Taming Ondoy

30 September 2009

When disaster strikes no word is adequate to express commiseration and understanding. It is personal presence and concrete help that can help ease the pain. Watching people cope with it on TV leaves one with sadness and helplessness. Why must other people suffer? What can I do? For those who have been spared and suffering only vicariously, the theodicy question: where is God’s justice? How can God allow this monstrous tragedy to happen?

In my years of study on the subject of divine providence, I found no answer which is able to satisfy the human pining for God’s justice. The question is foundational in that it is the glue that holds together the whole edifice of faith. For, if a seeker can’t find justice in God there is no point believing. The same reason that if we can’t find justice in society there is no reason to behave morally? It is the promise of justice that enables us to go on living as human beings. The reverse is also true of the biblical saying, “the just shall live by faith,” – faith lives on justice or rather, the promise of justice keeps faith alive.

Theologizing, meaning in this instance, trying to make theological sense of a particular tragedy is a way of gaining mastery over what is wild and beyond collective human control. Experiencing tragedy is like dying since it marks off the victim from the rest of the “normal” every day world. But theology has the power to heal this alienation by mending the sufferer back to the whole fabric of reality. It renews our faith to a God who is faithful and merciful, which is the hidden substance of God’s justice.

Typhoon Ondoy’s unrestrained fury has the power to uproot a settled faith. Hearing a preacher enunciate God’s care in the wake of Ondoy’s devastation can be an unsettling experience. But that is precisely the message of the hour: that God cares for us, that God is there present in the midst of our suffering, that God can yet be trusted.

As Jesus hanged on the cross, the shock of pain overcame his faith wondering if God was still there. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” God’s answer was silence – absolute total silence up to the moment he gave us his spirit. But in truth God did not leave Jesus alone to his death for even death does not lie outside God’s sovereign power because God is Lord of all things in heaven and on earth, even of things that do not exist. Life and death are both in God’s hand like light and shadow that form part of God’s creation. Jesus’ resurrection testifies to the truth that whether in life or in death we are securely kept in the hollow of God’s hand. Jesus lives, not because he is special being the Son of God, but because no one is left abandoned by God in death or in a stormy weather.

But faith is never the same following a personal tragedy. It won’t survive with the devastating loss of loved ones. Faith may reemerge for one who has succeeded in implanting the experience on the very source of life and hope, which is in God. How this can happen is one of the deepest mysteries of the human spirit. This mystery can only be heuristically shared as a testimony of faith by those who have personally emerged from it. Philosophers and theologians – and preachers, too – must bow to this mystery if they wish to make it a subject of their professorial ruminations.

Typhoon Ondoy’s fury was relentless but so is the Christian faith in the worst of adversities. The rebuilding of homes and farms must now be done and so does the rebuilding of lives and of faith. While the material loss may be calculated in sums of money the violence suffered by the spirit is incalculable. This is where the prayers of the community of the faithful would be most needed. May God empower us all to withstand the trials of the body and of the spirit!

Martial Law: A Continuing Past

23 Sept 09

Presidential Proclamation 1081, the presidential fiat that placed the nation under martial law in 1972 was dated Sept. 21, but its actual effect was felt on Sept. 23 – 37th years ago today. The first few days left an indelible mark on my mind and of my fellow student activists. The feeling was of sheer terror because as if the ground of our very existence was suddenly removed from beneath us. We were totally under the mercy of the arresting officers. We could call on no one to help any one of us. Whatever support system that we had had was totally smashed by having us completely isolated. I knew then what it meant to be utterly vulnerable.

But I know of many others who had suffered worse fate.

Civil liberties were supposed to have been restored following the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship. Indeed, we are thankful that once again we breathed freedom and basked under a more democratic climate. But for some individuals and families, the terror of martial law has continued to keep them under its thrall. Forced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, harassment and surveillance, the so-called order of battle – have not really stopped upon the supposed restoration of democracy. We have what is known as a “freedom constitution” that was crafted by the government that replaced the dictatorship but apparently it doesn’t apply to some people whose numbers are alarmingly increasing. Targeted individuals and organizations are those that are perceived by government as threats to national security.

Things like this have not changed since martial law. But then, this has existed long before Presidential Proclamation 1081. The Spaniards did the same kind of thing to those they labeled ladrones and personas suspechosas. So did the Americans against insurrectos, and on to the years of the Philippine Republic. Marcos didn’t invent the horrors of martial law. It was already there but he turned this disguised evil into a matter of national policy. And the bombings of communities, the abduction of activists, and the assassination of human rights advocates including members of the clergy did not stop during the Cory Aquino dispensation but continued with the same vigor of a fierce animal through the next presidencies and on to Gloria Arroyo’s.

It appears that the human rights situation in the country is one reality that doesn’t seem to change as one administration replaces another. And now, we are again on the verge of choosing another set of leaders some of whom are running on the platform of change – pagbabago. As far as I know, none of the leading candidates for national offices has carried the issue of human rights. Maybe because they think it’s not an issue that can win votes. But perhaps more likely, they know that the human rights situation cannot improve dramatically without effecting fundamental changes in our society.

In the final analysis, martial law is but a formal declaration of an aspect of national policy that is necessary to preserve the basic features of our society. The victims of human rights abuses are not picked out at random. Rather, they are marked for having certain similarities: they are working with small farmers and landless farm workers, with marginalized lumads and poor fisherfolks, with anti-mining and ant-biofuel environmental activists, with priests and pastors who teach the poor to reclaim their honor and dignity. The present order of society has become so unpopular for being anti-people and anti-poor that it takes the armed might of the state to suppress dissent and the clamor for reforms from catching fire.

But history has shown again and again that the brutality and terror of state violence is never enough to stifle a people’s determination to change their circumstance through legal and peaceful means. Today, a people united can actually use the constitutional and peaceful channels of change to assert their rights and to impose their collective will on those who sit in government. The truth of the matter is that the ordinary citizens of this country have not yet used the fullest extent of their rights guaranteed by the constitution and the legal system to bring about the kind of change that they want. But to do this, they have to empower themselves. Against traditional politics, people empowerment is the only kind of politics that the people can believe in and trust.

Candidate Teodoro: Double-Cross from Below

The likely elevation of Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro as administration candidate for president apparently bodes ill for opposition candidates for local government positions. Despite his increasing visibility and media coverage and infomercials, the various opinion polls show Teodoro remaining at the bottom of the heap. By all measures, he is anything but winnable. But as of last night, some 90 Lakas-Kampi congressmen and party-list allies have already thrown their support for his candidacy. Now, what does “Gibo” Teodoro have that makes him the choice of the party rather than the others with better winning chances? Does it betray a devious but brilliant political strategy to keep itself in power against an unsuspecting and overconfident opposition?

First, it’s possible that the administration party has given up on the presidency itself. It’s not that the administration has got no one to challenge the more popular Villar, Escudero, Erap or Noynoy. The simple truth is that the administration of Gloria Arroyo has run out of goodwill and trust by the people. Anybody that Gloria chooses to succeed her is bound to be rejected by the electorate. So, the aim is to let the presidential candidate lose but win in the congressional and local elections – with the help of the massive war chest of the party and of Gilbert Teodoro himself.

Owing to the media hype on the emergence of a Gloria opposite – be it Noynoy or Chiz – all eyes will be trained on the presidential and to a lesser extent the senatorial race. It is assumed that the people would not mind so much the victory of an administration mayor, governor or congressman as long as her presidential choice and senatorial slate would be defeated. Elections at the local level is face-to-face, it’s about individual candidates that are closely known to the people on the ground. They are likely not to vote for administration candidate Teodoro and his senators and still vote for an administration congressman or governor.

Second, administration officials from congressman down to mayor have a nearly insurmountable advantage over their rivals from the opposition. They have been recipient of largess flowing from Malacaňang, which has translated into programs and projects that their constituencies have enjoyed during their incumbency. The people might have hated Gloria but loved her congressman and mayor. They may despise her profligacy yet admire their governor for having managed to salvage what's left for their province. It may not surprise many of us to find out that not long after the downfall of Marcos and the ascendancy of Cory Aquino, many of the Marcos congressmen and local officials came back to regain their positions.

And thirdly, no opposition party can match the administration party’s election machinery and funds. By backing up Gilbert Teodoro’s run for the presidency, administration candidates for congress and local positions will have liberal access to that. That is their other edge to opposition candidates. They will use Gilbert Teodoro’s and his party’s money to get themselves or their subalterns back to power. Due to the fact that Teodoro is languishing at the bottom of opinion polls, he will spare nothing from his vast reserve of money and influence to win. In this election, money will flow like river and armed goons will be roaming in the countryside. But candidate Teodoro won’t win mainly because his party allies below have already given up on him but will use his money and machinery to get their own victories.

The administration may be not able to keep the presidency, but it may yet win in the larger picture. Already, top administration officials like Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya will run as congressman in Camarines Sur. Former Secretary Raul Gonzales has made known his intention to run for mayor in Iloilo. Presidential spokesman Anthony Golez will also seek a local post, and so does Executive Secretary Ermita. It looks like the tenants of Malacaňang are fast packing up their things to bring the fight to their provincial bailiwicks. For the administration, that's where the real battle is gong to be fought.

And candidate Teodoro? He will be tons poorer but he is rich enough not to get impoverished. But after that little distraction, it will be business as usual in local politics under a new presidency. And who knows that with GMA's boys and girls romping it up in the local contest a door is being left ajar for Gloria Arroyo to make a comeback via the backdoor.

Can an Elected President Change Society?

Compared to the other candidates who are still left in the running, Nonoy Aquino would be a good pick for people who are hoping for better governance. And he can actually win, if the Yellow Fever could sustain its run till May 2010. No one should forget, however, that he comes from the mold of traditional politics. As a congressman and senator he behaved very much like our every day elective official. He has not made a mark as a maverick among his peers, much less as a reform-minded and progressive legislator. Nor has he shown leadership to the more vocal young oppositionists in the likes Chiz Escudero. But unlike any of them, he is bound, or perhaps feels morally obligated to carry on the torch of his idolized father and mother. Still there’s nothing in his personal and political experience that would make him depart from the ways of traditional politics. But even the best of traditional politics or the noblest of trapos could not save our country.

Traditional politics in the Philippines rests on the pillars of patronage as opposed to the politics of people’s empowerment. The politics of patronage actually corresponds to the kind of economic relations obtaining in Philippine society. An economy that is backward and based on monopoly ownership of land does not make a free and independent electorate, most of whom are impoverished peasants, subsistent farmers and rural workers. These people know by experience that their vote is the command of their masters and that elections have not changed things in their life. Without hesitation they would give their votes to the patron who can give handouts more than the others. At least during election seasons they can get an extra income.

In addition to that, the country’s middle class and intellectual elites continue to hold on to the illusion that good governance can be attained if only good men and women get elected through an honest, orderly and credible electoral process in its present form. Hence, the clamor for reform-minded candidates. This view is exemplified by former NEDA secretary-general Cilieto Habito’s support for the candidacy of Bro. Eddie Villanueva and his senatorial slate under his Bangon Pilipinas Party. Habito is moved by his belief that the “best way for men and women of goodwill to change our government is to be in it.” This same belief could have motivated Nick Perlas, a self-proclaimed activist and environmentalist to join in the fray.

The participation of these new players in the political arena and the successful run of Governors Panlilio of Pampanga and Grace Padaca of Isabela has served to reinforce the hope for real substantial change via putting good men and women in government. But as their 3-year term is about to end they have yet to show evidence that their ascendancy has made a dent on government, much less on empowering the common people.

The question to consider regarding the candidacy of non-trapos is not about winnability but rather whether the kind of change that is truly meaningful to the majority of the people who are poor can be achieved by putting them in government. I doubt very much that they can do it. I doubt that they would try to do it. I even doubt that they are thinking of doing it at all.

So, does putting them in government serve no purpose at all? Of course, it does – depending on what that purpose it does serve. It’s definitely better to have honest and good people in government. But having honest and good men in government can’t change government and society – given our kind of society. The real key to effecting substantial and meaningful change in society is the genuine and massive empowerment of the people – economically, politically and spiritually. The electoral exercise can be used as a battlefield for the people’s empowerment. Change won’t come from candidates who get the winning number of votes. There is change if and when the people achieve empowerment from their participation in the electoral process. In other words, what an election must accomplish is the people’s empowerment rather than the victory of certain candidates. It’s the electoral exercise, dummy, not the candidates. It’s not Eddie Villanueva or Noynoy Aquino but the masses of people who are energized, organized and mobilized to use their numbers to choose whoever they want to serve them. Then they can put on the table the agenda of government that they want.

Friends, an election is about people standing up to regain their powers from the politicians. I invite you to consider that as a proposition.

Noynoy Aquino: the Great False Hope

Early last night at Club Filipino, Sen. Mar Roxas announced his decision to throw his support behind Sen. Noynoy Aquino for the presidency. He set aside his presidential ambition to pave the way for Sen. Aquino to consider running for president. We can only speculate how Sen. Roxas came to this rather unexpected decision after having apparently firmed up his party’s endorsement of his candidacy. He has also made known to the public his presidential intention through infomercials on national TV for which he spent millions of pesos.

This sudden turn of events has put a monkey wrench on the long-term plans of front liners in the presidential race, particularly Sen. Manny Villar and former president Joseph Estrada. As standard bearer of another party, the Nacionalista Party, Sen. Villar is not likely to withdraw from the race. Estrada has already said that he won’t sacrifice his candidacy for the sake of Sen. Nonoy Aquino. Should Noynoy be considered the unity candidate against the administration, Villar and Estrada and the others in the opposition camp would be perceived as playing the spoiler’s role.

Liberal Party officials, like Sen. Francis Pangilinan says that, like Roxas, each one of them has to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the nation. It’s not about Roxas or Aquino or Pangilinan but the nation, he says. Well, this is quite a departure from the campaign lines that are dished out on TV. In each of those infomercials, the idea is the same: this or that candidate is endowed with personal qualities that would endear them to the masses of voters. Noynoy’s unexpected and sudden entry in the presidential race appears to have injected new elements into the coming political campaign.

Noynoy’s propaganda campaign line will be defined by what is popularly considered the legacy of his father, Ninoy and mother, Cory. This propaganda line would be unbeatable especially among the “yellow” constituency and the intellectual middle class. Even the corporate residents of Makati business district would be drawn into what would be touted as a vote for change (echoes of the Obama campaign in the U.S.). This time, the Catholic Church would not be able to hide its partiality in favor of its favorite daughter Cory’s son. Even Erap could not help but lose a portion of his mass following.

Noynoy’s election campaign would strike a responsive chord in many a Filipino heart that have longed for the final realization of the promises of EDSA. For them the election period would be a season of hope, of a golden moment to make another try for a transformed society. But they will be in for a disappointment so great that it could radically alter the course of Philippine democracy. If he lost the contest in a relatively clean election, those who had hoped for his victory would lose hope in the Filipino electorate. Should he win, the disappointment would be greater for it will only prove that it takes more than a good man to bring change to the nation.

Even now, they should learn from the Obama experience. Barack Obama captured the U.S. presidency riding on the crest of a popular clamor for change, which means a radically turn from the Bush regime that favored big business in the domestic front and military adventurism in the international front. But Obama wants to play by the rules of Washington that are already stacked in favor of sectors that benefit from the status quo – the big conglomerates, Wall Street, the megabanks and monopolistic military contractors. The Republican Party has regrouped under only one agenda – to make Obama a failure. He could not even rely on his party, some of whom are really Republican in Democratic clothing. And there’s a huge conservative constituency that is driven by fear of change. Obama has since retreated from his election promises in order to save his presidency.

Noynoy Aquino is not an Obama who is of humble origin. He is also a Cojoanco, scion of the landed gentry. The Cory legacy is actually made in Makati and blessed by the Catholic hierarchy. In order to introduce basic changes, he would have to betray those who were behind his elevation to the nation’s highest office. His father Ninoy was killed by his enemies. Should Noynoy follow his father’s fate, it will be in the hands of his friends. Ninoy the father was driven to his death by a robust messianic ambition. Noynoy the son is apparently without such an ambition. But does he have the greatness to transcend his class and betray his friends?