that the middle class can be even more paranoid than the upper classes.
It must be a universal attitude because during the U.S. elections, when Republicans trashed Obama for wanting to spread the wealth around, a guy who was probably a lower-middle class individual gave himself the moniker of “Joe the Plumber†and attacked Obama for being a socialist.
I found it odd, because here was a guy, making less than $50,000 a year, attacking Obama for wanting to impose higher taxes on those making more than $250,000. I thought that it was preposterous.
Republican strategists were trying to capitalize on middle class aspirations to emulate the upper class when they portrayed Obama as the enemy of the rich. Republicans were, in effect, trying to tell the middle class that Obama wanted to prevent them from getting rich. Those Republican strategists didn’t think it was preposterous at all.
J_AG, you are correct about Che Guevara being too radical even for Fidel Castro. But passion in any field of endeavor is contagious. I think that is why he continues to be romanticized. I wonder if Che would be amused about the following developments:
• 40 years after his death in the jungles of Bolivia, a kindred spirit in the person of Evo Morales has ascended to become the President of Bolivia.
• 40 years after his death, Capitalism has been dealt its most critical blow, not by any Communist country or organization, but by Wall Street.
Madonna on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 2:14 pm
Naku, Manolo, kaw naman — fascistic? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me be open by my political ideology — humanist, democrat, nationalist (in that order please!). Where’s fascism in that????? I am a humanist, first and foremost, remember that.
My positive doff to Marcos, if you carefully cared to examine my comments was his social vision — before he instituted in Martial Law. If reading our history as people should be wholistic, then why restrict it to Edsa and “democratic restoration” as the fixed basis.
Hope you are not censoring my right to do my own historical studies. Who’s the fascist here?
I not not disillusioned with Edsa I — just judging it in an objective light. What kind of revolution is that with no vision. Edsa I was not brought about by solid planning, thus it was no revolution — it was re-active to the forces that chipped away at the carcass of the dying days of the authoritarian dictatorship.
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 2:53 pm
Manolo (at 1:39pm), what are the odds that officialdom comes to its senses in the manner you envision? Also in Japan, i believe the Meiji had to kill-off the Samurai so it’s not as peaceful as the British experience.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 2:56 pm
well, hence my concern with creating a reform constituency. it happened in the uk because labor came to power because of growing demand for reforms.
J_AG on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 2:58 pm
Carl the collapse of free market capitalism in the so called metaphysical (futures) markets once again proves that the rise of the free market doctrinaire practitioners after Reagan Thatcher have crashed and burned with devastating effects for the world.
State intervention is ascendant once again but they were already there in a moribund state after the Reagan/Thatcher years.
The fact that the Western economies simply dusted off the same institutions created during the 30’s prevented a repeat of the Great Depression. The main issue today is the generations today have no memory of those earlier tough years. Even the Europeans who are very aware of the aftermath of the depression and the subsequent war are moving to prevent societal collapse in the weaker European states.
The recent meeting of ASEAN plus three are also putting measures in place all under the supervision of the multilateral financial institutions to prevent economic strain in any of the groups economies. Naturally our own GMA is pushing hard for the stabilization fund. Asset markets are leaner by $20-$30 trillion. The process of liquidation and restoring balance will take time.
The difference today is the realization that no state is strong enough to go it alone. Financial integration has proceeded so far into the systemic fundamentals of states that if a pullback were to be made the weak states like the Philippines would simply collapse. Not even the OFW flows would help.
We are in a de facto common currency arrangement with the U.S. but do not have the ability to formulate fiscal policies that are counter cyclical – (when personal and business consumption drops in a down cycle the government steps in to counter the downward cycle.) If and when OFW flows drop substantially we go down and we have to go under a new IMF program once again.
When Hillary Clinton was in Indonesia the President of Indonesia bluntly told her that Indonesia wanted a currency swap arrangement for them similar to the one given to Singapore.
I wish the leftists of this country would understand the whole reality of the state of the Philippines. Those guys in the hills are closer to the Pol Pot model than anyone might think.
Sovereignty requires power to back it up. All we have are ideals and bare feet. That simply will not do.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/soros48
You have no idea how important Mr. Bond market is today to states. Most especially those living on debt like the Philippines.
The time is perfect for declaring a sovereign bankruptcy process…. Which of the Presidentiables can pick up this advocacy.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 3:00 pm
glad you clarified, because i do sense a swing to the right, and it begins with rehabilitating martial law. what i dispute is how anyone can consider that social vision as genuine. i do think it was genuine on the part of those whose intellectual abilities he harnessed. but the danger in otherwise rehabilitating martial law is that it ignores the essential bedrock of the whole project, which was the elimination of democracy and its replacement with absolute monarchy. regarding edsa, perhaps if you insist on being “objective” then it might be that you are not satisfied with the *limited* vision of edsa, and what’s more, the inability of what emerged to continue the reforms and expand them. but i’m also hard-put to find any revolution that was solidly-planned as you want; they all involved general theorizing, specific political lobbying, but a hell of a lot of ad hoc reaction and action with results often far different from what any of the protaganists had at mind at the start. the american, french, and russian revolutions are good cases in point.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 3:02 pm
this reminds me of the chapter on bonds in niall ferguson’s book where he asks why more countries don’t realize defaulting might be a better way to rebuild than staggering along -pointing in turn to the limits on the otherwise iron grip the bond markets have on government policies.
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 3:30 pm
Because defaulting is supposed to be a communistic idea?
cvj on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 4:05 pm
To form a reform constituency, the EDSA Dos and EDSA Tres crowds must arrive at a set of ideas and actions that they can agree on. For example, ideas like wealth redistribution and debt default should no longer be dismissed as being communistic. Otherwise, the Oligarchs can play off both classes against each other.
Madonna on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 4:57 pm
As a humanist, it is my belief that the ultimate reality is not in ideas themselves — but the human condition — and I do not mean this with pretensions of high-brow sensibilities. Geehaw, we only have to look around to realize this. Instead, we all cower in the comfort of ideas as shields from the crush of reality.
Correct, Manolo, I do not disparage democracy itself — but how Edsa I failed to provide a vision. I do not approve of a Martial Law-like return — the people are overwhelmingly against it.
Post-Edsa, the overwhelming sense is that we lack a unifying vision for the country — we do not lack of ideas (they are everywhere and we are not short of intellectuals and patriots — what we have is a grand failure of leadership — we have failed our own people). We are on a ship without a rudder.
As for the French, Prussian, American, Soviet experiences — of course they reacted to “inevitable” events and forces. However, we need not be hobbled with their experience or over-analyze everything. We could learn from them — but ultimately our basis needs to be our own history and how our country connects to the rest of the world in the scheme of things.
To create a vision we need to blend in the Western ideals of democracy, our prehispanic history (communalism as Marcos tried to revive — before the Spaniards came, we thought in a community mindset and I think it’s still there, just suppressed by religious zealotry), the best of our Spanish heritage, the aspirations of the constituencies of the Left and the Right.
Whew. Tall order. But must be done. Otherwise, we’ll just flail along and Filipinas will just be a figment of our strained imagination.
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 5:10 pm
thanks very much, this is why i enjoy discussions with readers like you, something to learn always. i do believe one reason theres no unfiying vision is the rules themselves dont foster consensus or majority rule. but now we’ve learned that it’s not enough to weant change, but to have a plan people can sign on to otherwise the status quo with all its defects will have to do. i’d quibble on the religious zealotry though, i think we’re increasingly finding out our prehispanic culture survived more strongly than anyone assumes and that includes what passes for christianity in this country. that being said, it also suggests we are not a thoroughly democratic culture but one that prefers to assign responsibility to leaders after ritual consultations have been made. in that sense, the insights of thinkers during martial law are useful.
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 6:05 pm
Hey, MLQ3, stop patronizinf Madonna.
Madonna, it’s not lack of vision but a prejudice against the majority, what conos now call the baho masa, or orcs in UP-speak.
These lawyer harvard, chinese-business-class look down on the common tao, I’m certain of it. Even now, the prejudice pervades among intellectuals and academics, and especially among the middle class.
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 6:06 pm
I’m betting one of my balls the sickness of the RP is racism. Our disease is a common disease, not as unique as the intelligentsia describe it.
BrianB on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 6:08 pm
I mean lack of vision when it comes to the future of this country where the brown people must dominate in numbers and, supposedly, influence.
Carl on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 6:14 pm
Ah, the bonds market. How adequately is the Philippines covered for any eventuality? How resilient will the inward remittances from OFW’s continue to be?
Will those be the points to ponder in the next few months? U.S. and Japanese GDP’s are crashing, Europe is spiraling downward. Even India is dropping fast. Only China remains as a ray of hope. If everyone runs to the bond markets for assistance, what are the chances that we will get crowded out? For those unable to avail of credit, default becomes a genuine option.
UP n grad on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 9:05 pm
Philippines is on CORRUPTION WATCH LIST (via Global Integrity, an international non-profit organization).
Mangahas reports:
The Philippines has a Global Integrity Index of 71, meaning “moderate,†in the new report (www.globalintegrity.org) released last Feb. 18th by Global Integrity (GI), an award-winning international nonprofit organization that tracks governance and corruption trends globally.
The moderate integrity index of the Philippines is the composite of the country’s being relatively: (1) weak in Civil Society, Public Information and Media, (2) very weak in Elections, (3) weak in Government Accountability, (4) strong in Administration and Civil Service, (5) moderate in Oversight and Regulation, and (6) moderate in Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law.
.
.
Grand Corruption Watch List. The 2008 GI report also introduces a new Watch List that “identifies countries where the lack of effective conflicts of interest regulations, unregulated flows of money into the political process, and poor oversight over large state-owned enterprises combine to pose a systemic risk of large-scale theft of public resources.â€
The countries on the GI Watch List are Angola, Belarus, Cambodia, China, Georgia, Iraq, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Serbia, Somalia, the West Bank, and Yemen. But not the Philippines — that’s a little relief!
mlq3 on Sun, 1st Mar 2009 11:39 pm
carl,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7911698.stm
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/31/international-trade-recession-fal-cornwall-shipping-sailors
rego on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 12:57 am
i dont but I canot consider EDSA a faliure at all, ButI do consider Cory a total failure
rego on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 1:15 am
i dont know but I dont consider EDSA 1 and 2 a failure at all. Cory is a dismal failure. yes! I beleive she is the biggest mistake in EDSA.
BrianB on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 1:24 am
rego, don’t forget her cabinet that were supposed to be her learned advisers. Were they conniving accomplices or just plain housewives too.
Carl on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 7:47 am
Thanks for the links, Manolo. From the looks of it, our leaders may have been crowing too early about dodging the bullet.
The microchip and the furniture export industries were the early casualties and they didn’t cause a large-enough ripple. But they may have been the canaries in the coal mine, because I also read how coconut oil demand has dropped drastically and that how local coconut prices are dropping. Sugar has also been dropping. These would impact the countryside. One of the reasons the rural areas were relatively quiet the past few years is that prices for agricultural products were at all-time highs. Corn, coconuts, sugar and even palay.
If remittances drop significantly, the peso will take a hit. It’s already trading at around P49 to the $. Will get worse if remittances slow down. That will mean inflation for the ordinary citizen.
The problem will also be refinancing loans. If there are long queues for bonds, we’ll have to compete and raise interest by so many basis points. That would mean a much larger debt service burden.
Our leaders should begin warning the people to prepare for more difficult times instead of talking about being “blessed”.
J_AG on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:03 am
The issue on the bond markets is based on deflation. In the industrialized economies overnite rates are going to be close to zero. Personal consumption and Business consumption is collapsing. That would mean more savings. For the U.S. that is not a bad idea. However all those savings are flowing into banks and banks are not lending as much so they instead lend it to the government. Hence government bonds are rising in price as yields are collapsing. Banks are also bringing back capital to raise their capital adequacy ratios as assets continue to deteriorate.
Our BSP is then forced to match these deflating times by also moving to reduce our overnite rates which they have just done and will continue to do so.
That in turn makes money cheaper but since confidence is low banks will tend to also park their funds with the government further reducing bond yields.
Interest rates go down and foreign money that look for arbitrage on yield will also leave and this in turn will slowly affect the exchange rate.
The whole question today is will the deflationary forces abroad counteract the sure to be slow deterioration of the peso which might be caused to deepen by reduced OFW flows.
The variable in this equation is the degree of deterioration in OFW flows. That is the big question mark.
Our ace in the hole remains to be the foreign workers. There is no doubt that the growth in flows have been reduced…
So far so good. Check in at the end of the first quarter that is March.
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:09 am
Some quarters say that the economy is now bouyed up by “corruption” of course much of the disposable income from microchip and furniture industries made a dent but there’s substantial spending coming from people who like to spend – at least not hard-earned money that is. Just take a cruise along favorite spots at night and you’ll see the parking lots are still packed with Expeditions, Fortuners, Troopers, etc (big boys with their toys).
…and the spas, high end cosmetics botiques are still okay it seems…but one things for sure, these type of consumers buy a lot but they also throw away stuff a lot – one man’s garbage is another man’s banquet. So life goes on in our uniquely Filipino urban food chain…
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:14 am
Would somebody tell me why our local real estate industry as well as office, residential rentals are seem unperturbed by the current recesssion? Colleagues in Singapore advise that their’s is substantially down already, I’m still waiting for our version of the story…
Would this be indicative of the economy’s capability to dodge the bullet? If so hurray for Gloria and Ralph Recto!
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:23 am
I don’t consider the EDSA’s failure either. If we’re looking for failure, its our apparently inability to learn from our experience, to change, and these “closed mind” or “narrow-mindedness” mental state.
I don’t mind being consistent but we have to open our eyes and ears at one time and look up every now and then…
J_AG on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:33 am
Makitid, Mababaw and Ampaw is how Habito describes the Philippine economy.
In Asia except for S. Korea which has a very high debt ratio (more short term)we stand in good stead. The major problem in emerging economies is almost exclusively in Eastern Europe. They are not part of the Euro zone but they basically borrowed in Euros while keeping their own currencies. The Euro zone does not have a true Central bank and a Euro bond market. Fiscal policy is still in the hands of national governments.
Real estate comprises here a very small share of the economy and is still in its infancy. There is no overhang of inventory as units are built only when money is already committed. Also realty finance is a very small portion of the total assets held by banks.
People are still clueless that this banking crisis started in the the wholesale level of banks. We do not have that much savings to speak of hence the country had very little exposure to wholesale banking.
Singapore through Temasek and GIC were hit hard as they placed wholesale funds in the global asset markets and got burned badly. They have no choice but to wait out the storm.
Just watch the price of crude in the next six months. If it starts to go up that would mean the downturn has hit bottom and is adjusting for its new slow rise over the next two to three years.
The main or root cause of this is the supply of the world’s currency the dollar. The U.S. has to fix their financial system and fast. That means the whole world will have to take its lumps. Holders of stocks and bonds in distressed companies will have to take the hit.
The U.S. financial system is in a state of bankruptcy process. They can delay to take the hard medicine required that will drag this crisis for a longer period or they can end it mercifully….
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:33 am
“The countries on the GI Watch List are Angola, Belarus, Cambodia, China, Georgia, Iraq, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Serbia, Somalia, the West Bank, and Yemen. But not the Philippines — that’s a little relief!” – UPn
I’m glad we’re not on this list too, but did they bother to quantify? I mean, if we based corruption on the amount of money being used for personal gain (public funds that is). Of course, these things are hard to quantify, hard to trace, and almost impossible to prove – exposes don’t hold water in any court…
Then again, what if unproven allegations are really just that, chizmiz?
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:43 am
If we take our cue from Carl here.
Keep our cash safe. Don’t speculate. Spend wisely. Save, save, save!
If someone would ask you if this is a good time to buy a condo (mid Makati – Mandaluyong area) would you say “yes” or “no?”
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 10:50 am
My dear friends.
If I were to monitor and analize importations like paper and board into the Philippines where should I go to get fairly accurate data? Is there an office doing this already? I’ll pay cash or steak lunch (wagyu)…seriously.
Madonna on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 3:34 pm
“it also suggests we are not a thoroughly democratic culture but one that prefers to assign responsibility to leaders after ritual consultations have been made.”
I wouldn’t want to use the term “democratic” — better to use the typology of “individualistic” versus “communal way of thinking” — most of our leaders, Western-educated are predisposed to think in the former and apply it in management and when people don’t respond the way these leaders they expect, they think that people are apathetic or are irresponsible — which I think is a big mistake.
“communal” can be democratic too in that people defer to leaders or representatives, that is, so long as they hold these leaders as legitimate representatives or as long as people trust them. We are not individualistic in making political decisions. Which leads me to think that a parliamentary form of government I think is more suitable to the Philippines, and perhaps be its right time is near in the future.
Carl on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 4:17 pm
Thanks for your insights, J_AG. However, what do you exactly mean by: “The U.S. financial system is in a state of bankruptcy process. They can delay to take the hard medicine required that will drag this crisis for a longer period or they can end it mercifully….”
Are you referring to the zombie banks?
Nouriel Roubini and Paul Krugman have, for some time, been advocating that the U.S. government nationalize zombie banks (particularly Citibank and Bank of America).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
While I have no doubt about the wisdom and integrity of economists like Roubini and Krugman, I would like to know the reasons why the Obama administration continues to drag its feet on the issue of nationalization.
So far, Obama has moved swiftly and decisively on so many things. Faster than any U.S. President in history. He has moved on wealth redistribution, healthcare, energy. He has really shown what an activist government should be. He is undoing the trickle down policies of the past 40 years, barely a month after taking office.
Obama and his staff are no saps, I’m sure that they have taken into account the opinions of Krugman et al. His measured response to the zombie banks is uncharacteristic. Could there be other factors to consider that have not been taken into account by esteemed academicians like Krugman and Roubini?
ramrod on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 6:51 pm
“I wouldn’t want to use the term “democratic†— better to use the typology of “individualistic†versus “communal way of thinking†— most of our leaders, Western-educated are predisposed to think in the former and apply it in management and when people don’t respond the way these leaders they expect, they think that people are apathetic or are irresponsible — which I think is a big mistake.” – madonna
Not too long ago I would have diaagreed with you.
I don’t believe we can make any theoretical roadmaps in leading Filipinos based on “canned” models in economy, social psychology, poitical science, etc. Intelligent discourse is an interesting pastime but when you need to “actually” lead Pinoys you have to open your eyes, ears, and heart and be prepared to be flexible enough to dump the textbooks.`
Whatever course our people will take (as represented by our leaders), from now on I will take with a grain of salt, after seeing the other side, I’ll hazard to say that the current leaders, Gloria most especially, are are best bets for now. I for one have decided to put down my battle axe and melt it into a plow and go to work…
mlq3 on Mon, 2nd Mar 2009 9:37 pm
theory and roadmaps are useful and sometimes necessary if the goal is to institutionalize and depersonalize the functions of the institutions. of course there is no decreeing or force-marching people, they are people and eq is required. and behavior can be changed.
UP n grad on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 4:31 am
Side-topic : current-events : Some survey on Law-and-Order and outsourcing :
The 25 Riskiest Outsourcing Hubs in the World
February 26, 2009 — CIO — After a year that saw terrorist attacks in Mumbai, kidnapping for profit in Mexico, and the unexpected meltdown of Satyam, one of India’s biggest IT services firms, corporate America’s cries for the CIO to get things done “better, faster, cheaper” offshore may begin to be drowned out by the more moderate mantra of today’s outsourcing customer: “safer, more stable, more secure”
The trend emerging today, he says, is for IT outsourcing customers to seek out solutions closer to home—near shore or in the same country—where potential problems can be more closely managed.
(Editor’s note: Rankings based on mean scores in ten areas of risk as reported by The Brown-Wilson Group’s “2009: The Year of Outsourcing Dangerously”.)
1. Bogota, Colombia
2. Bangkok, Thailand
3. Johannesburg, South Africa
4. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
5. Kingston, Jamaica
6. Delhi/Noida/Gurgaon, India
7. Manila/Cebu/Makati, Philippines
8. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
9. Mumbai, India
10. Jerusalem, Israel
11. Curitiba, Brazil
12. Dalian, China
13. Juarez, Mexico
14. Brasilia, Brazil
15. Chandigarh, India
16. Colombo, Sri Lanka
17. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
18. Quezon City, Philippines
19. Accra, Ghana
20. Pune, India
21. Chennai, India
22. Hanoi, Vietnam
23. Bangalore, India
24. Hyderabad, India
25. Kolkata, India
=============================
Hmmmmm….. Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore/India or Hanoi is “safer, more stable, more secure” than Manila/Cebu/Makati.
Carl on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 8:03 am
Manolo, speaking of road maps, the late Monching Mitra, during his heydey with the Aquino administration, used to quip in private that the formula of his political success was asking the people to show him the road map so that he could lead them.
While that may have a populist ring to it, it showed a lack of vision and ideas. A very “trapo” attitude that can be visualized as sticking one’s finger to the wind. People very much like Mitra were all over the Aquino administration.
I agree that there should be flexiblility and a certain amount of ad hoc reaction and action. But I believe that there should be an underlying ideology that will anchor and guide policies. Otherwise it would mean going adrift.
None of our political parties have an ideology. I think that the bottom line for our political parties is winning elections, by any means.
mlq3 on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 9:19 am
the commonist party has an ideology and winning elections is an ideology. which is why lakas is one of the most succesful parties in our history and with a genuine grassroots network.
mlq3 on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 9:21 am
this is quite shocking.
Carl on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 9:38 am
I agree, Manolo. The communist party may be the only one that has an ideology, in the normal understanding of the word.
I also agree about your comments on Lakas: shocking!
BrianB on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:19 am
UPn’s post was what shocked MLQ3. UPn, probably includes legal and political risks as well. Legal being that outsourcing may not be as protected here as in other places.
BrianB on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:21 am
UPn, I find it nbelievable… Juarez, Mexico
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29404699/
J_AG on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:26 am
Too big to fail line….One one hand you had irrational exhuberance about asset valuations. Asset inflation…..
What is happening now is irrationality going the other way still based on greed. Deflationary expectations leads people to hold back for an even better price not thinking of the consequences to the whole market scenario. That will lead, if this belief system takes hold, to a spiral downward of demand of everyone wanting to make a killing and waiting for the market to hit bottom.
There is still a serious recession ongoing. The government based on the experience of the great depression would not want to let markets collapse completely as this time financial markets are integrated globally. The more economies have integrated their trade and financial dealings with the U.S. and Europe the more widespread the turmoil.
The dollar has replaced gold as the main medium for the reserve system of a major part of the world’s national and disparate economies.
That means credit has tightened at the wholesale level and effectively affected the consumer and commercial banking portion of banks.
The dollar reserve system operates on a claim over value guaranteed by the U.S. government. Hence ancillary to this globally people tend to place their savings in dollar assets.
If Bank of America, Citi, AIG were allowed to liquidate or go onto liquidation that would mean stockholders and bondholders all around their world would lose their investments. Institutions, pension funds in the U.S. and around the world would be affected.
The dreaded road runner moment would arrive. Without a process to allow for orderly liquidation amongst the different countries involved (coordinated action)there would be chaos in the international trading arena. Trade and finance would effectively freeze and countries would have to resort to exclusive national policies to forestall instability in their societies.
Theoretically allowing banks to fail in a purely national arena would be easy. What about across national boundaries with differing governmental systems?
Krugman and Roubini are good economists but quantitatively allowing equilibrium to take hold makes good sense. A singular bank or a company in one sector would not be that bad. But what about a systemic collapse across broad sectors of the economy since modern industrial economies are heavily integrated and linked. It would be a severe global crash. The underdeveloped economies would not be so affected as they are still basically an economy of the commons. Subsistence farming and fishing.
How do manage perceptions and expectations in times of extreme economic distress. Those with nothing to lose is no longer the problem. Those with still something to lose have to be preserved but how does one draw the line in free societies.
In Citi’s case the governments of Singapore, Abu Dhabi and the Prince from Saudi Arabia all agreed to exchange their option preferred shares to common since the only option left would be total loss.
We are talking here about the preservation of the status of the dollar world wide. Without it the U.S. would have to pass the burden of their trade and fiscal deficits to their citizens and no politico would enjoy that.
The gold bugs are there all waiting for the U.S. to capitulate. No chance of that happening….. The dollar based empire will continue.
J_AG on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:50 am
The solution will be once again kicking the can forward. The government will create special purpose vehicles to store bad assets. It is all a game of smoke and mirrors as long as the government gives its imprimatur to it.
Just like here in the Philippines the special purpose vehicles wherein banks sold off their bad assets at a discount. These special asset management vehicles are nothing but highly leveraged hedge funds that can afford to wait out for asset valuations to turn upward. They have been supported by the BSP and have an implicit guarantee against loss. They are allowed minimum capital requirements and can leverage up to 30 times.
This is where governments can spread its loses over many years up till 30 to 40 years. Future taxpayers are not around to complain and citizens are too dumb to know better.
Most especially in the Philippines where government positions are considered a capital asset to create wealth.
Businesses have only a medium term capacity for return of capital. (Depreciation) Government have far longer term horizons. Just look at the BNPP- Spent over Php 150 billion but that cost is spread over millions of citizens who are clueless.
Right after the Napoleonic wars England had a debt that was 250% of their total GDP. They went back to the gold standard and strengthened their empire till they knocked heads with Germany and Austria Hungary.
The U.S. government debt position is still not as bad but the debt position of their corporate and consumer sector is another matter all together. The world is their creditor. But they are the most powerful. Asia’a economies were fashioned to serve as a cheap source of goods and finance for them. U.S. demand slows down drastically and the mechanism also slows down.
Now everyone is saving at the same time. A new time duplicating the “Grapes of Wrath” looks to begin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1
ramrod on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:57 am
“the commonist party has an ideology and winning elections is an ideology. which is why lakas is one of the most succesful parties in our history and with a genuine grassroots network.” – mlq3
Interesting, and true. Last Christmas I had an amusing conversation with a junior officer about his talk with a captured NPA cadre. The guy was wearing tsinelas, delapidated camouflage and shorts – yet when asked why he was doing what he was doing “fighting the goverment, etc” he talked eloquently, showing intensity of commitment to a higher, nobler cause. Curiously, he told me he asked one of his soldiers more or less the same question and the looking surprised, he sheepishly answered – para sa suweldo, trabaho lang sir. Dito pa lang, you will see that this NPA problem will not go away for a long time – these people seem to be more driven…
Winning elections is an ideology? Now thats a scary thought…
J_AG on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 11:10 am
When Olympus also is in trouble.
Harvard: the Inside Story of Its Finance Meltdown
Bernard Condon and Nathan Vardi, 02.25.09, 06:00 PM EST
Forbes Magazine dated March 16, 2009
The superstars at Harvard defied markets for years– until now. Here’s the inside story of how they finally tripped up.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0316/080_harvard_finance_meltdown.html?partner=alerts
ramrod on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 11:33 am
“(Editor’s note: Rankings based on mean scores in ten areas of risk as reported by The Brown-Wilson Group’s “2009: The Year of Outsourcing Dangerouslyâ€.)” – Upn
Did the article mention what these 10 areas of risk were? This could mean that the “security” business is very promising nowadays (post Mumbai). I don’t mean just posting security guards but a more wholistic approach to asset/personnel protection…
mlq3 on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 11:51 am
there seems to be an interesting, increasing gulf between urban based cadres and leaders and those still in the hills, though; and there is also the much older phenomenon of banditry and the bandit culture to which some cadres in the hills might actually more fully belong, than to an ideologically-driven movement. patricio abinales who has studied and written on the communists for years suggests media artificially inflates both the strength and influence of the communists.
Liam on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 11:53 am
btw, what happened to FilipinoVoices.com
ramrod on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 11:55 am
Thanks UPn, you just gave me some ammunition for a business proposal
Manila/Cebu/Makati Philippines
Local strife and obstructive forces to capitalism 2.05
Corruption and organized crime 7.89
Transnational and geographical issues 3.96
Unstable currency 4.27
Personal crime rate and police to citizen ratio 8.82
Unsecured &Unprotected & unprotected networks, infrasttructure, technology & telephone 6.96
Uncontrolled environmental waste and pollution 8.44
Terrorist and rebel target threats 8.65
Legal system immaturity 8.13
Weather & climate hazards 8.9
Mean 6.81
Liam on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 11:59 am
http://www.theblackbookofoutsourcing.com/docs/2009%20Year%20of%20Outsourcing%20Dangerously.pdf
^ this is a link to the pdf report…
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 12:01 pm
“Well, you could say that American bankers, empowered by a quarter-century of deregulatory zeal, led the world in finding sophisticated ways to enrich themselves by hiding risk and fooling investors.†– Krugman
J_AG, first thanks for the link. It’s looking more and more like when market is sovereign, pyramid operations become the name of the game even by the world’s supposedly most reputable banks.
btw, great conversation going on here!
Liam on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 12:03 pm
also take a look at the difference between the results from QC and the Tri-area(Manila,Makati,Cebu)..
Madonna on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 3:22 pm
The problem with the Left is that it has been demonized by mainstream political thought — when in fact, by hewing to its original Marxist roots — it is the only group that gets the political economy right. It still holds the most relevant framework for Philippine society.
What’s shocking about Lakas? Because it was effective?
Lakas-NUCD, under the leadership of Ramos had a plan which all groups could jump on board — Ramos’ tactic of emphasizing unity, instead of going upfront on who his enemies was very successful. And it was not all motherhood either. He satisfied big business by continuing liberalization and privatization, he listened to public opinion (remember Flor Contemplacion — he fired Confessor and Roberto Romulo over incompetence on handling the issue — just ask why Gloria Arroyo’s trust rating is in the pigsty, she can’t even fire Raul Gonzales), he hunkered for peace talks with the rebel soldiers, the communists and Muslim insurgents. He had something solid to show for as achievements — and so, looking back, I don’t think his charter change was a ploy for selfish reasons.
GMA is hanging by a skin. Her judgement after 2010 may be worse, than that of Erap and even Marcos. No one among her cabinet or close-in people are there with her because they still believe in her leadership. She has already scraped the bottom of the barrel. She knows it and what she else could do but plan her exit without being overwhelmed with plunder charges upon retirement.
mlq3 on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 3:28 pm
madonna, no, the shocking comment was in reference to the findings on bpo locally.
BrianB on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 9:42 pm
That’s what she said.
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:13 pm
Lakas-NUCD, under the leadership of Ramos had a plan which all groups could jump on board — Ramos’ tactic of emphasizing unity, instead of going upfront on who his enemies was very successful. And it was not all motherhood either. He satisfied big business by continuing liberalization and privatization, he listened to public opinion (remember Flor Contemplacion — he fired Confessor and Roberto Romulo over incompetence on handling the issue — just ask why Gloria Arroyo’s trust rating is in the pigsty, she can’t even fire Raul Gonzales), he hunkered for peace talks with the rebel soldiers, the communists and Muslim insurgents. He had something solid to show for as achievements — and so, looking back, I don’t think his charter change was a ploy for selfish reasons. – Madonna
Madonna, if the Marcosian message is beginning to him home at all, I guess the best leader who could have put it to fruition better than Marcos himself was FVR. FVR, as Marcos, put the blame for the continuing scourge of the nation on the Philippine oligarchy. The “mother of all our problems” throughout history according to Ramos has been the “unholy alliance†and “perverse symbiosis†between politicians and a few families, powerful, wealthy and “greedy rent-seeking,†to whom many of the former are beholden.
But to confront the problem FVR kowtowed to Washington’s bitter prescription of liberalization, privatization and deregulation against the best practices in Asia (Japan, of course, or S. Korea and Taiwan). (US may be en route to revisiting these Asian models today to get itself out of an impending economic disaster.)
Ramos, a good soldier that he is, bowed too to People Power sentiments, still too dominating then, instead of skirting the Rule of Law to extend his term and carry the Philippines to Tiger status.
Mercy on Wed, 4th Mar 2009 9:44 pm
oh, for the Philippines to be Tiger status. Wouldn’t it have been just g-r-e-a-t had FVR ignored people-power sentiments?!!!!
bonifacio claudio on Sun, 9th Aug 2009 12:32 am
i’m just so happy to read mlq3, as well as the other contributors, & the subsequent analytical discussons on the subjects. I could say i found here the intellectual elite the nation needs.
If only they could reach out to the “masses” to enlighten their understanding of past & present issues, help in their opinion-formation, & decision-making, then i believe the unpatriotic, vested self-interest of the few could not distort historical facts to their glorification by the fooled masses (where i belong & where i tried, in some little ways i can,to mold the reasoning of small groups based on facts). But if these people cited above stay just in one little print-corner, then i strongly believe that there is a “service-for-the-country” potential going down the paper basket.
Pls gentlemen of the intellectual elite, use your dynamism & influence, so that the masses could see & hear you on tv. Let one of you “host” a program in line with this idea: go to the people from all walks to interview live to pool “questions-answers” data which will be the basis for televised comments by concerned well-known figures in the sector for enlightenment. Then back to the tv studio will be seated “No n’importe de quoi” debaters (who know what they are talking about), but must of course represent the pros & cons of the issue. Then begins the debate of the invited speakers like mlq3, etc on the tv platform. When it’s attended by wannabees from the cinema, sports, etc, then you could surely expect the masses to be there on rendez-vous. PERO SA TAGALOG po ang usapan, if the intention is to reach out to the masses’ understanding. And when i say tagalog, i mean tagalog of today, Eng-log or Taglish, not purista as to use “salungpinggan” for lamesa. TY & God bless the Filipino.