It's already past-EDSA Revolution anniversary but it's been three decades of failure. The reason is not that they overthrew the "best president" namely Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. The big reason behind EDSA's failure is that it failed to see the flaws behind the "golden years". Why are the Dilawans taking credit for the whole movement when it was the unity of ALL FILIPINOS that got EDSA to succeed? The reason why today's EDSA failed is that the Dilawans wanted to act like they owned the whole revolution. Truth is the legacy of EDSA belongs to all Filipinos but the Dilawans' attitude is making EDSA more and more repulsive to the new generation. The Marcos Years themselves operated under ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM whether you believe it or not.
I don't care anymore if the installation was legal or illegal. The issue is did the whole new government work? I may not be a political analyst or anything. However, it doesn't mean I can't share my views. You can think of how things worked. Was Cory Aquino the person who led the EDSA Revolution after her husband Ninoy Aquino was assassinated? The real brains were Fidel V. Ramos and Juan Ponce Enrile. Cory herself stood as a symbol for getting rid of the dictator Marcos. However, it was Ramos and Enrile who did the real job. This has me thinking why the 1987 Constitution should've been aiming for a parliamentary government.
Cory herself is the widow, no experience wife of a senator. People rallied behind her after her husband Ninoy was killed at the Manila International Airport. She became a beacon of hope. However, she had no experience in politics and letting her rule the country would be destructive. Yet, you can't deny that she united the people in a symbolic manner. In a parliamentary system, she would have served as the symbolic Head of State while somebody would be the Head of Government. Having her set as the first president of the Parliamentary Philippines would have Filipinos looking up to her as "Tita Cory". Tita Cory herself would be a chief representative of the people.
If it's true that Ramos and Enrile would've not succeeded without Cory as a unifying figure - you can think one of them could've been prime minister and the other as deputy prime minister. Just imagine if Ramos was sworn in as the Head of Government. Just remember the Ramos Years was the beginning of new achievement. Why did Ramos want to shift to a parliamentary system? Ramos understood that the SYSTEM was the real problem. Just imagine if Ramos today were referred to as former prime minister Ramos or would've been prime minister again like Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia today. Ramos as prime minister would've probably corrected a lot of mistakes Cory did. Ramos made a lot of good decisions during his term which begs the question why are we having term limits even for the best presidents?
If the Philippines really went parliamentary after EDSA - you can think of the progress that could've happened. Maybe, Ramos himself would've had had the need to anoint Jose De Venecia as his successor. Maybe, Joseph Estrada himself would've experienced himself as the first prime minister to be kicked out by a vote of no confidence. The other alternative might be that De Venecia could've been the next prime minister while Estrada himself would have been the next president. One can also consider that maybe Prime Minister Noynoy Aquino would've probably achieved Daang Matuwid under a parliamentary system. Maybe, Mar Roxas and Bam Aquino would've probably never lost their brains in the political arena. Maybe, Opposition Leader Antonio Trillanes IV would have ended up like Anwar Ibrahim from Malaysia or Opposition Leader Bill Shorten from Australia. Maybe Deputy Prime Minister Leni Loud Robredo would've been kicked out of her post too.
Sadly, the massive potential was lost by the Philippines because the 1987 Constitution was protectionist and presidential. Just think the Philippines could've probably outdone China today. Sadly, China ended up outdoing the Philippines instead yet some people still arrogantly want to fight it? Hmmm... change the constitution first to a better framework and let's see the Philipines grow first!
I don't care anymore if the installation was legal or illegal. The issue is did the whole new government work? I may not be a political analyst or anything. However, it doesn't mean I can't share my views. You can think of how things worked. Was Cory Aquino the person who led the EDSA Revolution after her husband Ninoy Aquino was assassinated? The real brains were Fidel V. Ramos and Juan Ponce Enrile. Cory herself stood as a symbol for getting rid of the dictator Marcos. However, it was Ramos and Enrile who did the real job. This has me thinking why the 1987 Constitution should've been aiming for a parliamentary government.
Cory herself is the widow, no experience wife of a senator. People rallied behind her after her husband Ninoy was killed at the Manila International Airport. She became a beacon of hope. However, she had no experience in politics and letting her rule the country would be destructive. Yet, you can't deny that she united the people in a symbolic manner. In a parliamentary system, she would have served as the symbolic Head of State while somebody would be the Head of Government. Having her set as the first president of the Parliamentary Philippines would have Filipinos looking up to her as "Tita Cory". Tita Cory herself would be a chief representative of the people.
If it's true that Ramos and Enrile would've not succeeded without Cory as a unifying figure - you can think one of them could've been prime minister and the other as deputy prime minister. Just imagine if Ramos was sworn in as the Head of Government. Just remember the Ramos Years was the beginning of new achievement. Why did Ramos want to shift to a parliamentary system? Ramos understood that the SYSTEM was the real problem. Just imagine if Ramos today were referred to as former prime minister Ramos or would've been prime minister again like Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia today. Ramos as prime minister would've probably corrected a lot of mistakes Cory did. Ramos made a lot of good decisions during his term which begs the question why are we having term limits even for the best presidents?
If the Philippines really went parliamentary after EDSA - you can think of the progress that could've happened. Maybe, Ramos himself would've had had the need to anoint Jose De Venecia as his successor. Maybe, Joseph Estrada himself would've experienced himself as the first prime minister to be kicked out by a vote of no confidence. The other alternative might be that De Venecia could've been the next prime minister while Estrada himself would have been the next president. One can also consider that maybe Prime Minister Noynoy Aquino would've probably achieved Daang Matuwid under a parliamentary system. Maybe, Mar Roxas and Bam Aquino would've probably never lost their brains in the political arena. Maybe, Opposition Leader Antonio Trillanes IV would have ended up like Anwar Ibrahim from Malaysia or Opposition Leader Bill Shorten from Australia. Maybe Deputy Prime Minister Leni Loud Robredo would've been kicked out of her post too.
Sadly, the massive potential was lost by the Philippines because the 1987 Constitution was protectionist and presidential. Just think the Philippines could've probably outdone China today. Sadly, China ended up outdoing the Philippines instead yet some people still arrogantly want to fight it? Hmmm... change the constitution first to a better framework and let's see the Philipines grow first!
Comments
Post a Comment