Wanted 02/01/2007
ON THE face of it, our circumstances today do look desperate.
We have, as the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has just pointed out -- thank God we now have someone heaven-sent guiding it, who is Angel Lagdameo; the previous one smelled of sulfur -- murder and mayhem rioting like hoodlums, with government unable or unwilling to do a thing about it. Hell, with government aiding and abetting it at every turn. We have, as the CBCP has also just pointed out, an impending election with all the machinery for cheating in place, the Commission on Elections, the electoral body that doesn’t know how to count votes, at the heart of it.
We have, as the CBCP has further pointed out, a President who is not the president at all. Or in its more churchly language, one shrouded in much controversy, the “Hello Garci” scandal being one of the “unresolved” issues of the 2004 elections.
We have, as sundry commentators have pointed out, or as our own senses warn us, an ironfisted ruler who is universally loathed but who has been able to do what she pleases with this country; an opposition in shambles with no political or moral authority to commend it to the public; no political figure in sight to pose a serious challenge to the usurper; a military that sets dishonesty up for emulation and nobility down for incarceration; duly elected local officials booted out by a President who never won a presidential election; a people losing all hope things will get better.
On the face of it, our circumstances today do look desperate. But that was the same face of this country two-and-a-half decades ago. We had pretty much the same circumstances then.
In the early 1980s, we had a dictatorship headed by an ironfisted ruler who was universally hated but who was able to do what he pleased with this country. Though assailed by lupus and an increasingly hostile US Congress, Ferdinand Marcos seemed destined to last forever: On the very twilight of his rule, the Reagan government was still talking about him being part of the solution. The military was in total control, a military that rewarded evil (also called mindless obedience), and punished good (also called mindful dissent).
There wasn’t much of an opposition, all challenges by way of the vote being thwarted by barefaced cheating. Which made boycott the only sane response to offers of elections periodically dangled by the dictatorship. Murder and mayhem were rife, quite apart from internment in the camps for harboring political beliefs contrary to the fascistic ones of the New Society, the forerunner of today’s Strong Republic. And we were a people that had given up hope things could be better.
Then from out of the blue came a Cory Aquino. Or probably more accurately from out of the red, which was the blood her husband spilled on the tarmac in August 1983. The murder of Ninoy Aquino, of course, harnessed the nation’s anger. But it does not explain how Cory became the hope of her country.
Indeed, Cory seemed to have everything stacked against her from the start. She was not a politician, or savvy in political affairs. While Ninoy lived, she had stayed in the background, content to be -- as Marcos would later tag her deprecatingly -- a housewife. She was not charismatic, she spoke in a quiet and unobtrusive way, her detractors having less polite words for quiet and unobtrusive. And to top it all, she belonged to what Marcos had been reviling as the “oligarchy.” Cory would later be called a modern-day Joan of Arc, but Joan was the daughter of a poor peasant driven to serve God and country from ecstatic visions. Cory was the daughter of a rich landowner, driven to serve God and country by a traumatic experience.
But she conjured a vision that had all the power in the world, and that has all the bearing on our present circumstances. She stoked up the image of being the opposite of Marcos. In the end, it did not matter what her personal circumstances were. All that mattered was what she represented. Marcos was corrupt, she was innocent. Marcos was death, she was life. Marcos was tyranny, she was freedom. Marcos was repression, she was liberation. Marcos was a liar, she told the truth. Marcos was despair, she was hope. Marcos was a devious politician, she was an honest citizen. Marcos was a nation-wrecker, she was a house-maker. Marcos was evil, she was good. The list went on and on.
Which brings me to my question: Why can’t someone like that emerge from the loins of today’s despair? Someone who can be the opposite of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? The thing to give voice to the nation’s anger is already there -- the “Hello Garci” tape. Why can’t someone who is the opposite of Arroyo arise from those ashes?
The mistake is for us to look for someone like that from the ranks of the usual suspects, who are the politicians. Why should it be a politician? Cory was not, but she compelled the politicians to rally around her by the force of what she represented. Enough to compel even Doy Laurel, who imagined himself (completely wrongly) to be Marcos’ able-bodied challenger, if not replacement, to give way to her came the snap elections. Don’t look for the opposite of Arroyo from the ranks of the politicians, look for him or her from the ranks of the artists, the teachers, the youth, the poets, the innocent.
The issue is not political, it is moral. The solution is not political, it is moral. Or the first will follow the second.
Don’t worry about the organization or the resources or the manpower. If you build it, they will come -- said that line in “Field of Dreams.” Which is just another way of saying that an idea whose time has come will demand to be fulfilled, will bend everything -- even the will of a tyrant -- to its will.
Think of this as a full-page ad. Wanted: The Opposite of Gloria.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=46809
We have, as the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has just pointed out -- thank God we now have someone heaven-sent guiding it, who is Angel Lagdameo; the previous one smelled of sulfur -- murder and mayhem rioting like hoodlums, with government unable or unwilling to do a thing about it. Hell, with government aiding and abetting it at every turn. We have, as the CBCP has also just pointed out, an impending election with all the machinery for cheating in place, the Commission on Elections, the electoral body that doesn’t know how to count votes, at the heart of it.
We have, as the CBCP has further pointed out, a President who is not the president at all. Or in its more churchly language, one shrouded in much controversy, the “Hello Garci” scandal being one of the “unresolved” issues of the 2004 elections.
We have, as sundry commentators have pointed out, or as our own senses warn us, an ironfisted ruler who is universally loathed but who has been able to do what she pleases with this country; an opposition in shambles with no political or moral authority to commend it to the public; no political figure in sight to pose a serious challenge to the usurper; a military that sets dishonesty up for emulation and nobility down for incarceration; duly elected local officials booted out by a President who never won a presidential election; a people losing all hope things will get better.
On the face of it, our circumstances today do look desperate. But that was the same face of this country two-and-a-half decades ago. We had pretty much the same circumstances then.
In the early 1980s, we had a dictatorship headed by an ironfisted ruler who was universally hated but who was able to do what he pleased with this country. Though assailed by lupus and an increasingly hostile US Congress, Ferdinand Marcos seemed destined to last forever: On the very twilight of his rule, the Reagan government was still talking about him being part of the solution. The military was in total control, a military that rewarded evil (also called mindless obedience), and punished good (also called mindful dissent).
There wasn’t much of an opposition, all challenges by way of the vote being thwarted by barefaced cheating. Which made boycott the only sane response to offers of elections periodically dangled by the dictatorship. Murder and mayhem were rife, quite apart from internment in the camps for harboring political beliefs contrary to the fascistic ones of the New Society, the forerunner of today’s Strong Republic. And we were a people that had given up hope things could be better.
Then from out of the blue came a Cory Aquino. Or probably more accurately from out of the red, which was the blood her husband spilled on the tarmac in August 1983. The murder of Ninoy Aquino, of course, harnessed the nation’s anger. But it does not explain how Cory became the hope of her country.
Indeed, Cory seemed to have everything stacked against her from the start. She was not a politician, or savvy in political affairs. While Ninoy lived, she had stayed in the background, content to be -- as Marcos would later tag her deprecatingly -- a housewife. She was not charismatic, she spoke in a quiet and unobtrusive way, her detractors having less polite words for quiet and unobtrusive. And to top it all, she belonged to what Marcos had been reviling as the “oligarchy.” Cory would later be called a modern-day Joan of Arc, but Joan was the daughter of a poor peasant driven to serve God and country from ecstatic visions. Cory was the daughter of a rich landowner, driven to serve God and country by a traumatic experience.
But she conjured a vision that had all the power in the world, and that has all the bearing on our present circumstances. She stoked up the image of being the opposite of Marcos. In the end, it did not matter what her personal circumstances were. All that mattered was what she represented. Marcos was corrupt, she was innocent. Marcos was death, she was life. Marcos was tyranny, she was freedom. Marcos was repression, she was liberation. Marcos was a liar, she told the truth. Marcos was despair, she was hope. Marcos was a devious politician, she was an honest citizen. Marcos was a nation-wrecker, she was a house-maker. Marcos was evil, she was good. The list went on and on.
Which brings me to my question: Why can’t someone like that emerge from the loins of today’s despair? Someone who can be the opposite of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? The thing to give voice to the nation’s anger is already there -- the “Hello Garci” tape. Why can’t someone who is the opposite of Arroyo arise from those ashes?
The mistake is for us to look for someone like that from the ranks of the usual suspects, who are the politicians. Why should it be a politician? Cory was not, but she compelled the politicians to rally around her by the force of what she represented. Enough to compel even Doy Laurel, who imagined himself (completely wrongly) to be Marcos’ able-bodied challenger, if not replacement, to give way to her came the snap elections. Don’t look for the opposite of Arroyo from the ranks of the politicians, look for him or her from the ranks of the artists, the teachers, the youth, the poets, the innocent.
The issue is not political, it is moral. The solution is not political, it is moral. Or the first will follow the second.
Don’t worry about the organization or the resources or the manpower. If you build it, they will come -- said that line in “Field of Dreams.” Which is just another way of saying that an idea whose time has come will demand to be fulfilled, will bend everything -- even the will of a tyrant -- to its will.
Think of this as a full-page ad. Wanted: The Opposite of Gloria.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=46809
posted by dqfan06 @ 12:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home