Wanted: More anger
Are Filipinos angry enough to demand accountability and justice for the massive corruption now in full public view with the flood control scandal? After the disappointing turnout in the Nov. 30 “Trillion Peso March,” I couldn’t help but wonder. I hear many talk about public outrage, yet life goes on without us seeing more visible signs—at least nothing like the angry crowds of young people that toppled a corrupt government in Nepal last September, or caused a Cabinet reshuffle in Indonesia, while forcing the government to drop a planned hefty hike in housing allowances for lawmakers.
Our problem is that there are at least three different groups angry enough to go to the streets, and that have indeed been organizing street protests, but are, in the process, splitting what could otherwise be a huge protest into smaller, inconsequential rallies. First are those who would like to see the guilty held accountable and punished, but would rather not see President Marcos unseated and have Vice President Sara Duterte take over as constitutional successor—even as many (or given his poll ratings, possibly most) Filipinos believe that accountability for the massive corruption goes right up to him, at least by command responsibility or willful neglect. This is the group that converged on Edsa last Nov. 30, but was portrayed by critics in social media, fairly or unfairly, as hypocrites who are “loud against corruption, but silent on the masterminds.” Still, not a few of them believe he could not possibly be part of it because it was he who broke it out into public attention, something irrational for him to do had he been guilty himself.
On the opposite side are the diehard Duterte supporters, or DDS, which also connotes the notorious Davao death squads believed to have murdered countless people in the course of his supposed war on drugs as mayor of Davao City, and later as president of the country. Their aim is to unseat Mr. Marcos and have the VP take over power. For the first group, that would have the country jump from the frying pan into the fire, believing another Duterte presidency would lead to even greater disaster than the crisis we are already in. The motivations for this second group can range from a genuine (if misguided) belief that another Duterte presidency would be good for the country, to self-serving agendas, expecting to personally benefit with power, wealth or both, from having the Dutertes regain the Palace.
The third group is those who see both Mr. Marcos and Duterte as corrupt and harmful for the country, hence, would like both of them out—and this is far from a monolithic group either. While some appear to be engaged in wishful thinking that both can be forced to voluntarily resign, most of them see it happening only through extraconstitutional means, i.e., by having the military withdraw support from both, and take power by force. Retired high-ranking military officers are known to be among the plotters in this group, who supposedly would install a junta of military and/or civilian leaders to take and hold power until a democratically elected government can be installed. Many people I know are uncomfortable and opposed in varying degrees to the idea of a junta, which they dismiss as never having succeeded in bringing about good governance anywhere else in the world.
If you were to hit the streets, which group would you be most comfortable joining? I certainly wouldn’t join the second group, but do not feel strongly enough about either the first or the third, precisely because of the compromises inherent in both. That is, the first could redound to supporting selective justice, as some believe is beginning to emerge given how the Independent Commission on Infrastructure has so far stopped short of indicting the President’s cousin, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. This is in spite of how he had always been known to be in a tight alliance, even long before the flood control scandal broke out, with former Ako Bicol party list Rep. Elizaldy ”Zaldy” Co, portrayed as the central villain in the lower House of Congress.
On the other hand, the third flouts the rule of law by setting the Constitution aside, and I’ve heard it argued that if we allow that to happen again now, how are we to keep it from happening again and again in the future? Another argument against the third is the likelihood that once the temporary junta eventually holds a democratic election, Duterte is still likely to get elected anyway, given her continuing dominance in the survey polls. That is why resuming the pursuit of her impeachment is the prior order of business for those who wish to eliminate the Duterte scenario altogether.
But it seems to me that all this is why we have yet to see enough unified anger to force a change. Most of us may still be unsure what we want that change to be like.
—————-
cielito.habito@gmail.com
