Contrast, irony, paradox October 26, 2006

WALKING side by side down the red-carpeted aisle leading to Malacañang, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Surayud Chulanont looked like a study in contrast. Surayud, of course, is the prime minister of Thailand. At first blush, or on the face of it, the contrast was this:

Surayud has just been benefited by a coup, having been installed as prime minister by the generals who seized power from Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Arroyo has just survived a coup that never took place, or a "withdrawal of support" by several generals from her government. Surayud was never elected as head of his government, Arroyo was elected head of her government. Surayud presides over a dictatorship, one that has been mounted against the sovereign will of the Thais. Arroyo presides over a democracy, one that enjoys the mandate of the Filipino voters. By rights, Surayud should be reviled by his people, and by rights Arroyo should be beloved by hers. By rights, Surayud should be held accountable by the civilized world and regarded as a pariah in it. By rights, Arroyo should be embraced by the civilized world and given pride of place in its councils.

In fact, the opposite is true. It is a study in contrast, but one with the most supremely ironic twists.

Or pretty much most of it. The only thing in fact that's not a contrast is that both of them are the product of a coup. And here the ironies get thicker and richer. Arroyo was not the product of a coup in 2001, however Joseph Estrada's followers still argue the point, saying the impeachment case against Estrada, the duly -- indeed formidably – elected president was never concluded. Well, the impeachment trial might not have concluded in the court of law but it had concluded in the court of public opinion, which is supreme a court as you can get, more supreme than the one Hilario Davide headed. Arroyo came to power in 2001 legally, constitutionally, morally. Alas, also tragically, at least for the nation.

Arroyo came to power as a result of a coup only in May 2004. The importance of that fact can never be sufficiently belabored. There is no other way to describe the theft of the vote in those elections, particularly given garish face or voice by the "Hello, Garci" tape. It was just as violent and forcible a seizure of power as that done with arms, and has been defended as violently and forcibly ever since. Indeed, bloodily: Congressman Edcel Lagman was right to use the metaphor of a corpse for the impeachment bid, "It was dead on arrival," "It was a cadaver," etc. Guess who made it so. The metaphor would not long remain a metaphor after the impeachment bid failed. Real corpses began piling up all over the country.

Both Surayud and Arroyo are the products of a coup. But there the similarities end. Surayud may have been the product of a coup, but he is widely accepted -- and respected -- by his people. The Thais did not moan and groan when the generals ousted Thaksin, they breathed a sigh of relief, thanks in no small way to the endorsement of the coup by King Bhumibol himself. Surayud is so secure in his position he feels free to travel without fear of embarrassing himself, or being met by protests, for being an illegitimate ruler.

Arroyo is the ostensible winner of the elections, but nobody believes it, including the congressmen who defend her at all costs. Or at least, as in the case of Jose de Venecia, at costs other than his own ambition to become prime minister of this country. The Filipinos did not moan and groan when her government kept warning that "destabilizers" were out to destabilize her, they danced for joy. It was not a warning, it was a glad tiding; it was not a threat, it was a promise of deliverance. The Filipinos did moan and groan when the "withdrawal of support" by Danny Lim et al. met only with a withdrawal of support from Hermogenes Esperon and the other generals who helped Arroyo cheat the hell out of the voters of Muslim Mindanao, as proclaimed by the "Hello, Garci" tape. Some wept openly, and cried, "What a hapless country we are!"

Thailand under Surayud remains a working democracy, the Philippines under Arroyo has become a working dictatorship.

Although the new Thai government was mounted by the generals, the generals themselves did not take power, they gave up power, with the King's blessings, to a former military commander-turned near-Buddhist monk- turned environmentalist after retirement. Not quite incidentally, Surayud's father, Phayom, was the Thai version of Gen. Raymundo Jarque, and more: A member of the Thai Royal Military, he left his post to become a central committee member of the Communist Party of Thailand. Obviously, the Thai military has not taken that against Surayud. He is still alive.

Although the new Philippine government was mounted by a civilian coup plotter, with the aid of a "certain Comelec official," she soon turned over power to the military, notably the generals who helped her to "Garci" (verb, meaning _____ -- well, feel free to supply it) the voters. Increasingly so, after they helped her survive Lim's withdrawal of support last February. The logic of survival under a shroud of illegitimacy has compelled Arroyo to employ measures that fall little short of martial law. Malacañang's attempt to unseat the duly elected mayor of Makati City on charges it is guiltier of -- namely, hiring ghosts -- is ironclad proof of it. If the Palace failed, it wasn't for lack of trying. It was for much of the victim's defying.

In Thailand, long-standing institutions bend the country to their will; in the Philippines an overstaying usurper bends the country to her will. In Thailand, the dog wags the tail; in the Philippines the tail wags the dog.

It's a contrast wrapped in an irony locked in a paradox.

What can I say? Let's still import some Thai generals.

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=28749