Re-enacting 'people power'

A JUDICIOUS INTERVENTION by the Supreme Court in the Philippines has rescued this South East Asian state from the portents of a violent overthrow or even a non-constitutional and chaotic dismissal of a one-time, democratically-elected leader who in recent months managed to squander the goodwill of his people. In the face of a tumultuous civilian revolt against him on the streets of Manila, Mr. Joseph Estrada accepted the judicial decision that his post as President was deemed vacant following the extraordinary action of most of his ministers as also the chiefs of the military and other security services to dissociate themselves from his crumbling administration. In the event, Mr. Estrada did not formally resign. In a false show of bravado, he chose to dispute the constitutionality of the circumstances in which Ms. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Vice-President under his regime, quickly assumed power as the chief executive. At least for the moment, the extenuating realities of his bizarre exit from power seem to have spared him the ultimate ignominy of being equated with Ferdinand Marcos, tyrant who was forced out of office in an amazing affirmation of `people power' by the Filipinos in 1986.

Mr. Estrada, a matinee idol-turned-politician, has now been shown the rear door of the Malacanang presidential palace in the climactic scene of what has been hailed as the re-enactment of a real-life drama of the Filipino `people power'. His disgrace is poignant by the standards of eviction of arrogant leaders. Marcos had, by the time of his fall, become a byword for a degenerate ruler, whereas the same cannot be said of Mr. Estrada in similar measure. At the time of the absolute dissolution of his presidential authority, Mr. Estrada arguably retained much of his popularity among the poor and gullible masses who had catapulted him to the highest office. Until the court pronounced its verdict on Saturday, Mr. Estrada resorted to every trick in the political book to try and outwit the elite classes and the high clergy, who for the most part had raised the revolt against his perceived corrupt rule to a frenzied crescendo. The ordinary people too joined the chorus in a show of solidarity with the traditional political elite. Their sense of outrage was traceable almost entirely to Mr. Estrada's transparent attempt at a foolish cover- up aimed at preventing the Senate from viewing an accumulated mass of suspected evidence against him.

When Mr. Estrada vowed to clear his name before the Senate, sitting as the trial court following his impeachment by the House of Representatives over a scandal concerning alleged gambling- payoffs to him as also an `embezzlement' of tobacco-tax revenues by him, it appeared fair that he should be given the chance. Yet, as the trial collapsed due to a blatant voting by his supporters in the Senate that blocked any scrutiny of the prime records in question, the angst against him assumed uncontrollable proportions. During his 30-odd months in office, Mr. Estrada had failed to improve a sagging economy and remained clueless about how to manage an Islamic insurgency in the largely Roman Catholic nation. Yet, he will be remembered for a single-minded foreign policy action which itself marked a reversal of his earlier position - the eventual ratification by the Filipino Senate of the Visiting Forces Agreement with the U.S. This signalled the possibility of the Philippines gravitating towards the U.S. in the context of an earlier `estrangement' over the Subic Bay bases issue. It is not without significance that the U.S. has promptly welcomed Ms. Arroyo's constitutional assumption of office. On a different plane, it is too early to judge whether the Filipino denouement can serve as a wake-up call for the other struggling `democracies' in the disparate South East Asian region.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Political stability and fixed terms
Next     : Not yet firm friends