http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB25Ae02.html


 Feb 25, 2011 


            Lessons in misguided people power  
     

By Joel D Adriano 


MANILA - The popular upheavals underway against dictatorships in the Middle 
East and North Africa have evoked memories of the mass demonstrations in the 
Philippines that gave birth to the term "people power" and changed the way in 
which revolutions are staged around the world. 

As the Philippines commemorates this week the 25th anniversary of its popular 
revolt, there are important lessons for street protesters fighting for change 
in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Libya. 

On February 25, 1986, demonstrators overthrew the repressive regime of 
president Ferdinand Marcos through sustained mass street protests. The 
Philippines was just one among nearly 100 different countries that shifted from 
authoritarianism towards more pluralism in the last quarter of the 20th 
century, according to some academic estimates. But the long-term results of a 
political transition determined in the streets rather than through legal 
processes have been a decidedly mixed bag. 

Unlike countries in the Middle East, the Philippines had the political 
infrastructure in place to make the revolution work. The Philippines functioned 
as a democracy prior to the implementation of martial law in 1972 and the 
opposition was well-prepared to assume power in the revolution's wake. The 
uprising also had a central figure to rally around in the late president 
Corazon Aquino, whose senator husband was gunned down three years earlier by 
government agents at Manila's international airport. 

Aquino won snap elections in 1986 and the former housewife assumed power 
smoothly after Marcos fled the country. That is, there was no power vacuum and 
a civilian government took control despite the military's machinations during 
the people-power protests that destabilized and ultimately toppled Marcos' 
regime. 

For the current people-power uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North 
Africa, the democratic outcomes are less certain. In Tunisia, president Zine 
el-Abidine Ben Ali resigned in disgrace and fled to Saudi Arabia on January 21 
after weeks of protests that ended his 23 years of iron-fisted rule. Yet 
members of his old cabinet, including prime minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, now 
lead an interim government. 

In Egypt, 18 days of street uprisings put an end to Hosni Mubarak's 30-year 
authoritarian rule. But he relinquished power to the military, the institution 
from which he rose, and there are now questions about how deeply the top brass 
will allow democracy to take root and whether they will willingly hand power 
over to an elected civilian government. The outcome of Libya's people-power 
uprising and the future political role of the military is even less certain. 

As witnessed in the Philippines, people power is only successful if the 
military refuses to crack down. That's what happened recently in Tunisia and 
Egypt, where each country's top brass finally agreed to sacrifice their 
dictators and answered public demands for political change. How soldiers 
negotiate their roles and privileges after the protests and during the 
transition will largely determine each country's democratic future. 

In the Philippines, the military leadership leveraged its post-Marcos 
popularity into ballot-box gains. Several retired military officers became 
senators and the military's growing political presence culminated in the 
election to the presidency of former top soldier Fidel Ramos in 1992. Yet 
despite the military's entry into mainstream politics, successive 
democratically elected governments have weathered several failed coup attempts. 

Twenty-five years after the original people power revolt, Philippine democracy 
is still shallow and deeply flawed. While basic civil liberties have been 
restored, many of the problems left behind by Marcos, including severe poverty, 
rampant corruption and extreme economic inequality, have endured and even 
worsened under democratic regimes. Abductions and murders of activists and 
journalists, common occurrences in Marcos' martial law period, continue with 
impunity today. 

Some argue in retrospect that the Philippines moved too fast towards 
reconciliation and too slow in exacting justice for past abuses. Efforts to 
recover ill-gotten wealth and punish the sources of abuses during the Marcos 
era eventually lost steam and were left largely unresolved. A quarter of a 
century after the revolution, Marcos' victims have yet to receive full justice, 
while those who bankrolled his abusive regime remain in privileged positions of 
economic power. 

The former dictator's son, Ferdinand "Bong Bong" Marcos Jr, is now an 
increasingly influential congressman. He was recently quoted in the local press 
saying that the country was better off during his father's period of martial 
law, claiming the country had a better standing in terms of international 
status, poverty rates and financial stability. 

Knee-jerk reactions to the decades-long domination of a single political party 
during the Marcos era saw the introduction of a multiparty system that has 
ensured that no presidential candidate has been elected in an outright majority 
since 1986. It also gave birth to a new political species, the so-called 
political butterflies, which jump from one party to another depending on 
patronage rather than political conviction or ideology. Constructed to avoid 
the re-emergence of a Marcos-like dictator, the post-people power system has 
paradoxically ensured that democracy remains weak and open to abuse. 

New members to the people-power club in the Middle East and North Africa should 
take heed of the Philippine experience. One unfortunate upshot of people power 
here is a deep-seated impulse to take grievances, however marginal, to the 
streets. That same tendency has provided cover for political power plays among 
elites, as was seen in 2001 by the people power II ouster of democratically 
elected president Joseph Estrada. 

There are also geopolitics to consider. The current uprisings in the Middle 
East threaten to undermine the US's position in the strategically important 
region, as was the case in 1986 in the Philippines. With nationalistic 
sentiment running high in the wake of the revolution, legislators were keen to 
punish Washington for the substantial support it had previously provided to 
Marcos' regime. That eventually led to the cancelation of the US's access to 
key military facilities and a series of nationalistic policies that undermined 
broadly the country's competitiveness vis-a-vis regional neighbors. 

Nationalists and Islamic political groups in the Middle East will likely draw 
parallels to the support the US has provided their fallen or shaken 
dictatorships, particularly in Egypt. Thus the new political orders that arise 
from people-power movements could prioritize diminishing Washington's role in 
their respective countries and provide cover for a lurch towards more 
nationalism. 

If the Philippines' experience with a people power-led transition to democracy 
is any guide, those same groups would be wise to emphasize keeping their 
militaries out of politics and administering justice to those who suffered 
under the outgoing authoritarian regimes. 

Joel D Adriano is an independent consultant and award-winning freelance 
journalist. He was a sub-editor for the business section of The Manila Times 
and writes for ASEAN BizTimes, Safe Democracy and People's Tonight. 

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please 
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Post message: prole...@egroups.com
Subscribe   :  proletar-subscr...@egroups.com
Unsubscribe :  proletar-unsubscr...@egroups.com
List owner  :  proletar-ow...@egroups.com
Homepage    :  http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    proletar-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    proletar-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    proletar-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Kirim email ke