Saraah!

I have a few things to say about our presidential system and democracy.

First, our legal history, since American colonization, has always leaned towards a strong chief executive. This has never been more felt than during the Marcos era.

The president is the representative of the majority. He is a symbolic figurehead of the nation backed by popular mandate. He has powers only the congress can legitimately veto namely, the declaration of martial law, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, declaration of war or a state of emergency. Even with the existence of the legislative branch, he has an array of peculiar prerogatives to stand against the dissonance of the 180 or so members of congress.

Second, each presidential term can be rightly called an era-of-its-own in Philippine political history. This is to say that every president has programs, socio-political agendas and economic policies different from those of his predecessors. Sometimes the gains of the previous terms are improved and sometimes disregarded.

There is only a continuity and uniformity of policies during the incumbency of a president. Every thing that came before and will come after are frangible. The incumbent president is the sole author and navigator of the nation’s course and history. He owes nothing in the past neither does he invest heavily in the future. His only concern is to make sure that the nation does not fall apart during his six-year term. Whereat (hehehehe), we can cut up 30 years of history neatly so: Marcos, Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo. That’s acing Philippine History in a line.

Third, the President is chosen by the majority. But winning the highest number of votes during election does not mean winning the majority votes. It happens that the margin between the winner and the runner-up is sometimes so slender to support any claim that a decisive plebscite has indeed taken place (Linz, 57, 1.1, 1990). The Estrada and Gloria electoral contests have been popularly referred to as the battle between minorities, what with a slew of presidential aspirants who joined in the race. This explains why no President of this country has ever been perfect much less satisfactory in the eyes of plurality. Well, partly also because the bitter losers still sue for president.

Fourth, following Nixon’s “the Great Silent Majority”: in a very plural state, those who scream and shout the loudest get attention. Usually, the volume of their protestations is indirectly proportional to their numbers. In other words, the smaller the group, the louder and rowdier they get. Put differently, the bigger the group, the more they become silent to the point of being totally unheard. Imagine the insecure kid who dresses up a storm. (See scene kids: urbandictionary.com). He overcompensates in how he looks and how he acts in a desperate attempt to mute his insignificance. On the other hand, the cool ones don’t have to make any effort at all.

The first People Power was cool. Those that came next merely pass hype for substance.

Fifth, EDSA I is momentous. I have no doubts as to its importance in our history. Without EDSA I we shall have never known the meaning of liberty, freedom and democracy. EDSA I revised our sacrosanct notions if not fixation for and about the Presidential System too. Unfortunately, we have taken little steps to prevent further abuses of power by the chief executive. The changes made in our constitution are minor repairs informed only by our mistakes and experiences in the past.

I guess the writers of the present constitution were forced to come up with a new manuscript with such deliberate dispatch, they had no time to stop by for details along the way. If constitutions were computer programs, we are still at the beta-testing stage of Philippine Constitution version 1973.2 (2 refers to our present 1987 const.).

Sixth and conclusion. The president is very powerful. He can create and realize good programs that will redound to the country’s benefit. But even with all the best of intentions he still can never meet the satisfaction or approval of the entire majority.

So the president spends a large portion of his tenure with compromises to opposing political parties or other influential interest groups. Appeasing them most of the time in the six years he serves as president. Yet everytime that the president incurs the wrath of a few, he faces the power of despotism under the color of a legitimate people power. What has been the course of last resort becomes the immediate and ready-made solution to any problem–by way of muscle memory and reflex perhaps?

Dude, it is okay to commemorate EDSA I once in a while but it is not okay to relive it everyday.

If we accept the premises stated here, then the problems are but natural to a plural, democratic, presidential system. We can’t expect presidents to please everyone. If he ticks off a few, and the few make noise, then that is just normal. People power must not be oft and easily hailed. The frequency shall only abate its significance and the hastiness by which it is called for shall only wear it down.

Corollary, I must say this to myself, who at present has overextended his welcome in this entry, and for those who make casual and irresponsible calls for people power: shut up.

People Power of 86 will turn 22 in two days. Yet I am not so certain that the lessons of the past have firmly taken root. During the heyday of the first EDSA revolution we’ve seen a motley exercise of direct democracy. Filipinos wanted a revolution of sorts, and revolution they did. We had more than the usual dose of liberality and people sovereignty that we can ever hope to handle.

From a surfeit of democracy in the last twenty years, people power spills over the streets today just as it had before. Only this time it is more of a shallow talismanic attachment to nostrums unaligned with present contexts than it is sincere. The slogans are repetitive. The ideas bland and uninspired. The calls mute and dismal. The participants unimanigative hypocrites. Talk the talk, but talk pro forma not with substance. I wonder whether there’s a default template of the expedited logic that if X is bad, X must resign written in our genes. Is the ability to jump to hasty conclusions hereditary? Or has EDSA I nurtured us to think and act that way?

I find that saying gloria resign grates my throat. Not because that I shout it often but saying it once is already one too many. Gloria resign: what silly subterfuge! As if the minute phrase carries the power to fix our problems in one deft stroke. I would sooner spend the saliva on a bad recit in class than on silly one-liner-whiners.

Gloria resign. It’s not so easy as that. We take one step forward, we take a million steps back. That does not make sense. It’s a poor trade-off of efforts if you ask me. Whereas, the nexus between gloria and all our current misery is broken and vague but why persist on drawing the connection? There is not the necessary link that sets the motion to an unbroken chain of events from gloria to why there are snatchers in the UP fair or why on earth people are rude.

GMA is to the Philippines as the godfather is to the mafia is poor syllogism. I’m sorry UP Law. I’m afraid I can not join you in your grand parade this once. I break out steam by reading funny stories like why druglords still live with their mothers. As such, I do not just take to the streets because the posters say that I should. There are other forces at play here. To look for these forces in the streets is an exercise in futility.

And come on. If gloria is really the problem then why can’t we hire someone to snuff the life out of her? Let’s go find out how much truth there is in the gloria rhetoric. But I guess no one’s that convinced to do such a thing. Of course I’m BEING stupid. Well, I can’t say that most of us aren’t.