Analysis
Cha-Cha: The U.S.-Elite Conspiracy
Not only is there a
confluence of domestic interests to which Constitutional amendments would
be politically and economically advantageous. The United States, a far
from disinterested observer of events in its neo-colony, also favors and
regards Constitutional amendments as critical to its economic interests.
By the Center
for People Empowerment in Governance
Posted by Bulatlat
Some Filipinos may be
debating the issue, and going through the motions of deciding whether
charter change is timely and necessary, and if so, how much change there
should be, or whether the changes are likely to mean anything. The
usual pundits may also be saying that former President Fidel V. Ramos’
proposal for charter change by 2006, which Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
publicly adopted during her July 25 State of the Nation Address, won’t go
through because of Senate opposition. But however much it is debated, and
however much the Senate and other sectors may oppose them now, what’s
likely is that constitutional amendments, or even a totally new
Constitution, will be in place for ratification by next year.
The reasons are
obvious, or should be. Not only is there a confluence of domestic
interests to which Constitutional amendments would be politically and
economically advantageous. The United States, a far from disinterested
observer of events in its neo-colony, also favors and regards
Constitutional amendments as critical to its economic interests.
The domestic
interests are best summed up in two words: political dynasties. Although
the country’s so-called lawmakers have gotten around the term limits in
the 1987 Constitution by making their wives, sons, daughters, and other
relatives run in their place, and by running now for Congress, and now for
the Senate, a new Constitution without those limits would be more
desirable.
The elimination of
term limits would allow them as well as their relatives to run for
parliament as often as they like. With the elimination of term
limits, there would be no fixed terms, their staying on in parliament
being dependent solely on their party or coalition’s numerical dominance.
There is also the
matter of failed presidential aspirant and House Speaker Jose De Venecia’s
ambitions for the premiership, which a majority in parliament could easily
hand him without the benefit of direct, popular elections, but solely as
head of the dominant party. Former President Fidel V. Ramos,
meanwhile, can be reincarnated as President, under a system, such as
France’s or Israel’s, in which that post would be as powerful as that of
prime minister.
Most of the majority
party governors and mayors could also end up as provincial or state
ministers and members of the provincial or state parliaments that a
federal form of government—the twin to the proposal to shift to the
parliamentary system—would have to create.
As for Mrs. Arroyo,
while she would have to step down once a parliament is in place, she could
very well run for MP in her and Bong Pineda’s spheres of influence in
Pampanga - and, who knows, aspire once more for the post she’s now
clinging to like a barnacle, depending on what the specifics of the
parliamentary system and the federation would be.
The devil is in the
details. The politician-proponents of the proposed shifts aren’t
saying anything about the specifics because they don’t want to be found
out this early. Ramos, de Venecia and company would certainly have a
blueprint now to assure that what would emerge would be to their
interests, and perhaps even to Mrs. Arroyo’s to some extent. But they’re
not talking about it because once the details are out, it could be
immediately evident that nothing much would change, and that the country
will remain in the grip of the same political dynasties that have
monopolized power in this country for six decades.
As for the United
States, it couldn’t care less about whether there’s a shift to the
parliamentary system or if the country retains the presidential system.
But because it wants the present crisis resolved through “constitutional
means,” the Ramos proposal - which U.S. Embassy operatives might
very well have helped craft - can only be acceptable, and its preferred
“constitutional means” to solve the Arroyo crisis.
Beyond that, however,
and it’s something that has so far escaped scrutiny, are those amendments
to the Constitution and Philippine policies the U.S. wants, other than the
shift to a parliamentary system and to a federation.
Primarily those
changes involve provisions in the Constitution and policies that restrict
foreign investments in key economic sectors, as well as foreign ownership
of the mass media and public utilities.
In addition to
prohibitions on foreign ownership of the mass media and public utilities,
current policies also restrict foreign ownership of telecommunications to
40 percent. Sixty percent Filipino ownership is required for those firms
that wish to contract with the Philippine government in the construction
of water, telecommunications, and transport systems as well as electric
power distribution. Only Filipinos may own rural banks, while foreigners
are limited to 51 percent equity in insurance companies.
Only Filipino-owned
sea craft may engage in domestic shipping. Foreigners are barred from
serving as crew members of Philippine ships. No foreign ownership of
educational institutions, or of land and rice and corn processing plants
is allowed.
In the view of the
United States, the European Union, Japan, and their local agents and
spokesmen, all these “hamper development”.
The loudest and
earliest proponent of Constitutional amendments to remove these
restrictions agrees. Fidel V. Ramos was not coincidentally also the
most aggressive of all Philippine presidents since Corazon Aquino in
globalizing the Philippine economy (read: allowing the unrestricted
entry of foreign capital and removing all protection for local
industries), and in whose term the Mining Act of 1995 - which converts the
entire country into potential mining areas - was passed.
Much has been made of
the current Philippine senators’ opposition to Constitutional amendments
via Congress’ being convened into a “constituent assembly.” Expect this
resistance to dissipate as soon as it becomes clear to the Senate majority
that it’s in the interest of everyone in the political and economic elite
- the landlords, the big businessmen, themselves and the U.S. overlords of
this country included—that not only is a shift to a parliamentary system
and to a federal form of government achieved, but that those pesky
nationalist provisions of the Constitution and the policies to which they
gave birth are excised from whatever Constitution will emerge in 2006.
Filipinos may yet
conclude that charter changes as envisioned by Ramos and company are not
the cure-all to the country’s problems - poverty, the unequal distribution
of wealth, inadequate social services, and other perennial crises - its
advocates claim them to be. But whatever they may think isn’t likely to
matter. Before the year is over the holders of elite power and their
U.S. patrons will ram cha-cha down their collective throats. Unless,
of course, enough resistance grows between now and early next year to
frustrate this U.S.-elite conspiracy against the Filipino people.
Posted by
Bulatlat
CenPEG is a public
policy center set up shortly before the May 2004 elections to help promote
people empowerment in governance and democratic representation of the
marginalized poor in an elitist and patronage-driven electoral and
political system. It conducted poll watch trainings and voters’
education in the grassroots and, helped monitor and document election
proceedings. In December, it published the book, “Subverting the People’s
Will” amidst findings that massive cheatings marred the last elections. It
is undertaking another research on electoral fraud to be published soon.
To pursue its programs in research and education-training, CenPEG taps a
wide pool of political analysts, public policy experts and academic
scholars for their expertise and experience in public governance as well
as in grassroots empowerment.
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
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.