Talking and Fighting for Peace

Talking and Fighting for Peace

The communist armed rebellion in the Philippines is the longest armed conflict in Asia. The government has tried its best to end the conflict through peaceful means. It has been working hard to engage the communist extreme left in the peace table but to no avail. Its armed violence continues while its propaganda machines are depicting the inevitable victory of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement.

The attacks in the recent month are proof that like toothaches, the armed conflict will not just go away. It seems that the National Democratic Front (NDF) can always find reasons to stall the peace talk every time it wants to back out from the peace negotiation. Just recently, the NDF demanded for the release of certain political prisoners as a pre-condition for the continuation of the peace talk. Of course, the government cannot just do so. Almost all of the personalities that the NDF wants to be released are facing criminal charges in courts for the commission of crimes unrelated to rebellion. Thus, it is not easy for the government to have them released from jail, even for the sake of the peace process.

Seriously, it seems that the talks are not getting anywhere. Unfortunately, the government is not successful in the battlefield either. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is tasked to end the armed conflict by military action. It solely shoulders the responsibility of waging war against all armed rebel groups in the country. But despite its efforts, the rebellion continues to drag on.

The communist movement seems to gain strength continuously. Sadly, many politicians are colluding with the CPP-NDF-NPA for their political ends. Funding and material supports are coming to the communist extreme left not only from businesses but also from politicians who made use of its armed partisans during and after elections. Ironically, this relationship between them is both parasitic and symbiotic. They both derive benefits from this unholy partnership despite their opposite interests.   

Of course, the government could not just stop the talking with the CPP-NDF-NPA. However, it has to be more creative this time. The armed communist rebellion is a complex campaign involving both political and military approaches. Unfortunately, the government response to this campaign often results to political losses both in the local and international fronts.

            “Even wars have limits,” says the basic principle of the laws of war. But the armed conflict we know does not show any regards to certain humanitarian principles applicable to internal armed conflicts. What we see are soldiers (who do not have combat duty) and civilians being liquidated by armed partisans. These violations of basic humanitarian principles make the need for peace imperative and urgent.  

            Ending the armed conflict would not guarantee peace. On the other hand, not ending it or doing nothing about it is fraught with grave danger of atrocities and destruction. A Stalinist Godless utopia means the subjugation of Philippine society to totalitarian ideology and the death or imprisonment of many who would oppose the CPP.

Talking peace is not enough to end the armed violence. The armed violence should be ended, and in truth, talking peace is only one of the many means of doing it.   

Inevitable But Not Necessarily Irreversible.

Inevitable But Not Necessarily Irreversible.

60-30-10. An Atenean Math wizard had figured that the results produced by the PCOS machines in major voting districts revealed this pattern: 60% of the votes were generated for administration’s senatorial slate, 30% for the UNA’s, and 10% for independent candidates. In figures, the last election registered 9 senators for the Liberal Party and 3 senators for the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA). Of course, the COMELEC would never admit this. The so-called similarities are purely coincidental, they say.

So far, nobody is trying to guess what’s next for the Senate. The replacement of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile seems inevitable as Senator Franklin Drilon has shown that he is delighted with the new majority’s consensus to make him the next Senate President. Once this is done, the Liberal Party would have the whole Congress in its wing.

Sadly, no prospect for meaningful legislations is evident in the coming three years. The Liberal Party and its allies may try to push for the passage of the controversial divorce bill before 2016. However, this is a double-edged sword which it should never pull out. The Party cannot rely on its newly elected Congresspersons to engage in a divisive and controversial political and social debate. Unless it can assure that its candidate in the coming 2016 Presidential election can win against VP Jejomar Binay, mass exodus from the Party is likely to happen anytime from now until the next election.

Alliances among political parties will break and shall be made more often than necessary before the 2016 elections. This is not difficult to foresee. After all, ours is not a party politics. The traditional political parties in the country are organized based on personalities and convenience. Party principles are usually the things for small parties as politicians in big parties shift loyalties based on whether certain political personalities or affiliations can guarantee continuing control over their positions.

On the other hand, the economy will continue to float but without expanding. This is not difficult to see, and accept. We have failed to create growth-producing industries. As such, the employments we have in the Philippines are always temporary and highly dependent on foreign capital. And despite this reality, government propagandists will continue with sloganeering to convince the poor that their lives are getting better.

            Few years ago, scientists around the world had agreed on the proposition that climate change is inevitable. Climate change is bound to happen because we have tampered with the environment. Well, it is inevitable—not necessarily irreversible—they said. Be that as it may, the problem is no longer within the confines of human decision only. Humanity has to confront climate change with the best ideas and the most decisive actions that it could have. And to overcome the effects of erratic weather changes, scientists have advised us to undertake certain fundamental adaptation and mitigation measures.

The Philippine affairs are like climate change as many things in our country seem inevitable also. In fact, our future is not difficult to predict. Things are bound to happen because we have tampered with our past. And just like the stated prescriptions for climate change, we will need the best ideas and the most decisive actions to survive what seems to be inevitable.

Indeed, our state of affairs is inevitable, but not necessarily irreversible.  

Preposterous expectations!

Preposterous expectations!

The attacks on Nancy Binay in the social networking sites have become irrational. Cyber-bullies have found another victim to play with. These tirades are expected to continue even if something tragic will ensue later on; the slanderous minds seem insatiable and rotten to the core. Netizens could claim that they are doing this just for fun but, of course, always at the expense of their victim.

Pissed off with the results of the election, netizens have trained their guns on Senator-elect Nancy Binay. They saw the opportunity to bully her anew and ventilate their frustrations on the sad fate that Dick Gordon, Edward Hagedorn and Risa Hontiveros have suffered despite their credentials. Her critics have chided her for her lack of professional qualification and previous public service records. They have ridiculed her and crafted “meme” to make her looks funny and stupid. Their slanders have no limit.

Senator-elect Nancy Binay may have been hurting too much already. She does not deserve such treatment.

Her failure to engage Risa Hontiveros in a debate might have nothing to do with the ranting of her critics. Cyber-bullies might have disliked her simply because of her looks or the color of her skin. She is short. She is not a mestiza. Neither does she look and talk smart the way Grace Poe, Loren Legarda and Risa Hontiveros do. She is simply ordinary.

Moreover, her lack of qualifications or track records for public service might also have nothing to do with the frustrations of the netizens. Netizens’ preposterous expectations bring about their frustrations. They have expected too much, or wrongly too much, from a failed political system. They have conceived the results of the elections even before the votes have been counted. Sadly, they even thought that theirs are decisions and preferences far better than the choices of the less articulate poor majority in the Philippine society.

But netizens are wrong about many things. For one, they missed the point about the failure of their favourite candidates to make it in the list of the needed twelve. They failed to consider the basic premise that any candidate means nothing to the poor and less educated voters unless he or she speaks the language which they understand. Naturally, no Dick, Edward and Risa would be voted unless they have learned to talk about the needs of the poor. They may be good in debates and polemics but their failure to articulate the poor’s need to eat or be sheltered put them beyond the consciousness of the voters. For the poor know only simple things and as such, they could remember only as much as their bodies could recall. Truly, an old politician’s trick is always relevant during elections: feed them to let them remember you every day as their bellies are empty every single day of the year.

Like it and share it: netizens’ tools for spreading the truth and at times, for slanderous destructions.

Poor Nancy, the color of her skin does not suit well in the eyes of the minority who have access to social networking sites. Inevitably, she needs to work hard to bring the web to her ill-educated constituency to give them the power of liking and sharing anything good about her.  

    

Election and Governance

Election and Governance

They are not contradicting terms but are mutually reinforcing concepts. Election and governance are two sides of a coin. Elections are directed towards governance. On the other hand, the quality of elected administrators and their leadership styles are shown by the manner by which they conducted their campaign during elections. The relationship between the two is not difficult to figure out.

            

           Ideally, elections are indispensable for the workings of democracy. No democratic government would exist without elections. No good governance is possible without them. But before elections may serve as precursor of political change, they should be free, honest and meaningful.

A free election means that people should not be prohibited from voting freely according to their conscience. No bribery, coercion and violence should be allowed to subvert their right of choice. Free election entails the judicious use of State power to dismantle all armed groups that could be used to coerce voters and to prevent politicians and moneyed interests from buying votes and polluting the electoral process. Sadly, vote buying and terrorism continue to hit the headlines in today’s elections.   

An honest election means that the electoral process should be efficient and transparent. Elections are trustworthy if they are conducted with speed and transparency—that is, if the reliability and accuracy of the casting and canvassing of votes are assured. These criteria determine whether we shall have an honest election. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency in the canvassing of votes via the PCOS machine continues to put doubt on the efficiency and transparency of our electoral processes.

A meaningful election highlights the purpose and relevance of the electoral exercise to the lives of the people. An election is meaningful if people are given the best choices and the opportunity to make such choices. It entails unabated opportunity for discussion of issues, platforms and programs It means that debates and discussions during the campaign must transcend personal issues and reach the more programmatic level where there is a healthy and open discussion of issues and programs.

With the quality of candidates that we have today, one can tell whether there will be significant changes in Philippine governance after elections. After all, elections reflect that character of the future that we are making.

           

              Truly, everything starts with a decision to take the first step. Vote wisely they say and you shall have a wise government. However, with the problems confronting our elections today, voting wisely is not enough; rather, we should study why our electoral process is malfunctioning and decide how to fix it. A revolution of the electoral process and not merely a piecemeal effort to reform it might actually be the answer that we are looking for.

            

The future is bleak. How can I convince myself to vote?

The future is bleak. How can I convince myself to vote?

Theoretically, they should not be about clowns and jokers. Elections are not about merry making and empty promises. They are about the future. We once believed that the future depends on the decision that one makes during elections.

Elections help in the formation of mature citizens. They serve as springboard for change. They are important in the life of our nation. They protect our future and the future of our children. These are the things we have learned in schools. Unfortunately, these are mere textbooks edicts.

Dynastico-personalist, this characterizes the Philippine elections. Philippine elections have become a playground for political clans to perpetuate their self-interest. They have become irrelevant to the lives of ordinary citizens as nothing really significant happens in the situations of the poor after elections. Our elections have become farcical.

And of course, there are serious questions about the capability and reliability of the PCOS machines which will secure and count our votes in the coming election. Undoubtedly, the PCOS hardware and technology are beyond the reach of an average legal mind. However, there are many reasons why even the less average mind would not trust the PCOS machines. Serious questions have been ventilated against the use of these machines which were criticized as insecure in the 2010 elections. But the COMELEC has been dodging these questions. It has continued with the disabling of the basic security features which Republic Act 9369 requires for automated elections.

Section 19 of Republic Act 9369 requires that the Board of Election Inspectors and Board of Canvassers should affix their digital signatures in the election returns and the certificate of canvas before the electronic transmission of these documents. However, the COMELEC has done away with the affixing of these digital signatures in the 2010 elections. Also, it has done away with the use of the ultra-violet scanner which is required under Sec. 13 of R.A.  9369. Sadly, these security features remain disabled despite the calls for their enabling or restoration for the coming 2013 elections.

Moreover, there are now serious discussion about the inaccuracies and malfunctioning of PCOS machines, the poor quality of the security systems set up or used by COMELEC and the Smartmatic, and the admission by the COMELEC itself that the source code for these machines has not arrived from abroad because of the legal disputes between the Smartmatic and its partner. Despite of the publicity of these concerns, election officials continue to ignore the calls for a more transparent and reliable election and canvassing system.

With these concerns in mind, I could not convince myself to vote on May 13, 2013. I feel that I could no longer delude myself into thinking that the coming election will be different.

They say that we are obliged to exercise our constitutional right to vote because the fate of future generations depends on it. However, such an obligation is not a perfunctory one. It is moral, not a legal, obligation. As such, it should be heeded with discernment. Because of this, I am yet to convince myself to vote. And I fear that I would not be able to convince myself to vote. I fear that my vote will help legitimize a high-tech wholesale electoral fraud. I fear that my vote will be used as deodorant to a foul-smelling oppressive system that keeps people poor and hopeless. I fear that by voting I will be surrendering my rights and conscience to machines which, if not likely to malfunction, would display statistics that I could not trust and reconcile. I fear, and as such, I am yet to convince myself to vote.