The president's confusing signals
What happens to our country when the president sends confusing signals? Before trying to answer this question, let me recall an incident that happened before the 2013 earthquake that devastated a great part of Bohol. During a strong aftershock a man was heard allegedly shouting "tsunami" while running through our city streets. What was probably running through his mind was to save his fellowmen from the kind of calamity that killed thousands of Japanese two years earlier. From social perspective the man was an absolute nobody. No one knew him although some eventually recognized him as a radio block timer. Even then, while he did not command attention, nor was he vested with any semblance of authority, his warning confused those who heard him. People quickly panicked. In the mayhem that followed, scores got hurt.
President Duterte recently announced that he had in mind forming a revolutionary government. As president, he spoke with highest authority and so unlike the obscure radio block timer who shouted "tsunami" we tended to listen to Duterte's pronouncements as we recognize his position.
What did he say? A revolutionary government, that's what! His call was clear and soon hordes of his supporters started to mobilize in many parts of the country. I saw proof of the mobilization effort when we celebrated Bonifacio Day. Thousands wearing red carried placards for the advancement of revolutionary government. Surely, there was coordination among the different groups otherwise the uniformity of color alone would not be achieved. Judging from the display of unity, I could surmise the president was as effective in moving his mass base as the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
There were others, though, who stepped back from the line of adulation. I was one of them. We had to reexamine the presidential declaration because it was confusing. A revolutionary government is a kind of rule in total disregard of the written Constitution. The leader of a revolutionary government is a virtual dictator. His word is law, nothing else holds sway. In that context, whatever is the motivation of Duterte's plan to rule as a dictator runs counter to our democracy.
Few days ago, and to the relief of us who got confused and dismayed by the president's dictatorial tendencies, Duterte seemed to distance himself from his earlier preference for a revolutionary government. His spokesman clarified, in forceful language, that there remained no more desire to so rule our country. Fine.
When Malacañang declared that revolutionary government was a dead issue, I could not help but suspect the pronouncement. I could not easily accept it as I remembered that Duterte once lied to the country. He accused Sen. Trillanes of maintaining offshore deposits and even specified the foreign bank, account number, and the remaining balance. But when the truth unveiled, Duterte said he only made up his charges. My memory of the falsehood Duterte uttered aggravated my confusion of his leadership. Is revolutionary government really an abandoned issue?
The other day, my confusion deepened. Duterte said if he could come up with a new Constitution that has safeguards against corruption, he would resign from the presidency? Is he saying corrupt practices are embedded in our 1987 charter? Or is there any written Constitution that is crafted to promote corruption? If I end this column in utter confusion, I have someone in mind to blame.
- Latest
