I spent my Independence Day at the Laguna Garden Cafe across Ayala Center Cebu in a Democracy Forum sponsored by the National Institute for Policy Studies (NIPS for short...), the Liberal Party think tank. Besides the free lunch and snacks, I accepted the invitation to hear Sen. Mar Roxas, arguably the most vocal candidate for the presidency in 2010, and maybe ask him a few questions as a critical first-time voter.
By my personal assessment, Roxas, though a scion of the aristocratic Roxas and Araneta families, is one of the more progressive than the other candidates because of his close association with maverick legislators like partymate Rep. Erin Tañada, himself a member of a distinguished clan of nationalist politicians, a former student leader and current Chair of the House Committee on Human Rights. I've met Tañada twice and even then he had been endorsing his fellow Liberal so I figured, if Erin likes him maybe he's got something there.
Unfortunately, Mar didn't stay too long. After an entrance fit for a ead of State, he made a brief speech in his distinctly Ilonggo accent thanking everyone for coming and apologizing that he had to be home by noon as Korina was waiting for him in Manila. But he was still kind enough to stay for some picture taking and autograph signing as everyone in the jam-packed room mobbed him.
The questions were left to NIPS Director Lambert Ramirez who admitted that he wasn't really authoritative on the candidate's views but whose answers i suppose was congruent with the party line. Concerned student that I am, I asked him about their plans on tution fee increase and the commercialization of education. He replied by saying how ticklish the tuition fee issue was and that Sen. Roxas had already consulted with the National Union of Students of the Philippines and was tilting toward socialized tuition fees (which I think is applicaple only to State Universities). Then the forum went back to the LP's networking campaign strategy for 2010.
Let us digress for a while. Once upon a time, freshman year in college to be more specific, I was a staunch advocate of Charter Change aka Cha-Cha. I would argue with anyone who challenged my views, even if it meant it was the whole class. The Philippines was a mess and everyone knew it.Change was something we needed, I reasoned, and change should begin with the Constitution that serves as the framework of our political system. Parliamentary government will reduce deadlocks between legislature and executive, Federalism will free up the supressed energies of local government and Charter Change was, as I pointed out in a term paper, justified by Aristotle's political philosophy.
Fast forward to the present and you see me now as an active member of the No to Con-
Ass Facebook group and trashtalking pro-ConAss lawmakers whenever I have the chance. Why the about face? I realized that you need more than just Charter Change to fix this country. No, I'm not into the "It's not the system but it's the people" thing. Our political and economic woes go beyond our Constitution and is deeply rooted in the very structure of our society. We can't get anywhere without dismantling elite rule which has thrived in Philippine politics no matter how many times we changed constitutions. However, middle class thinking, which was initially mu stanpoint, sees things differently. Recognizing the need for change but reluctant to take steps that might drastically alter the status quo, Charter Change is the easy answer.
This is the kind of thinking i see in the LP, as the answers to my questions show. Most of the Liberals' position are cautious middle-of-the-road compromises. They are against Con-Ass but push for Charter Change through Con-Con. They are concerned with agrarian reform but prefer extending and reforming the gradualist CARP instead of the more forceful GARB. Like any mainstream party, they are also quiet on political dynasties.
We keep on hearing how the 2010 polls will bring change. That's a given, but maybe we should also be thinking about how far we ought to go. Perhaps the more progressive presidentiables should be more progressive.
By my personal assessment, Roxas, though a scion of the aristocratic Roxas and Araneta families, is one of the more progressive than the other candidates because of his close association with maverick legislators like partymate Rep. Erin Tañada, himself a member of a distinguished clan of nationalist politicians, a former student leader and current Chair of the House Committee on Human Rights. I've met Tañada twice and even then he had been endorsing his fellow Liberal so I figured, if Erin likes him maybe he's got something there.
Unfortunately, Mar didn't stay too long. After an entrance fit for a ead of State, he made a brief speech in his distinctly Ilonggo accent thanking everyone for coming and apologizing that he had to be home by noon as Korina was waiting for him in Manila. But he was still kind enough to stay for some picture taking and autograph signing as everyone in the jam-packed room mobbed him.
The questions were left to NIPS Director Lambert Ramirez who admitted that he wasn't really authoritative on the candidate's views but whose answers i suppose was congruent with the party line. Concerned student that I am, I asked him about their plans on tution fee increase and the commercialization of education. He replied by saying how ticklish the tuition fee issue was and that Sen. Roxas had already consulted with the National Union of Students of the Philippines and was tilting toward socialized tuition fees (which I think is applicaple only to State Universities). Then the forum went back to the LP's networking campaign strategy for 2010.
Let us digress for a while. Once upon a time, freshman year in college to be more specific, I was a staunch advocate of Charter Change aka Cha-Cha. I would argue with anyone who challenged my views, even if it meant it was the whole class. The Philippines was a mess and everyone knew it.Change was something we needed, I reasoned, and change should begin with the Constitution that serves as the framework of our political system. Parliamentary government will reduce deadlocks between legislature and executive, Federalism will free up the supressed energies of local government and Charter Change was, as I pointed out in a term paper, justified by Aristotle's political philosophy.
Fast forward to the present and you see me now as an active member of the No to Con-
Ass Facebook group and trashtalking pro-ConAss lawmakers whenever I have the chance. Why the about face? I realized that you need more than just Charter Change to fix this country. No, I'm not into the "It's not the system but it's the people" thing. Our political and economic woes go beyond our Constitution and is deeply rooted in the very structure of our society. We can't get anywhere without dismantling elite rule which has thrived in Philippine politics no matter how many times we changed constitutions. However, middle class thinking, which was initially mu stanpoint, sees things differently. Recognizing the need for change but reluctant to take steps that might drastically alter the status quo, Charter Change is the easy answer.This is the kind of thinking i see in the LP, as the answers to my questions show. Most of the Liberals' position are cautious middle-of-the-road compromises. They are against Con-Ass but push for Charter Change through Con-Con. They are concerned with agrarian reform but prefer extending and reforming the gradualist CARP instead of the more forceful GARB. Like any mainstream party, they are also quiet on political dynasties.
We keep on hearing how the 2010 polls will bring change. That's a given, but maybe we should also be thinking about how far we ought to go. Perhaps the more progressive presidentiables should be more progressive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)