Political upheavals, anti-democratic elites and the pseudo-revolutionary President

There seems to be an inconsistency in the political discourse of some people that presently circulates in the public sphere.

 

I am referring to those who condemn the three impeachment complaints filed against the President, and denounce these as having destabilizing effects on the country.  Others even say that those who filed the said complaints are committing an irresponsible act, by pointing out that such would undermine the gains made, the reforms on the way, and the straight path which the political community is now treading, or to which it is now headed.  

 

While many apologists of the President do not see the impeachment prospering by raising, almost gleefully, the point that it is a numbers game, and that the President has enough numbers to block it in the House, and even a more solid number to ensure that it will be dead on arrival in the Senate, if by any rare chance it gets through the watchful and protective eyes of Speaker Belmonte, they nevertheless deride the complainants as troublemakers. For people so sure of the numbers on the side of the President, it is puzzling that some are so worried of a political upheaval that they lose no time demonizing the complaint and maligning the complainants.

 

Yet, these are also the people who fail to see the destabilizing effect of the push to castrate the Supreme Court and ligate the foundational powers of the Constitution as the sole source of all rubrics where the legality of all laws are weighed.  

 

They do not see the political upheaval being whipped when the Chief Executive himself conducts a press conference where he literally challenges the power of the Supreme Court and issues a veiled threat to its members.  

 

They seem to be blind to the destabilizing effects when some members of the Legislature threaten to impeach the Justices, or the softer version of it embodied in moves to weaken the Supreme Court’s independence by redrawing its budgetary autonomy, or by the even softer approach of going around its ruling by redefining the legal terms upon which its judgment was based.  

 

They seem to be tolerant of socialites labeling the Constitution as simply a piece of paper, of journalists-turned-constitutionalists forcing the Constitution to bow to the power of a mere Administrative Code, and of young, aspiring lawyers or lawyers-to-be beginning their legal careers not on a stable respect for the Constitution, but on a contemptuous attitude towards its flaws and imperfections, and the flaws and imperfections of the men and women in Padre Faura who are sworn to protect it.

 

It is simply astounding that these people would label the act of filing an impeachment complaint, a right that is provided for in a constitutional democracy as the only recourse for citizens to redress a grievance against officials who are immune from suit, as irresponsibly destabilizing.  Yet in the same breath they defend those who are undermining the power of the fundamental law of the land, and challenging the authority of the Judiciary, including even those who took office swearing to uphold and protect the laws, as responsible crusaders and reformists for the common good.

 

There are two ways one can make sense of this dissonance, of this seemingly irreconcilable contradiction.

 

First is to take into account the class dimension of this dismissive, if not derisive, view of the political elites on those who dare to challenge the power of the ruling class, and who dare destabilize the comfort zones of those who are allied with it.  

 

It has to be said. I have come to the conclusion that the elites of this country actually adhere to an inherently anti-democratic political discourse. Even as they ride on democratic symbolisms, and talk about political reform, what is in fact celebrated is one where such symbols are crafted by limiting choices and denying nuanced political positions so that the resulting political configuration would be safe to their interests. This can be seen from the black or white narratives that simplify a complex political terrain where pluralism is supposed to be celebrated.  

 

In a complex political world, simplistic dualisms tend to undermine choices, and have the effect of pushing nuanced political positions to the margins. 

 

The President rested his mantra on a straight path, and made this as an absolute rubric to measure his friends and his enemies. He reasserted this in his SONA when he labeled his critics as not simply against him, but against progress and reform, and therefore de facto enemies of the people. 

 

This simplistic politics is echoed by his apologists. I have been repeatedly accused of being a Marcos loyalist, a Gloria apologist, and a paid hack of the Binay camp for taking the President to task on the issue of the DAP. I am neither anyone of these, and I am sure many of those who criticize the President aren’t either. This dumbing down of the political endeavor and the forced dichotomies that are deployed could only but have the effect of preventing the emergence of authentic voices. It has the effect of forcing many to remain in their political closets for fear of being labeled. This is not different from the structural violence that we inflict on women, the LGBT community, and those who are at the margins when we deploy dichotomies of normal-deviant and acceptable-unacceptable subjectivities.

 

And this discourse is incompatible with democratic pluralism, as it is patently elitist when it attributes virtue only to those who follow the ruling sector of society, which in this case would be the President and his yellow crowd. While there is no evidence yet that this discursive violence has led to physical oppression, as admittedly nobody has been imprisoned yet for posting, tweeting and blogging against the President, it has a chilling effect nevertheless. After all, violence in the post-modern world is no longer limited to lives being snuffed by the tyrant’s bullets, but now includes identities being defined and objectified by tyrannical words.

 

The dismissive attitude towards the opposition and the diminution of legitimate voices of resistance as illogical and irrational, or are simply partisan attacks from discredited enemies wishing nothing but the downfall of the President, are patently cacique in nature, and are tyrannical by implication. This is how landed elites would view farmers who clamor for their rights to land, or how bourgeois capitalists would treat workers fighting for their rights to fair working conditions.  And the tyrannical element of this form of elitism is even more enhanced when it juxtaposes with a messianic attitude of infallibility.  

 

When the President talks of reform and leading people to the straight path, and where his minions sing praises to such noble goal, but in the same breath do not recognize the validity of criticism, and the place of constitutionally-guaranteed processes, what we are in fact celebrating is a one-track political world that delegitimizes free speech.

 

In this elitist and messianic worldview, the Constitution becomes merely a factor to be considered in, and not a bedrock for making decisions. What comes out is an instrumentalist attitude towards the fundamental law of the land. It leads to an elite attitude that looks at the state as a mere venue for capital accumulation and the government as an arena for political games, and the SONA as a theater to mesmerize the hoi polloi not only with propaganda, but with a taste of tasteless fashion. And such elitism is found in those who believe that their class or their education entitles them to treat the Constitution, in the words of one socialite, as just a piece of paper.

 

And this brings me to the second perspective that would provide some sense to the dissonance I earlier cited.

 

Caught in his messianic belief that he is the savior of our country, and cognizant of the fact that he is being accorded by his supporters almost a monopoly for virtue, as evidenced for example by counterarguments against the impeachment process around the theme that there is no alternative, and some even suggesting that the Constitution should be amended to allow for him to run again in 2016, what we have in fact is a President who acts as if he is leading a revolution from within the institutions of governance.

 

A quick look at the DAP controversy, from the time of its inception to the manner the Administration reacted to the SC decision of declaring it unconstitutional, will reveal a Presidency that is willing to push the Constitution against a wall. The mantra of many of the President’s apologist in social media is full of allusions to a flawed, imperfect fundamental law, effectively pointing out the restrictive elements of the Constitution that constrain the reforms which are being pushed. This discourse has the effect of positioning the Constitution as a limit to reform, and the Supreme Court as an inconvenience in attaining such reform. And the President himself parrots this, even as the Congress that he effectively controls echoes it.

 

This is indeed characteristic of a pseudo-revolutionary government, for nowhere in the discourse of mature democracies that you see this mouthed by people who are in power, and by those who support the ruling party. This stance is usually reserved for activists, and those who fight the ruling establishment.

 

In management parlance, the appropriate term for this would be “creative destruction.” A similar phrase was used by a US military officer in the Vietnam War justifying the destruction of a village—“We have to save the village by destroying it.”

 

Indeed, and in the name of “saving the Republic of the Philippines,” the President is pushing the limits of the Constitution, challenging established institutions associated with constitutional democracy, and destabilizing and undoing established traditional processes which he thinks are cogs in the wheel that drive corruption. 

 

Unfortunately, he is not a revolutionary leader, but a President sworn to protect the Constitution. He took that path when he accepted his nomination as candidate, and when he took his oath as Chief Executive. His reform pathway has been delimited by that solemn oath. And he chose this, over that of leading his crusade on the streets being bombarded by water cannons while another President is delivering a SONA, and on the hills fighting an armed struggle. There, his successes will be counted not on the guns he gave every policeman, but on every military personnel he would have gunned down; he will not boast of the fewer labor strikes under his term, but on the many successful strikes that occurred. He would have understood that waging a revolution is a sincere and serious counter-narrative to a deeply structured malaise of the state, and not a mere political posturing, an act which he as President has unfairly accused those on the left to be guilty of.

 

He chose to live in a world where reforms have to be done within the ambit of a Constitution, which while not perfect has to be accorded respect. If needed, it can be changed, if only to show that it is not an eternal document.  

 

And in this world, painting the Constitution as a flawed document and the Supreme Court as composed of fallible men and women in robes, in contrast to a seemingly righteous and infallible President undoubtedly inflicts damage to the stability of constitutional democracy. Many of its foundational principles are being undermined, such as the principles of the separation of powers, of check and balances, and of the hierarchy of laws and statutes.  

 

When the President condemns the Court, and the Legislature responds with threats to curtail its independence, and when even intellectuals and lawyers argue that it is warranted, there is reason to believe that we now live in dangerous times not in the hands of revolutionaries, but from people sworn to govern us.

 

And when those who are vigilant enough to run to the Constitution and avail of the remedies allowed legally to make the President answer for acts which they consider to be actionable offenses are considered enemies of the people, instead of defenders of the rule of law, there is reason to believe that our polity is at risk of becoming no longer that of law.

 

Indeed, we may be in for a period of political upheaval. But this is not because some people filed an impeachment complaint against the President. It is not because some petitioners filed a case against the DAP. It is not because critics are posting, liking and tweeting their criticisms in cyberspace.

 

These are what democracy is all about.

 

Instead, we are in for a political upheaval if the political elites will continue to see these as aberrations, and if the President will continue to see himself as a messiah leading a revolution from within—infallible, above the law and outside the bounds of the Constitution.

The author is a former dean of De La Salle University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.