|
People Power Did It Again Interview with Karina Constantino-David
FFONewstter: Karina, what is the difference between Edsa 1 and Edsa 2? Karina: Edsa 1 was people defending military mutiny. Edsa 2 was the military following the call of the people. This is a big difference. Edsa 1, there was a clear set of leaders: Cory Aquino, Cardinal Sin, Ramos, Enrile, Gringo Honasan, etc. etc. Edsa 2, had no leaders. It had no hierarchy. Edsa 1 has, apart from defending the mutiny of the military, was clearly a response to the cheating of Cory Aquino from the presidency. So there was a very clear replacement. We were not only putting the soul of the people, we wanted to install the consent of the people. Edsa 2 was never a call for Gloria. Gloria was the accidental beneficiary of the desire to push for president simply because she was the constitutional successor. There had been a big difference because we were not fighting to install Gloria. We were fighting to take away a president who has lost his right to rule. Edsa 2 had no hierarchy. Nobody called the shots. Although it was true that there were organized groups, church, Kompil, Akbayan, Bayan, and the United Opposition, there was no single line of command. Rather than a single line of command, there were organized groups who were in terms of outburst of people, the minority. Majority of the people who went to Edsa went there on their own free will without being called by anybody. But you still need coordination across the organized groups although the organized groups very clearly they were also trying to feel the sentiments of the people. You cannot speculate on what the people want. Do they want to go to Mendiola or not? If they think they will, they go! If you think, the crowd did not, then you have to change plans. Again, because of no real hierarchy, it was really an outpouring of the political will of people. Edsa 1 was primarily Metro Manila. Edsa 2 was all over the country. Edsa 1 had an opposition which was severely divided. Bayan was not part of it. In Edsa 2 there was no significant political and non-political, left, middle and right that was not part of it. Another significant difference between the two is that Edsa 1 took a long process. It took three years. The significance in Edsa 2 was the speed within which organized non-political groups understand the people, specifically Couples for Christ all over the country. They were really active all over the place. Business organizations: There was no single business organization that did not take a stand. It is expected that Makati Business Club because of their involvement in Edsa 1. Bankers Associations have not really come out a political stand. Philippine Chamber of Commerce, Filipino-Chinese Association, Management Association of the Philippines, Financial Executives including sectoral groups all of them came out with statements for resignation or impeachment. FFONewsletter: You said that there was a broad participation of sectoral groups including the business sector. But it is also true that each group joined for different motives. For example, the business sector, they joined the campaign because the economic crisis is hurting their own business. Did they really join the campaign because they care for the people? Karina: The problem of the question of that sort is that I do not think anybody as a Christian will have enough basis for some righteousness to accuse groups of motivations. I do not think anybody in the business groups for example had to do this because they wanted to ensure their profits. I think there has been a fairly large change especially in the younger generation of people who are now leaders of business who search for their role in the society. The opportunity to join in the discussion can help shape their own thinking. Did they join EDSA because of the economy? But who is going to suffer for the economy, still the poor. All these rich people were taking a much greater risk than anyone of us, because if you are poor, what risks are you taking? But for business company to come out in the open, without any security that you will win already meant losses for the poor. I know that not only big losses, it also meant that during that period these companies were already being harassed by the Erap people. I think there was a consensus inside each of us that whether you are in business or what, we have crossed the lines. We were united that in our fight against corruption, usurpation of power, immorality, etc. I think we were able to find enough anchor to be able to say we have to do something. Whether the people will benefit or not, the future will know. That is for later. People will benefit from it, whether you like it or not. The business community will benefit from it. But we also cannot do away with business community because without them who will provide jobs? I believe what happened in Edsa is genuine. The outrage was genuine. The anger was genuine. FFONewsletter: You discussed the differences between Edsa I and Edsa 2. What is common between the two?
Karina: What is common is the outpouring, this showing where power really resides which is really is with the people. What is common is the mechanism that was used of people congregating together. What is also the difference between the two is the medium used. In Edsa 1, we were only using fax machine and some papers and dailies. In Edsa 2, we had the mainstream media. TV, radio—a little—the press, all mainstream. Nobody hid facts. It was really like consensus of values. Of course, there were press people who were in the payroll of Erap. But many really helped in educating the people. But are they making money? Imagine twenty-four-hour television during the days of Edsa. No money, no advertisements. The media operators were spending money. The impeachment trials were okay because many people were watching. But to send out the last four nights live the happenings in Edsa meant they were losing money. All the reporters were on the streets covering the events live. FFONewsletter: Karina, you said Edsa 2 has no hierarchy. Nobody claimed leadership. What is the consequence? There is no common political agenda, so each group will demand from the President what they want. It will be a tall order for the President to meet. And what if she could not meet all the demands? Karina: First of all, you take into consideration that everybody, every sector has its own demand. The agenda is basically what every sector, the organized sector has seen plus basic things which the government has to address. An agenda will take the form of advocacy. There is nothing wrong with it. FFONewsletter: There is basically nothing wrong with that, but what if the President could not meet them all within a timeframe given by the people and the organized sector? Karina: But if you look at the agenda, they are basically the same. Kompil, Bayan, Akbayan, etc. But it is impossible to stop the total war in Mindanao? The demand for peace talks. Review the Coco Levy. Is something wrong with it? There is nothing impossible. If Gloria could not meet it—this is our agreement—and this is the beauty of agendas because that is our borderline. We might not be happy with the speed of it or the ultimate conclusion of it down the line, but the initial agenda is clear. The total-war policy, for example, is something that even the military at that time was against. It was only Erap at ang kanyang ka-machohan that he waged war against the MILF. Release the political prisoners. Is there something wrong with that? You can pay I million US dollars per hostage, you cannot release political prisoners. In principle, there is an acceptance. The speed when all these demands will be met is still to be argued. But there is a level of principle. Prosecute Erap. Gloria has to backtrack because in the beginning she tended to agree to send out Erap for exile. Don’t worry about the agenda because there will be constant dialogues that will take place. FFONewsletter: Can you describe Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? Karina: Gloria has no charisma. She works hard. I saw her working while I was still in the Cabinet. She is serious. She has traditional concept of classical economics. World Treaty Organization (WTO). Does she have a vision as opposed to Erap? It is not true that Erap had no vision. He had a genuine feeling for the poor. But it was not Erap’s job to implement programs to alleviate poverty, etc. It was the job of his Cabinet members. The problem was he did not allow his official family to do things properly. He became too greedy. Erap had a good Cabinet in comparison with past administrations. Most of them were professionals. But he was still the Boss. If he just allowed his Cabinet to work, it could have been different. FFONewsletter: You have served two presidents and resigned because of your principles and values that you cannot tolerate in the government. What lesson can you derive from this experience? Karina: I think situations were different. There was no corruption under the Cory Government. There was nothing unethical that happened under Cory. Of course, there were requests, but they were part of the work I had to do. I resigned not because of Cory. I resigned because of other reasons but primarily because it was already difficult to work with my immediate superior. We will work hard to set up institutions appropriate for a mature democracy that it is no longer necessary to call on People Power. But we should not also think in extreme that we should not call People Power again. Western media made a caricature of it but it was not. FFONewsletter: There is an election coming in May. Do you think the political landscape will change considerably? Karina: I don’t think so. Whether you like it or not, politics will not change overnight. The people are still the people of the past. It will take time for them to change. Have they learned any lesson? What can the people do when they have no choice among the candidates? What can the people do? At least now, there are less people from the movies in the likes of Sotto, Revilla, Jaworski, we can say that there is a little improvement. You will see people punishing those people who sided with Erap. FFONewsletter: There was a marked decline of the overseas remittances during the last few months. Can you say something about this? Karina: I don’t know in the case in the Netherlands, but in various other countries, the fear of collapse of the banking system definitely influenced the flow of remittances. Also, when the exchange rate, for example, US$1 is to Ph 50,00, they only send the peso equivalent. I think it was a question of waiting for the better rate. Whatever the motivation of the overseas Filipinos for withholding their remittances, this had surely implications on the national deficit and the budget. FFONewsletter: Thank you Karina for the very enlightening talk. Good luck to your work. Karina Constantino-David is Sociology professor at the University of the Philippines and senior partner of Property Solutions, Inc. |
