Importations September 25, 2006

LAST THURSDAY, WE CARRIED THE HEADLINE “Martial law in Thailand.” It was inevitable. Last Thursday was the 34th anniversary of martial law in this country, and that martial law should also be imposed in a neighboring country on the very eve of it was too rich to ignore. If that suggested however that what happened in Thailand last week is the same thing that happened in this country 34 years ago, start disabusing yourself of the thought.

The differences are patent.

First off, Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law was about ruling forever. He mounted a dictatorship because his second term as president was ending and he couldn’t find a way to get around the ban. He tried to change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary by bribing the members of the Constitutional Convention, but his shenanigan was exposed by an honest old man named Eduardo Quintero. His legal avenues blocked, he took the illegal one.

If the Marcos lieutenants I interviewed while writing a book on martial law (“Dead Aim”) are to be believed though, Marcos initially thought of martial law as just a temporary measure, a way to buy time while he pursued other alternatives. He was astonished however to find virtually no opposition to it. So “ginanahan,” he decided to keep the barbed wire strung around the country permanently. That should sound a shrill warning to us, particularly in light of the way we keep tolerating every (worsening) act of iniquity today. Indifference is the breeding ground of abuse.

If the Thai coup is about ruling forever, the plotters don’t seem to know about it. They are currently expected to name a new prime minister within the next couple of weeks, probably a lawyer. Their top priority is a new constitution, one that would usher in political reform, and they figure a lawyer would be the best person for that. They are wrong to think that of course, but that is another story. And they have announced they would hold elections in October next year.

Second, and monumentally ironic, Marcos, who was not a general but a lawyer, unleashed a truly martial rule upon this country, putting the generals in power and making them run the country, or make a mess of it. A few years into martial law, the provincial commander had become far more powerful than the mayor or governor—a thing that was reversed after 1986, and is increasingly being brought back by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. By the time Marcos was ousted, Fabian Ver had become the second most powerful man in the country.

If the Thai conspirators want to take over themselves and plunge Thailand back to the days of the generals, they don’t show it. With the much revered Thai King endorsing their action, they have shown only every intention of giving back the reins of government to the civilian authorities.

And thirdly, Marcos’ martial law was an unpopular one, the Thai coup is, if not the opposite, at least one the Thai public finds acceptable, no small thanks to the backing of the King. The shock with which Marcos’ martial law was greeted soon wore off and widespread resistance against it grew. If the Thai plotters carry out their agenda as planned—though I personally think they should hold elections much, much earlier and restore civil liberties with the naming of an interim prime minister—they should appease the international community whose protestations have been largely muted and pro-forma. Except for this country where the official protestations have been exceptionally heartfelt.

Which brings me to: The coup in Thailand is not like Marcos’ martial law, it is like the (aborted) “withdrawal of support” by Danny Lim and company last February. The only exception I can think of is that Lim and company’s “withdrawal of support” would have worlds more popular than the coup in Thailand. I’ve said it before and I say it again: If a coup takes place in this country, it will be the most popular coup in the world.

The parallels here are just as patent. Like the Thai coup, the “withdrawal of support” the military officers were contemplating, at least as I understand it, would have paved the way for a civilian council as interim government preparatory to elections. Like the Thai coup, the “withdrawal of support,” which had the blessings of pretty much everyone who is not corrupt in this country, was expected to have met with public acceptance, if not dancing in the streets.

Eduardo Ermita and company say a replication of the Thai coup is impossible in this country. Well, if it’s so, why do they keep saying it, as though they want to convince themselves of it?

And Edcel Lagman says such a coup is impossible in this country because of “a popular aversion to extra-constitutional means of subverting the status quo.” Well, he’s right about the popular aversion to a coup, or an extra-constitutional means of seizing power. That is why there is a popular aversion to the regime he is determined to serve, the GMA regime, which is a coup regime, one wrought by ballots instead of bullets. The surveys bolster that fact. The overwhelming majority of Filipinos do not think GMA is the President and a clear majority wants her ousted from power. You can’t find clearer proof of the popular aversion to a coup or the forcible seizure of power than that.

But which is why another coup is not just possible in this country, it is probable. If not soon at least down the line. The specter will always be there. It can only be a counter-coup to end a coup, and if it keeps along the lines of the Thai coup, it will be more than accepted, it will be embraced. There is no question about public resistance, there won’t be any. The only question is the template, there doesn’t seem to be any either.

Maybe, we should import some Thai generals?


http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=22840