The Problem with Filipino Political Symantics

Everybody hopes for a new administration in 2010. New governments and new administration are being understood to mean one thing.

If you really analyze things, you'll come to the conclusion that "governments" and "administrations" are two separate political concepts. Government means the entire machinery that is used to realize the aspirations of the citizens of a definitive territory; while administration is the set of people behind that machinery.

When we say "new government", we meant a change in the political system. When we say we need "new administration, " we just meant a change in the personalities behind the government machinery, which, for all intents and purpose, is cosmetic change at best.

What we need in 2010 is a newer and fuller lease of life. I mean, we need a " new governmental leadership". meaning a new leadership that would pursue the creation of a New Government. Under our present circumstances, that means a new charter. What I'm suggesting are two stages: one, the institution of a new government under a transitional council and the other one, the entry of newer blood under the new leadership.

This suggests a forcible seizure of political power either through radical changes in the Constitution ahead of the elections or the possible declaration of a abolition of all governance. These two options require the strongest political will, since the present administration is fully determined to fight forces against it.

The idea of transitory governments is nothing new in our history. In 1899, our forefathers created one shortly after they defeated the Spanish forces. Manuel Quezon broached the idea prior to the war and it also happened when the entire Philippine government migrated to Australia during the Japanese occupation. When the Huks threatened the Philippine republic during, I think, Quirino's time, the former president mulled on the idea of declaring a transitory government. While, we all know what Cory did shortly after EDSA uno.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno knew this personally since he was the architect of the 1986 Freedom Constitution. However, what that charter contemplated was the legal actions by the government shortly after a big political event---a revolution. In our present case, there's no such thing, unless of course, Norberto Gonzales and his military generals instigate one.

The chief question is---can we do this in a peaceful manner? No. This one, I think, requires some people to sacrifice their very lives for the cause. Obviously, the military backers of this regime would fight it out, as what Joe de Venecia Jr. said.

What we actually need is not a coup d'etat but a Latin American version of what others call a "golpe de gulat". That, however, would require a stronger effort at uniting various interests of numerous groups. Is it attainable? Of course.