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
Reposted by
Bulatlat.com
(Originally
posted on January 26-Feb. 1, 2003)
It is ironical that
the move to change the constitution comes from members of the political
elite that have shown themselves not only unfit to rule but have long
monopolized power for their own class interests. So many times, the
Filipino people have spoken against any proposal to change the charter
because 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 are jobs 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 continued to arouse peasant masses
to take up arms.
The rise of
nationalism and the cultural propaganda movement in the mid-1960s 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
unitary 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, through decades of bourgeois democracy, have
remained on the margins of the social and political spectrum. 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 embracing 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 powerful elite.
Bulatlat.com
Posted by
Bulatlat
Back
to Alternative Reader Index
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.