Wednesday, July 22, 2009

An overly ambitious dung beetle

Many people didn’t know what to think when Norberto Gonzales, the national security adviser of Mrs. Gloria Arroyo, first broached the idea of a constitutional commission (con-com) as an alternative mode of changing the Charter. Maybe it’s because he didn’t say much, other than it was doable.

“The key is for the heads of our three branches of government to agree among themselves to undertake Charter change. To Secretary Gonzales’s mind, this is not a complicated thing,” said a press release from Gonzales’s political party, PDSP (Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas).

Well, it’s not that simple. Con-com is not included in the present Constitution, so a Charter amendment has to happen first before one can even consider a con-com. Now, if there’s going to be a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly, anyway, what’s the need for a con-com? Why even bother thinking about it?

Most people will move on. But Gonzales is not like most people. Instead of dropping the idea, he went on to propose a revolutionary government, to get around the fact that the con-com cannot be done except in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. That—advocating the overthrow of the present government—opens him to charges of sedition and fomenting revolution.

Fortunately for Gonzales, he is a protegé of Fr. Romeo Intengan, the guru of applied jesuitics. He can contradict himself without contradicting himself.

Gonzales can agree with Chief Justice Reynato Puno; that is, his analysis that the country is “like a volcano that is about to erupt” and still claim that the Arroyo administration has substantially improved the lives of the people. He can characterize the need to reform our electoral system as a matter of life and death without criticizing the massive cheating that happened in the 2004 presidential poll and, to a lesser degree, in the 2007 senatorial election. He can call for a revolutionary government because he’s really just asking the leaders of the present government to overthrow themselves so they can reconstitute as a transition government.

“The call of the times [is] for the three major branches of government, supported by key pillars of our society like the churches, civil society and mass movements, to agree to a transitional government respected by the armed forces.”

“GMA should be part of the revolutionary government that should also include the leadership of the two houses of Congress, the Judiciary and the Church.”

Gonzales does not say much except that his patrona should be a member of the junta. He does not say how the junta will function, how its members will be chosen, and whether the junta operates on unanimity or majority rule. He does not say who will be the commander in chief. He does not say if Congress will be abolished during the transition because if it will be abolished, then what’s the point of including the leaders of a nonexistent body?

Gonzalez has not revealed any details about his junta because the only thing that matters to him is Gloria Arroyo’s continued leadership. Never mind that she turned the country into a “volcano that is about to erupt,” she can undo what she has done. She, at the head of a transition government, can “truly empower the people to choose their leaders and shift in the system of governance to free the nation from very costly elections and from paralyzing stalemates among institutions and political forces.” I know it sounds insane, but that’s applied jesuitics.

That’s why Gonzales reminds me of an American pundit’s description of Sarah Palin, “She is like an especially ambitious dung beetle trying to push a turd up and over a hill; even if she gets it where she wants it, in the end, she’s still just been rolling shit.”

SOURCE: Life in Gloria's Enchanted Kingdom


kulas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jesusa Bernardo said...

Amusing and jesuitically revealing, manuelbuencamino .

Let me caution you, though, about getting into the Palin trashing bandwagon, which was preceded by Hillary bashing, coinciding with the Obama mania. The 2 women's banging, and the 1st biracial US leader's worship--they're really mainly of American media's making.

Not as democratic and simple as it seems, US politics/society is. Allow me:

Musings on the First Female President Lost in a Patriarchal America

manuelbuencamino said...


I wouldn't put Palin on the same levl as Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, whatever impression I have of Palin comes from having seen and heard her. I'm not bashing Palin for the sake of bashing. Besides, she makes George Bush look like an intellectual.

Jesusa Bernardo said...

@ manuelbuencamino

Definitely, Palin's far off Clinton's level. My point is the pattern/bandwagon of bashing women who dared break the US glass ceiling.

Just think, Bush Jr., with all the destruction he caused, did not generate as much American banging as Palin, who was thrust into the limelight only last year, or even Hillary. Proof? Bush, the "idiot heir" lucky enough to be a male politician, even won reelection in 2004, for goodness' sake.

manuelbuencamino said...


I'm with you. I see the problem faced by women in a male dominated society.

Although I think the reason Bush didn't get the bashing he deserved is because mainstream media gave him a free pass. I don't think we can attribute the difference in treatment solely to gender.

Also, I saw the last election as a race between who would get inside the WH first, a black man or a white woman?

Jesusa Bernardo said...

Right on, manuelbuencamino, the media gave Bush Jr. much pass--as much as it did a neophyte, virtually-unknown-before-2007 black politician named Barack Obama.

The media reflects society, we all know that, and the America media's patriarchy showed in the cases of Bush Jr., Hillary, Obama, and Palin: too much banging on the women and "pass" or mania on the men. It's tempting to see such gender bias as mere coincidence; however, over 200 years of the political history US--supposed bastion of Western democracy--being absolutely bereft of any female VP or female President tells it all.

rc said...

"Besides, she makes George Bush look like an intellectual."

An unfortunate statement to be sure. Co-mingling the American and Philippine political situations is a perilous undertaking and a fools game. Your message can easily be distorted in ways that you didn't intend. I'm afraid you've fallen into that trap and now diminished your point with a needless and silly analogy.

manuelbuencamino said...

Excuse me RC but how did comparing Bush and Palin result in co-mingling the American and Philippine political situation?

I wrote."Besides, she makes George Bush look like an intellectual."

Did I have to write "Palin" in parenthesis after "she" so that you wouldn't het confused?

rc said...

That was not the was your comparison of Palin to Gloria..there is none, in case you were wondering. If you think there is, you should have spelled it out in a more convincing manner...not just some cheap shot. What you said, in fact, was just lefty diatribe. That was followed by an even sillier evaluation of GB's intellect compared to Palin.

Looks , to me, like you are watching too much American MSM. Very trendy, but very inaccurate stuff. It may get you and interview on MSNBC, but won't convince anybody that you are serious. Maybe you think the current American POTUS is some sort of genius.

Sorry I was unclear with my complaint though.