‘Civil conflicts and political change

For more than two and a half decades, the nation approaches a celebratory mood during the final week of February. It marks the time when People Power at EDSA catapulted Mrs. Corazon Aquino to the presidency of the country and therefore drove Ferdinand Marcos into political exile.

Unscheduled changes in government leadership. In the history of our Republic, there have been three occasions when an unexpected and unscheduled change in top government leadership took place.

First, in 1972, President Marcos decided to install martial law and abolished Congress. Although he continued as head of the government, this act centered all political power in the president who became dictator. For a time, this worked effectively. Many economic, social and political reforms were introduced, making it possible to effect rapid economic change. Gridlock in decision-making disappeared. By the time martial law ended in 1981, he had put in place a presidential form of government complemented by a parliamentary system patterned after, but not identical to that of the French republican structure. It became then the basis of the country’s political system.

Next. in 1986, EDSA People Power revolt began as a rapid massing of crowds that gave a protective ring to a group of high military officials from being arrested by the government. In turn, this breakaway military group gave support in favour of Mrs. Corazon Aquino that strengthened her position to assume the presidency after her strong showing in the unfinished presidential count of the election returns.

In 2001, a second EDSA People Power revolt helped to remove a sitting president (Joseph Estrada), forcing his resignation and his replacement by the vice president (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo). On the surface, this event conformed with the order of political succession. But the removal of the president skirted some steps in the constitutional process.

All three political events were significant for the nation. They laid a pattern for altering the course of the nation’s history.

Compared to many social and political changes that happened in other countries, these significant political events in the Philippines were accomplished without bloodshed. In many countries, political upheavals of such magnitude could only be had at great costs.

More violent political changes among our neighboring countries. Far more violent and destructive political commotions have happened in other countries. We can confine our sample to those that have suffered instabilities and wars since World War II.

For example, today, we hear much about the violent civil wars happening in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Nearer to us are countries experiencing similar challenges in this wider region: Afghanistan, Pakistan.

Not too long ago, the following countries were engulfed in wars, civil disturbances, and regional instabilities: Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, Tunisia, and Israel, to name only prominent examples in recent years.

Nearer to home in East Asia, almost all our neighbours have experienced violent and dangerous histories that have claimed large human and economic costs: the Chinese Communist Revolution, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and its contagion among the neighboring Indochinese countries of Cambodia, Laos.

Our Asean neighbours have not been spared either by violent social and political upheavals. Thailand has had a violent past in its civil conflicts. Malaysia had suffered a long civil war before it earned its independence. Indonesia suffered catastrophic pogroms of civilian populations during the unstable years following its independence. Even Singapore was not immune to civil disturbances early in its history.

Types of civil conflicts in our midst. In our country, essentially three types of civil and political conflicts have afflicted us. Over time, all these have had their economic consequences as well.

The first are those based strongly on ideological grounds. The rebellions launched by the Hukbalahap and the New People’s Army serve as the foremost examples of the communist challenge to the government. In the course of years of conflict, the challenge posed by these rebellions has ebbed and flowed.

The second type arises from factors rooted in cultural and religious identity. This is essentially the Muslim problem, the problem of Mindanao. In earlier history, the rebellions of Muslim datus and regional leaders against the central government exemplified this phenomenon. Today, the rebellions under the MNLF, MILF, Abu Sayyaf, BIFF are of the same character.

Both types of conflicts have had a claim against our resources and have, in certain instances, caused suffering within the nation. However, these problems have been less costly compared with those of similar unrests in other countries.

That the government is engaged in an effort to negotiate a peace agreement in order to remove the problems posed by these two types of conflict underlines their significance and seriousness.

The third type of conflicts arises from the interactions of those who participate in the running of political affairs within the body politic. In effect, this represents the core of the nation’s political processes. Getting it right and functioning means that the country’s politics would facilitate the solution of the nation’s most pressing problems.

The participants in the political process include the major political personalities, the political parties they represent or control, the electorate, the common citizenry who can be grouped as “insiders” or as “outsiders.”

The insiders are at the helm of government, while the “outsiders” are those outside of government who want to influence government actions. Sometimes, outsiders want to become insiders in order to be more directly in control of government decisions.

Much of what happens within the body politic is the result of the interactions of “insiders” and “outsiders” within the political framework. Such an interaction need not be one of conflict, but of cooperation. The main point is to facilitate the functioning of the government so that it can achieve what needs to be done.

How have we done? As a parting thought, almost 30 years ago, after EDSA I People Power, we can ponder how well we have done.

A major consequence of this event was the jettisoning of the political innovations Marcos introduced. The adoption of a presidential-parliamentary system was discarded in favour of the restoration of the structure of a bicameral legislature. This reversion to the old institutions has seen the return of many practices that were publicly criticized then and now also as vehemently decried.

Political decision-making is as slow as before, and oftentimes, we get gridlock between Congress and the President or between the two houses of the legislature.

My email is: [email protected]. Visit this site for more information, feedback and commentary: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/gpsicat/