According to Topix.net the Philippines is under an 'undeclared martial law'. How true is that? What we do know about Philippines politics is that there is a culture of power lusters and corruption, and collusion between the major parties. Consider for instance that President Arroyo pardoned deposed former president Joseph Estrada. Why would you do that unless you wanted the same treatment in opposition, that is to be unaccountable for your crimes. This is consistent with the perception that corruption has increased under Arroyo. I've only lived in the Philippines 2 years but I've seen a lot of corruption. The US government even expressed dismay at the high number of opposition leaders being murdered or disappearing, and the high level of political killings. A significant number of journalists have also been killed for expressing opinions against certain political interests.
Certainly there is no martial law in the Philippines, but the threat should be considered serious because Gloria Arroyo is currently prevented from running for a 2nd term. She is not without her options, and among them are:
1. Attempting to change the constitution. She has supported Federalism as a means of giving the Moros their lands in Muslim Mindanao. It would seem reasonable if the government had not spent the last 100 years trying to marginalise them through population resettlement and kill them. But fine, all is forgiven.
2. Declaring martial law. One of the problems with allowing a president to declare martial law is the chance of the law being misused. It would be easy enough for the president's supporters in the military to conspire to fabricate a 'civil emergency' that would justify martial law, whether its the killing of people, or more likely a series of bomb attacks around the Philippines.
3. Getting one of her children or supporters elected: If you can't get re-elected, why not get one of your supporters elected. Arroyo has family in politics. Maybe they will ascend as a proxy. No signs of that yet, but no election until 2010, so time to groom them for the presidency.
Reading the Topix story there seems to be confusion over terminology. Martial law is a period of enhanced presidental power. There is the concern that after 30 days, when martial law is due to expire (after the end of her term), that she could pay off a number of politicians to achieve an indefinite extension. More likely however would be a move to rewrite the Constitution. The Philippines has replaced its constitutions every 30 years on average. It needs to be conceded however that Arroyo has done a good job reforming the economy in many respects, so she is no slouch there. Of course they said the same about President Marcos, who failed to execute. Arroyo by contrast has just been slow. The trend however is positive. Could it be that she is just impatient with democracy. Aside from the political-related killings, it might be comparable with President Roosevelt's total disregard for the Constitution. eg. The IRS Code and abolition of the gold standard.
If one looks around the world it is a given that we are in a period of fascism, where corporate government alliance has far more power than that of the much maligned unions, consumer (given the weak regulation). Fascism today is far less confrontational than the pre-WWII days. It reads to be understood that there are blunter tools than guns to get what you want. Its easier to misappropriate funds and pay off your detractors. You will find some journalists are paid off to shut up, and they are the one's who don't respond to the threat of murdered journalists.
Certainly there is no martial law in the Philippines, but the threat should be considered serious because Gloria Arroyo is currently prevented from running for a 2nd term. She is not without her options, and among them are:
1. Attempting to change the constitution. She has supported Federalism as a means of giving the Moros their lands in Muslim Mindanao. It would seem reasonable if the government had not spent the last 100 years trying to marginalise them through population resettlement and kill them. But fine, all is forgiven.
2. Declaring martial law. One of the problems with allowing a president to declare martial law is the chance of the law being misused. It would be easy enough for the president's supporters in the military to conspire to fabricate a 'civil emergency' that would justify martial law, whether its the killing of people, or more likely a series of bomb attacks around the Philippines.
3. Getting one of her children or supporters elected: If you can't get re-elected, why not get one of your supporters elected. Arroyo has family in politics. Maybe they will ascend as a proxy. No signs of that yet, but no election until 2010, so time to groom them for the presidency.
Reading the Topix story there seems to be confusion over terminology. Martial law is a period of enhanced presidental power. There is the concern that after 30 days, when martial law is due to expire (after the end of her term), that she could pay off a number of politicians to achieve an indefinite extension. More likely however would be a move to rewrite the Constitution. The Philippines has replaced its constitutions every 30 years on average. It needs to be conceded however that Arroyo has done a good job reforming the economy in many respects, so she is no slouch there. Of course they said the same about President Marcos, who failed to execute. Arroyo by contrast has just been slow. The trend however is positive. Could it be that she is just impatient with democracy. Aside from the political-related killings, it might be comparable with President Roosevelt's total disregard for the Constitution. eg. The IRS Code and abolition of the gold standard.
If one looks around the world it is a given that we are in a period of fascism, where corporate government alliance has far more power than that of the much maligned unions, consumer (given the weak regulation). Fascism today is far less confrontational than the pre-WWII days. It reads to be understood that there are blunter tools than guns to get what you want. Its easier to misappropriate funds and pay off your detractors. You will find some journalists are paid off to shut up, and they are the one's who don't respond to the threat of murdered journalists.
Posts
