FASCISM WITH FILIPINO CHARACTERISTICS
A
BILL OF HORRORS
By:
John Nery - @jnery_newsstand
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 04:05 AM June 02, 2020
…let
us, for now, focus on one outrage: the bill that is quickly making its way
through the chambers of Congress known as the proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of
2020.” The just thing to do is to prevent its passage into law.
…Senate
Bill No. 1083, which the House of Representatives is adopting in toto to speed
its passage, seeks to give even more power to the Executive.
Consider
Section 29 (I am using the 3rd Reading Copy found on the Senate website). It
provides for detention without any judicial warrant of arrest. That a judge—not a policeman, or a prosecutor,
or any other member of the Executive — should issue an arrest warrant is
one of the most important rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Section
29 reminds me of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ attempt to retain his power to
arrest anyone at will, even after ostensibly lifting martial rule on Jan. 17,
1981.
The
day before, he signed Presidential Decree No. 1836. Section 1 of the short
decree gave him the authority to continue ordering the arrest of anyone even
without judicial intervention. “During a state of martial law or when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the President may issue
orders of arrest or commitment orders as to any person whose arrest or
detention is, in the judgment of the President, required by public safety and
as a means to repel or quell an invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or
imminent danger thereof.” Months later, Marcos also issued Letters of
Instruction 1125-A and 1211, formalizing the presidential commitment order or
PCO.
In 1983, after the Supreme Court uncharacteristically ruled
against Marcos and found the PCO unconstitutional, Marcos issued PD 1877 —
it was again an attempt to allow him to order arrests without judicial
intervention. The conditions for exercising the power, now called the
preventive detention action or PDA, were much more detailed and stringent than
for the PCO. The language too was much less peremptory. The new decree provided
“That should a military commander or the head of a law enforcement agency
ascertain that the person or persons to be arrested has/have committed, is/are
actually committing or is/are about to commit the above-mentioned crimes, or
would probably escape or commit further acts which would endanger public order
and safety as well as the stability of the state before proper warrant could be
obtained, the said military commander or the head of law enforcement agency may
apply to the President of the Philippines for a preventive detention action
against the person or persons ….”
The
PDA also set a time limit on detention: “not exceeding one year.”
In
both the PCO and the PDA, it was clear that the (unconstitutional) authority to
order arrests without any judicial warrant lodged in one person: Marcos
himself.
The
proposed anti-terror law of 2020 vests
this awesome power in a nine-person Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), and it
does so in an almost incidental manner, through Section 29, rather than through
Section 45, which creates the ATC, or Section 46, which defines its functions.
Section
29, which begins by stating that the decades-old provisions on arbitrary
detention do not apply in terrorism situations, blithely declares that “any law
enforcement agent or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in
writing by the ATC has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of
the acts defined and penalized under” the proposed law, shall “deliver said
suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of fourteen
(14) calendar days,” extendible by a maximum of 10 calendar days.
In
other words, a mere designation from the
ATC (composed mainly of Cabinet secretaries, and whose secretariat will be the
National Intelligence Coordinating Agency) will be enough to detain someone
suspected of terrorism, or of any of the different degrees of participation
outlined in the bill, for as long as 24
days. This is a civil rights
calamity—and as we should have
learned from bitter experience under Marcos, can very quickly become a
weapon, a continuing act of terror, against the people themselves. To serve and
save democracy, don’t turn public officials and police officers into
terrorists.
With
all due respect, we CANNOT trust the police and military to accurately identify
real terrorists. Abuses will surely happen. Remember Tokhang? Remember human
rights violations under the militarist lockdown? #JunkTerrorBill #LabanMamayan
Raoul
Manuel,
@iamraoulmanuel
Philippine
Daily Inquirer (June 5, 2020)
“Knee
on the National Neck,” Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial, June 3, 2020:
“Impending
Reign of Terror with Anti-Terror Act” by Solita Collas-Monsod, Philippine Daily
Inquirer (June 6, 2020):
“A
Law That Breeds Terror” by Joel Ruiz Butuyan, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 8,
2020):
“Anti-Terrorism
Law: A Double Whammy” by Antonio T. Carpio, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 9,
2020):
“Anti-Terrorism
or Anti-Democracy Bill” by Richard Heydarian, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 9,
2020):
THE STATE TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
Jus
sanguinis - Citizenship depends on your parents’ citizenship
Jus
solis - Citizenship depends on where you were born
Jus
ko po - Citizenship doesn’t matter, you’ll be arrested just on the suspicion of
terrorism
CRONY
CAPITALIST DENNIS UY
CRONY
CAPITAL: HOW DUTERTE EMBRACED THE OLIGARCHS
President
Rodrigo Duterte promised to destroy the Philippines’ elite. Instead, he chose
his own
Aurora
Almendral, Contributing writer
Nikkei
Asian Review
December
4, 2019 15:10 JST
…One
former high-ranking elected official went a step further. Far from taking down
a system of businessmen and politicians working together for personal profit, Duterte is “cultivating his own set of
cronies,” he said.
Davao
connections
Few
men have had a more spectacular rise than Dennis
Uy.
Uy,
a 45-year-old third-generation Chinese-Filipino from Davao del Norte, is the
son of provincial traders who dealt in copra, maize and bananas. As he
described in an interview with Nikkei in 2017, Uy met Duterte in Davao city,
where he was mayor for over two decades. The men became friends. “He is a
mentor in life [and] in leadership,” Uy said of Duterte.
Uy
built Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, his fuel company, into one of the largest
in the country, capable of going head-to-head with Chevron. He also expanded
his business into shipping and logistics. By 2016, Uy was one of Duterte’s top
presidential campaign donors. The next year, Duterte rang the bell at the
Philippine Stock Exchange on the 10th anniversary of Phoenix going public. Uy
and Duterte patted each other on the shoulders and traded effusive public
compliments.
Since
then, Uy has embarked on a head-spinning acquisition spree: convenience stores,
a digital startup, a casino franchise, a bakery chain, a Ferrari dealership,
and a water utility -- H2O Ventures, which was used to gain a backdoor listing
on the stock exchange, and has since been turned into a casino developer. On
top of all that, he gained rights to develop a 177-hectare multiuse city with
office buildings, high-end retail outlets, sport centers and a resort, rising
from a former American air base 90 km north of Manila.
Uy
has racked up directorates and seats on the boards of companies, many of them
owned by old-money oligarchs eager to associate with a man so closely linked
with Duterte. Before Duterte became president, Uy was on the board of three
public companies. By 2019, Dow Jones research shows that he is CEO, chairman or
director at 27 firms, and a member of numerous professional and regional
organizations. This year, he debuted on Forbes’ list of the richest Filipinos
at number 22. He has, in the past, denied using his personal relationship with
Duterte for economic gain. Uy did not respond to multiple requests for an
interview for this article.
Even
though Uy projects an image of soft-spoken, provincial humility, one tycoon who
has had dealings with him described a man fond of ostentatious displays of
wealth and with a penchant for sports cars and other luxuries.
“He
has a Richard Mille watch that you should not be wearing when you’ve got so
much debt to the banks,” he said, referencing timepieces that sell for six
figures. He wants to be a “big shot,” the tycoon said. “He wants to be the next
taipan.”
His
rush to the top has been fueled partly by borrowing. Uy is estimated by Forbes
Asia to have amassed around $2 billion
in debt.
See:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Crony-capital-How-Duterte-embraced-the-oligarchs
ACTIVATING
THE RULE OF LAW
By:
Randy David - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 04:50 AM February 16, 2020
Over
the last three decades, many of us took comfort in the belief that the
Constitution that was crafted and ratified in the aftermath of the 1986 People
Power Revolution will never again permit any would-be autocrat to use any of
its provisions to override the rule of law. How illusory that belief has proven
to be!
The
1987 Constitution, overwhelmingly ratified by the Filipino people in a historic
national plebiscite on Feb. 2, 1987, sought to buttress the bill of rights and
enlarge the scope for civil society participation in decision-making. In
particular, it rewrote the martial law provisions that Ferdinand Marcos had
used in 1972 to install himself as a dictator, virtually making it obligatory
for the coequal branches of government to check nearly every exercise of
executive power.
Today, hardly anybody remembers or
celebrates Feb. 2 as Constitution Day. More significantly, no one seems to
think the constitution holds any special value in the face of the tough
problems that a leader of a struggling country like ours needs to solve. And
so, in an astonishing display of submissiveness and timidity, the legislature
and the courts have permitted President Duterte to run the country with as much
leeway as he had been allowed to rule over Davao City when he was its mayor.
And, all this, without Mr. Duterte having to invoke the emergency powers of the
presidency.
“How did this happen?” my friend
Nandy Pacheco of The Gunless Society wondered in a conversation the other day.
He was not so much interested in figuring out what the President is up to, as
in understanding how the Filipino people
could possibly rationalize and support his brand of governance. “Duterte is
merely acting true to form,” Nandy says, referring to his unorthodox ways as
Davao mayor. “The question is: why do we
allow it.”
It’s a good question. But, I think
the answer cannot be divorced from the reasons why Mr. Duterte has been bold
enough to act the way he has — that is, without regard for what we have long
assumed to be the established norms governing the conduct of the presidency and
the exercise of political power in a democracy.
If
he had any reservations about applying the same style he had perfected as mayor
to the larger arena of national politics, these would have been quickly put to
rest by the awesome public approval he has been getting through the opinion
surveys. This approval cuts across all social classes and regions.
The
Duterte style appears to be a blend of at least two things. The first is a
unique way of engaging audiences that combines tough talk with crass humor, and
self-righteous moralizing with an oversimplified view of the world. And, the
second is an unfaltering will to act that eschews reasoned discussion of any
issue.
This
style seems to serve him well regardless of the issue. It could be the jailing
of Sen. Leila de Lima, the cancellation of the Inquirer owners’ contract of
lease on a government-owned property, the cancellation of the “onerous”
contracts of the water companies, the renewal of the franchise of the ABS-CBN
broadcasting network, the withdrawal of the country’s membership in the
International Criminal Court, the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement,
or the so-called pivot to China and the concomitant refusal to assert the
favorable arbitral tribunal ruling on the West Philippine Sea. Or, to take a
more recent instance, the issue could be the fairness and wisdom of imposing a
travel ban to and from China in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak.
Whatever
reasons he gives for his decisions, they rarely rise above his personal
feelings or grudges. He shows no patience for nuanced arguments or for the need
for careful study by experts. He delights in being able to interrupt all debate
by the mere issuance of a decision, leaving his spokespersons and members of
his Cabinet to either soften the blow or to find a legal and nonpersonal
justification for the decision.
As
the surveys show, this style of governance appears to work most of the time. The public doesn’t seem to care about the
issues. Sometimes, as in the case of the public’s attitude toward China,
the popular view may even be at odds with the President’s own thinking. Yet,
the people continue to believe in him, to hang on to his every word, to laugh
at his jokes even when they are improper, and to break into applause whenever
he rants against the “enemies” of the people.
To
ask how Filipinos’ manifest approval of Mr. Duterte’s opinions and actions can
be reconciled with their own beliefs and normative instincts may be the wrong
question to raise. Clearly, they like
the man not for what he believes in or stands for, but for what he symbolizes —
the antithesis of an elite-dominated liberal Establishment that promised a
better life after Marcos but miserably failed to deliver.
Like
other populist politicians in the world today, Mr. Duterte speaks to the people’s deepest unexamined resentments. Thus,
even when they can’t identify with the undisguisedly personal reasons he gives
for his actions, they find a way to portray these actions as necessary. In
this, they are not very different from Solicitor General Jose Calida — ever
prepared to flash the most improbable moral justification or legal norm in
order to give the boss’ wishes a veneer of constitutionality and correctness.
This
should make clear to us a lesson so commonsensical that it needs no restating:
no constitution is self-executing. No law is. The power of any fundamental law rests in the people’s collective
readiness to wield it as a shield — as though their lives depended on it —
whenever freedom and the rule of law are threatened.
[public.lives@gmail.com]
David
correctly locates a major part of the problem of the dictatorial rule of
Duterte in the Philippine electorate that supports him. He also correctly
locates the solution in upholding the rule of law, especially that of the
fundamental law, the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The rule of law in order to be
effective has to be supported by the Philippine electorate. Unfortunately, it turns
out that the solution is the problem itself.
The
Philippine electorate has failed to recognize the destructiveness of the
dictatorial Marcos regime, the political and economic gains of the democratic
advancements that replaced it, and the beneficial political and economic future
signaled by an effective democracy. We are witnessing a failure of memory, information, and
education, of reasoning with integrity based on objective data of quality, on
the part of the Philippine people, of its leaders and of society at large.
While
it is true that economic advancement under our struggling Philippine democracy
has abjectly prejudiced the masses and benefited the elite principally, the solution
to this deplorable state of affairs is not dictatorship but rather reformist policy
that advances political and economic inclusion. The solution is inclusive development.
Dictatorial
rule in the Philippines inevitably works against inclusion, always conspiring with
cronyism and plunder, a poisonous formula that because of cultural and historical
reasons appears to be almost irresistible.
Tragically,
the Philippine electorate that supports dictatorial rule is working against its
own political and economic interests, out of ignorance, to put it bluntly.
CHINA TELECOM AS THE THIRD TELCO
By: Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:06 AM June 04, 2020
On Nov. 21, 2017, Malacañang announced that President Duterte had offered China the “privilege” of operating the third telco in the country. On Nov. 7, 2018, the National Telecommunications Commission disclosed that the Udenna-China Telecom consortium won the bidding for the third telco. Udenna is owned by Davao businessman Dennis Uy, and China Telecom is a state-owned company of China.
On March 10, 2020, the House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 78 amending the Public Service Act to exclude telcos as public utilities which, under the Constitution, must at least be 60 percent Filipino-owned. The amendment will allow foreigners to own 100 percent of telco companies. Apparently, China Telecom wants to come in as a majority, or even 100 percent owner, of the third telco. In a previous column, I explained why House Bill No. 78 is unconstitutional. The framers of our Constitution, in discussing Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution requiring public utilities to be at least 60 percent Filipino-owned, expressly referred to telco companies. Congress has no power to change the clear intent of a provision of the Constitution.
Here, I will explain that another provision of the Constitution, not covered in House Bill No. 78, also requires telcos to be 60 percent Filipino-owned. Telcos, which cannot operate without utilizing radio frequencies, must comply with Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which provides: “All xxx natural resources are owned by the State. xxx The State may directly (exploit such natural resources), or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such persons.”
Radio frequencies are natural resources owned by the State. Every franchise granted by Congress to utilize radio frequencies contains this provision: “The radio spectrum is a finite resource that is part of the national patrimony and the use thereof is a privilege conferred upon the grantee by the State xxx.” This is a clear acknowledgement that radio frequencies are natural resources owned by the State, and can be utilized only by a corporation that is 60 percent Filipino-owned.
A corporation that utilizes a natural resource may or may not be a public utility. Mining companies exploit natural resources owned by the State and must be 60 percent Filipino-owned, but they are not public utilities because they do not deal with the public. Radio and TV companies utilize radio frequencies and, as mass media, must be 100 percent Filipino-owned, but they are not public utilities because their audiences do not pay for the broadcasts or telecasts.
A corporation may be a public utility without utilizing a natural resource. A transportation company is a public utility because it provides an essential service to the public for a fee, but it does not utilize any natural resource owned by the State. A transportation company must be 60 percent Filipino-owned.
Telcos like PLDT or Globe utilize radio frequencies and must be 60 percent Filipino-owned. In addition, telcos are also public utilities because they provide an essential service to the public for a fee. A telco must be 60 percent Filipino-owned for two separate and distinct constitutional requirements: first, a telco utilizes a natural resource owned by the State; and second, a telco is a public utility.
House Bill No. 78 attempts to free telcos from the 60 percent Filipino ownership requirement by redefining telcos as nonpublic utilities under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution. But telcos obviously continue to utilize a natural resource and must still be 60 percent Filipino-owned under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
…Will the Supreme Court allow Congress to redefine words and phrases in the Constitution, effectively usurping the primordial duty and power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution? Will the Supreme Court allow an amendment to the Constitution by ordinary legislation, without a constituent assembly or constitutional convention, and without ratification by the people?
Authoritarianism
never works in the Philippines because it is always joined to cronyism and plunder:
FASCISM
with FILIPINO CHARACTERISTICS—CRONYISM and PLUNDER
It
is the Philippine electorate—seduced by their desire for a dictator—that put
Duterte into power.
The
Philippine electorate is, to be blunt about it, ignorant, desperate, and in
some undeniably logical yet concomitantly twisted manner, incorrigibly perverse:
“The
Philippine Electorate Is the Problem”
Photo labeled free for noncommercial reuse
ReplyDeletePhoto link: https://www.wallpaperflare.com/rodrigo-duterte-on-stage-adult-celebration-election-festival-wallpaper-avnnt
Gonzalinho
One of the ideas behind the 1987 Constitution was to check the power of the president and prevent a repeat of the Marcos regime. The fact that a dictatorial president like Duterte can run roughshod over the 1987 Constitution and the democratic institutions designed to check the abuse of presidential power begs for a remedy.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
How did we get here? The people elected a dictator because they were not educated in the abuses of the Marcos regime and because they were attracted by the leadership of a warlord. So it seems to me the root of this problem is first, ignorance, and second, the evil attraction exerted on hearts that are unchristian, not entirely, but in some important respect, yes.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason is simply that electoral choices are limited. Elections do not favor the unknown, unfunded, and poor, however competent or upstanding. The reasons for a poorly working democracy are structural.
Gonzalinho
German historians say the rise of Adolph Hitler could have been prevented by upholding human rights and the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteNotice that Duterte's first target when he was elected was trashing human rights. The rule of law has been the greatest casualty of his time in power. The Constitution is regularly attacked.
We are dealing with Adolph Hitler in the person of Rodrigo Duterte.
Gonzalinho
In the Philippines we are being forcibly dragged down a serious downhill fascist trajectory.
ReplyDeleteWe should be deeply concerned that we might tip over into another Venezuela, according to the classic Latin America formula for authoritarian rule: dictatorship, cronyism, and plunder.
Gonzalinho
CRONY CORRUPTION NEVER LEFT US
ReplyDeleteBy Antonio J. Montalvan II
Philippine Daily Inquirer
June 22, 2020
…The Cojuangco saga never ended with the triumph of good over the evil of crony corruption. In 2016, we elected a president who has no qualms to abet the rise of a new crony from Davao City, awarding him the country’s third telco firm, with government guaranteeing loans used for his buying spree of corporate takeovers. Behest loans are back.
See: https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/philippine-daily-inquirer-1109/20200622/281758451546178
Gonzalinho
DON’T BLAME FILIPINOS FOR INCREASINGLY POWERFUL DUTERTE, BLAME THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM By Bianca Ysabelle Franco
ReplyDeleteThe Globe Post, June 4, 2019
It is sensible for Filipinos to believe in their president who champions their rights and desires. The approval for Duterte is due to his ability to project the people’s aspirations, not because they have been deceived to do so. More importantly, Duterte legitimizes the people’s frustrations against a political establishment that has long disparaged them.
It is not the people who are to blame for an increasingly powerful Duterte, but the political system that has failed them time and again. This time, this political system created a man who ruined democracy for the people who elected him.
See: https://theglobepost.com/2019/06/04/philippines-duterte-popularity/
The great irony is that the system, democracy, albeit weak, has not failed the masses. It has brought about major economic advancement for the country, although the benefits have been felt mainly by the elite. This inequity has to be addressed by enlightened social spending. Tragically, the electorate is largely ignorant of our economic rehabilitation—slow, painful—since the catastrophic Marcos dictatorship—and wants to recapitulate historical folly under another maniacal dictator. The expression for this thickness is, “shoot oneself in the foot.”
Gonzalinho
WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW TYRANTS?
ReplyDeleteHistory repeats itself because of human nature.
By Jean Kim, M.D.
Psychology Today
Posted Feb 02, 2017
Time and time again in history, and today even in workplaces and beyond, it seems that a certain personality type keeps cropping up in positions of power: the tyrant. They are strikingly similar—charismatic and charming but also calculating and cruel.
They tend to have a blend of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder traits such as a lack of empathy, grandiosity, thirst for power and control, lying and deceit, indifference to conventional laws or rules or morality, and more. The noted psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg and others often coined this type the “malignant narcissist.”
…what is discussed less often is that these leaders do not and cannot rise in a vacuum; they come to power on the backs of the masses they ultimately disdain and discard at will. It’s the people who follow these bully dictator types that we need to examine and reflect on as well; why do people worship and enable these leaders? What is it in human nature that makes us vulnerable to this repeated cycle of cruelty and danger? …
1. A craving for strong parental figures…
2. Assuming the best in others/faith/naïve idealism…
3. Wish fulfillment and admiration of transgressive behavior and confidence…
4. Drawn to superficial markers (money, looks, status)…
5. Feeling weak or uncertain in our own lives…
6. Cowardice/passivity/false safety/survival…
7. Power/popularity cliques/alignment with the ‘in’ crowd…
8. Lack of critical thought/logic/education…
See: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/culture-shrink/201702/why-do-people-follow-tyrants
I would say for Duterte, it’s Nos. 3, 7, 8 especially.
Gonzalinho
FRUSTRATED NETIZEN WRITES TO 16 MILLION DUTERTE VOTERS
ReplyDeleteFederico D. Pascual Jr.
The Philippine Star
April 10, 2018 - 12:00am
We share below an open letter of netizen Gege Cruz pouring out in social media her disgust with the 16 million voters who handed the presidency to Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte in 2016. (This version is 500 words shorter than Cruz’s original rant that we edited to fit space.)
You’ll never hear the end of it from me for your Duterte vote. And the more intelligent, the more educated, the more well-bred, the more “Christian” you are, the more I blame you. Shame on you!
…One reason I got from friends – because he’s the only one who can achieve radical change that this country badly needs. Bullcrap! There was never ever any empirical proof of that. You just believed the macho stories. You bought into the myth they built with manipulated polls and paid trolls.
It was a vote of desperation. And you chose to be desperate at a time when our country was at its best economic standing in a long time. When we were emerging as a new tiger. Desperation makes you stupid, you know.
Because you were angry about traffic, frustrated with the MRT, outraged by laglag bala. You voted for the one who only said he would solve those problems, without presenting any viable solution, just imaginary numbers and ridiculous deadlines. Naniwala naman kayo!
You just felt like voting for him. Basta. And look at where that vote has brought us. Loans piling up. Peso slipping. Jobs and investments dwindling. Grants disappearing. Our islands being grabbed from us. Corruption growing. Nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, the death of meritocracy. Wala nang bigas! May crime at drugs pa rin! At may traffic pa rin!
Eto pa – “Hindi siya trapo!” Tingnan mo ngayon – trapo na siya, at isa pa siyang malaking doormat – Welcome, China! Our Islands, Yours Na. Tinapon ang ating victory sa Hague. At binenta ng libre ang bansa natin. With loan interests on our side. Hindi pa natin tapos bayaran ang mga utang ni Marcos, eto na naman!
See: https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2018/04/10/1804450/frustrated-netizen-writes-16-million-duterte-voters
The worst part for me is that just when we are about to turn the economic development corner and have nearly paid off the Marcos debt after 30 years, the Philippine electorate places another massively corrupt politician into office.
“Forgetfulness is the incomprehension of those who misconstrue the past.”
Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
Gonzalinho
DEMOCRACY IN RETREAT
ReplyDeleteBy: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM September 09, 2019
Democracy is in a global retreat. This is in stark contrast to what happened three decades ago, when the stride of countries emerging from communism was toward democracy.
Why did disillusionment with democracy grow in the past 30 years?
…The disappointment stems from the dysfunctional economic system associated with democracy.
In emerging economies, it’s an economic system that breeds generational poverty, because it provides economic advancement only to those who are already materially endowed. Others describe it as the double scourge of corruption by an entrenched political class, and the monopoly of economic opportunities by an ensconced economic class.
The faith of the poor in democracy will continue to be reaffirmed only if their children are given a fresh shot at economic advancement through meaningful access to education, capital and health services.
In developed economies, the discontent stems from the fact that democratic governments lavish more attention on the wellbeing of fictional persons (corporations), compared to their nominal responsiveness to the welfare of real human beings.
The shift in political power…is bad in the sense that, in their desperation, the people are choosing autocratic leaders who are undermining critically important institutions of democracy — a vigorous media, an independent judiciary, an autonomous legislature and thriving opposition parties.
Unless the economic dysfunction associated with democracy is fixed, we will witness the continuing march of world history from communism to democracy to authoritarianism.
Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/123856/democracy-in-retreat#ixzz6SjFhY6Q1
Authoritarianism combined with cronyism and corruption will be the death of the Philippine development project.
Democracy in the Philippines has proven to be a vigorous generator of wealth, but it has to be combined with enlightened social spending to achieve economic well-being and social stability.
No more dictators, please.
Gonzalinho
DUTERTE SHOULD WALK THE TALK ON CORRUPTION
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:01 AM June 04, 2020
Stephen Monsanto’s call for the suspension of “obscene” compensation to highly paid public officials (“Gov’t can save money by freezing ‘irrelevant’ officials,” Letters, 5/26/20) whose “services” as “public servants” have become irrelevant or useless in the face of the current COVID-19 pandemic, should first and foremost be about the pork barrel of congressmen and senators.
Said to be worth about P84 billion hidden in plain sight in this year’s national budget (“Lacson seeks realignment of ‘pork insertions’ to soften blow of pandemic,” 4/27/20), imagine how much food that kind of money would bring to the tables of millions of Filipinos out of work since the nationwide lockdown was enforced more than two months ago, and which could last till the end of the year—or, as President Duterte himself has told the nation, until a vaccine is found (which scientists predict could take another year).
With most public works and projects at a standstill, and the alleged “P10-billion pork barrel scam queen” Janet Lim Napoles and her ilk out of “commission,” all that money has just been lying around largely unused or underutilized (“for later release,” i.e., when happy days are here again). The government continues to panhandle for donations from the private sector because it says it’s almost flat-broke. Yet it remains blind to the racket that Congress has always been up to with the people’s money.
President Duterte keeps saying he hates corruption in government or even just a “whiff” of it. It’s high time he started walking all that talk. And what better way to do that than by removing all pork barrel insertions in the budget and keeping them far away from the reach of dirty politicians? However, it’s not a question of “can he do that,” but “will he do that” (and risk losing the support of lapdogs?).
Margie Megan Librando
m_m_libra@yahoo.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/130432/duterte-should-walk-the-talk-on-corruption#ixzz6THkvpCcs
Pork barrel is a major source of massive corruption in the legislature which the president co-opts.
It is difficult to see how massive corruption in the Philippine system can be effectively reformed without substantially reducing or eliminating pork barrel.
Gonzalinho
“Benevolent authoritarianism” in the Philippines does not exist. Authoritarianism in the Philippines is malevolent.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
AUTHORITARIAN KLEPTOCRACY (AK)
ReplyDeleteBy: Edilberto C. de Jesus - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:03 AM October 05, 2019
AK defines a country ruled by a narrow elite that seeks self-enrichment as its primary goal. Business tycoons have always benefited from their ability to influence government to favor their interests. The center of gravity under AK shifts to political leaders. With the centralization of government powers, they can bend even Big Business to their whims. The consolidation of political and economic resources results in the most powerful politicians becoming the country’s wealthiest. Or the reverse.
The emergence of new entrepreneurs riding on the coattails of the top political leader is a second AK marker, facilitated by the dismantling of the system of divided powers that protects democratic governance. As the executive acquires dominance over the legislature and the courts, the government gains control over tax funds and revenue flows from franchises and rents. These provide the executive with wealth to dispense to family and friends and to construct a new set of loyal cronies.
…Control of the legal and political system permits the appropriation of funds to support new offices—for instance, for additional deputy ministers and vice chairs; or to transfer them into discretionary expenditure items not subject to normal reporting and accounting requirements. Such as “intelligence funds.” Legislated budgetary measures to raise compensation or allowance levels of officials on a selective basis can also mask potential corruption. These schemes provide a legal cover for appropriating public funds for the private enrichment of those with political clout. But they essentially support a corrupt environment.
AK’s third characteristic follows from the other two: government powers centralized in the executive and the consolidation of political and economic resources in the same set of self-interested elites. Together, they weaken the check-and-balance framework of government. The oversight responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable for its actions rests on the legislature and the courts. Their abdication of this duty permits kleptocracy to flourish. AK applies Robert Klitgaard’s formula: Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/124399/authoritarian-kleptocracy-ak#ixzz6VRoFWHrK
Fascism with Filipino characteristics, exactly…
Gonzalinho
Philippine presidential election is coming up in 2022. Democracy forces must mobilize now against anti-democracy forces, building trust among the electorate, especially among the lower socioeconomic classes, by implementing active and effective mechanisms for listening and dialogue. Once in power, democracy forces must foster democratic values and attitudes among the populace by institutionalizing formal education courses.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
NEED FOR PRUDENCE
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 04:08 AM February 24, 2020
Dennis Uy, a Davao-based businessman and friend of President Duterte’s, is seeking government guarantee cover for a P700-million loan that his shipping and logistics firm will use to acquire a new vessel.
…What is wrong here is that a private entity is seeking government guarantee for a private undertaking. The P700 million in question was borrowed by Uy’s Chelsea Logistics and Infrastructure Holdings Corp. from a local bank with which it is about to reach its single borrower’s limit. The limit is an imposition of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas on all banks to prevent their overexposure on a single company or individual borrower.
…there is now a government policy that eschews all forms of sovereign guarantees for private-sector undertakings.
…This is the correct policy stance because the government should not be exposed to such hidden risks, as it was especially during the Marcos era.
…Entered in the government’s books as contingent liabilities, these sovereign guarantees become legal obligations for governments to make payments only if particular events occur, which, in the case of PhilGuarantee, is a default by Uy’s firm.
The IMF warned that since their fiscal cost is invisible until they come due, these contingent liabilities “represent a hidden subsidy and a drain on future government finances,” not to mention the fact that they also complicate fiscal analysis to determine the financial health of governments.
This has happened in the past. The then Philguarantee (Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp.) was forced in the late 1970s by the Marcoses to extend a guarantee on the $25-million loan of crony Vicente Chuidian’s Asian Reliability Co. Inc. The state-owned company was later ordered not to go after the private firm when it defaulted on its loan due to the global economic crisis at the start of the 1980s.
There were other foreign loans that defaulted then, and the lenders had to go after the Philippine government’s guarantee cover, some of it from the defunct Central Bank of the Philippines, the predecessor of today’s Bangko Sentral.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/127572/need-for-prudence#ixzz6kppndc7m
Crony capitalism, I believe that’s what it’s called.
Gonzalinho
Pope’s Monthly Prayer Intentions
ReplyDeleteApostleship of Prayer
April 2021
Fundamental rights
We pray for those who risk their lives while fighting for fundamental rights under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and even in democracies in crisis.
Link: http://popesprayerusa.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/INTENZIONI-DEL-PAPA-2021-ENG-DEF.pdf
Gonzalinho
POLITICAL THEOLOGY
ReplyDeleteLet me hear what God the Lord will speak, for he will speak peace
To his people, to his faithful, to those who turn to him in their hearts.
Surely his salvation is at hand for those who fear him,
That his glory may dwell in our land.
Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet;
Righteousness and peace will kiss each other.
Faithfulness will spring up from the ground,
And righteousness will look down from the sky.
The Lord will give what is good,
And our land will yield its increase.
Righteousness will go before him
And will make a path for his steps.
—Psalm 85:8-13
“[Jean] Gerson’s argument for a righteous political order that makes for peace feeds a political imagination where order, justice, and peace come from good human rule under God. Today the role of human politics in generating peace, order, and justice is often severed from God’s guidance, but Christians still expect rulers to create justice and peace.”
https://politicaltheology.com/the-politics-of-getting-justice-and-peace-to-kiss-psalm-858-13/
—Richard Davis, “The Politics of Getting Justice and Peace to Kiss—Psalm 85:8-13,” July 6, 2015, Political Theology Network
We cannot separate a just political order abounding in peace and prosperity from the imperative of human rule under God's law and guidance. If not only the leaders but also the people are evil, the nation will not experience righteousness, faithfulness, justice, and peace but rather iniquity, lawlessness, oppression, and discord.
We are given the opportunity to choose our leaders. Let us choose well.
Gonzalinho
Fascism cannot be precisely defined and distinguished from competing political ideologies because of the attributes it shares in common with its totalitarian double, communism, and because fascism co-opts liberal democracy en route to the takeover of democratic institutions in order to remake them in the image of fascism, which—similar to communism—pays lip service to democratic ideals even as it subverts them.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, there are elements that characteristically define fascism. In the Philippines, they include, principally, a binding sense of group identity coming together around a strong leader, typically male.
Marcos Jr. rode on the authoritarian image of his father, which bound together the people of the Ilocano region. His political teammate, Sara Duterte, without whom he could not have captured the presidency, similarly rallied her supporters from Mindanao around her father’s brazenly fascist persona.
Therefore, Philippine fascism is regional. It hearkens to a longing for dictatorial rule as a way for the masses to free themselves from endemic poverty.
Riding today on his mandate of authoritarian tribalism—Philippine regionalism might be described as a type of modern tribalism or “neotribalism”—Philippine fascism naturally takes aim at its principal ideological enemies, communism, and less overtly, liberal democracy.
Red-tagging and assassinations, aggressively pushed by Marcos Jr.’s predecessor, has diminished somewhat under his more epicurean and less bloodthirsty successor. At the same time, the assault on democratic institutions, principles, and practices has perceptibly receded.
Yet the ideologically based war continues, evidence for which is the continual detention of Leila de Lima in contravention of the rule of law that should robustly maintain in a genuine democracy.
Red-tagging also continues unabated in the Philippines. It often segues into killings by right-wing militias, contract assassins, and police and military units of the Philippine government.
What especially distinguishes Philippine fascism is that it builds on the hierarchical power structure of Philippine society originally configured according to the extended family ownership of vast landholdings and the accompanying tenancy relations. In this sense Philippine society is originally feudal.
Politicians and business bigwigs today are descendants of this elite class, or otherwise they are newbies who have succeeded in Philippine politics and subsequently leveraged their newfound power to gather and consolidate economic resources with the resulting political wherewithal. Notably, the elite of Philippine society recapitulate fascist elite.
The foregoing political system has been described as “cacique democracy.” Because it converges in its defining attributes with fascism, it might also be described as “fascism with Philippine characteristics.”
Gonzalinho