Analysis
Charter Change:
A Counter-Revolutionary Charade
It
is a fact that more and more people have lost trust in government and have
entertained doubts about the way “democracy” is run by the
powers-that-be. Charter change is the elite’s way of showing to the
broad masses that bourgeois democracy is capable of reinventing or
reconstructing itself through a “democratic exercise.” The mechanism
gives a false sense of hope and a diversionary route at a time when more
and more people are headed for the revolutionary movement that aims to
bring about comprehensive changes in society.
By
Bobby Tuazon
Bulatlat.com
It
is ironical that the move to change the constitution comes from members of the
political elite that has shown itself not only unfit to rule but has long
monopolized power for its own class interests. So many times, the Filipino
people have spoken against any proposal to change the charter suggesting that
such a scheme is only meant to perpetuate its proponents in power and not
because they want to institute reform. They would rather that government should
prioritize its obligation of ensuring that food is available, that there is job
for all and that the country’s future is bright.
In
the current political dispensation, the country’s first constitution – the
1935 charter – established the country’s presidential form of government,
the separation of powers and the two-party system. Under U.S. colonial tutelage,
the charter was crafted by representatives of the country’s elite who made
sure that domestic rule would remain under the hands of the elite and tied the
country forever to a neo-colonial relationship with the Americans. The charter
did not address the society’s fundamental problems particularly feudal land
ownership that aroused peasant masses to take up arms.
The
rise of nationalism and the cultural propaganda movement in the mid-60s directly
challenged elite rule leading to the split and intense rivalry among the
country’s political factions. In the face of it all, President Ferdinand
Marcos, after getting himself reelected in the 1969 election that was fraught
with fraud and terrorism, moved to change the constitution and perpetuate
himself in power.
The
1971 constitutional convention brought the country to crisis as Marcos was
accused of bribing members of the convention to make the new charter in his
favor amid a burgeoning national democratic movement. With U.S. President
Richard Nixon’s support, Marcos imposed martial law the following year and got
himself a constitution to legitimize his one-man rule. To deodorize a repressive
rule, Marcos amended his own constitution to pave the way for a parliamentary
system with himself remaining a dictator and another American lackey, Cesar
Virata, as titular prime minister.
Populist
façade
Corazon
Aquino, who succeeded Marcos following the 1986 people’s uprising, tried to
present a populist façade by appointing a few members of the progressive social
movement to the constitutional commission ensuring, however, that the body that
was tasked to draft a new charter is dominated by the elite including remnants
of the dreaded Marcos dictatorship like Blas Ople. Stripped of its human rights
provisions which were never followed anyway, the Aquino constitution virtually
reinstituted the status quo rule of the country’s elite while it failed in its
pledge to empower the people through a multi-party system, a new local
government system and a fraudulent agrarian reform.
Proof
that the new charter never brought any meaningful change at all is that the
Marcoses and their subalterns are back in power and that the strong militarist
influence is as alive as ever. It has never shielded the country from renewed
attacks of U.S. imperialism to fortify its neo-colonial rule through economic,
political and military means.
Fidel
V. Ramos and Joseph Estrada tried several times to amend the constitution for
their own political agenda and in order to entrench pro-imperialist
globalization policies. But their attempts were rejected by nationwide mass
protests led by the organized militant mass movement.
Some
of the leading proponents of charter change today are the same people and groups
who had earlier pushed for the same scheme in recent past. Their proposal to
change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary or from a
unilateral to a federal system had been exposed as a lame excuse to perpetuate
themselves in power or to make themselves available to occupy new powerful
positions which are otherwise unavailable in the present system.
The
plan to amend the constitution will be made by people who embody the same narrow
political interests that figured in previous charter changes. Changing the form
of government will not democratize the allocation of power from the elite to the
broad masses who have, through decades of bourgeois democracy, remained in the
sidelines. Political power and the distribution of political offices and
institutions will remain in the hands of those who possess the material wealth
that is the sole source of power in this country. As a result, this charade will
not address, nay, will only aggravate class exploitation and oppression – the
same system that is the bedrock of U.S. neo-colonial domination in our
semi-feudal society.
Token
reform
Changing
the form of government within the context of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial
society is the ruling elite’s way of dangling a token of reform in these times
of crisis or when its various factions cannot reconcile for the peaceful
allocation of power. It is a fact that more and more people have lost trust in
government and have entertained doubts about the way “democracy” is run by
the powers-that-be. Charter change is the elite’s way of showing to the broad
masses that bourgeois democracy is capable of reinventing or reconstructing
itself through a “democratic exercise.” The mechanism gives a false sense of
hope and a diversionary route at a time when more and more people are headed for
the revolutionary movement that aims to bring about comprehensive changes in
society.
The
current proponents of charter change hide the fact that the elite has long shown
themselves unfit to rule precisely because government has been used to advance
their narrow economic and political interests at the expense of the people.
Decades of misrule, politicking, economic mismanagement, graft and corruption
have only allowed the elite to amass more wealth and sustain the social system
that is undemocratic and anti-poor. They must not be allowed to bring this
nation to extinction. There must be another way of saving this country from the
vagaries of the power elite. Bulatlat.com
We
want to know what you think of this article.
|