TO CHOOSE immediately from what the question poses seems to relegate all action and no thought. First of all, can the country's choices really only be either the forced removal or the voluntary removal of GMA from her seat? Are the two choices even so different in effect? The question automatically assumes that GMA is the cause of whatever political/economic/moral problems that are plaguing the Philippines, and that once she is removed from her seat, we are automatically better off. But the possibility is all too real that our country is distraught with far more complex and less obvious problems (flaws in the government system? the negative outlook of politics to most Filipinos? the political sphere becoming merely an arena for the powerful to maintain power?) of which GMA is only a symptom, and therefore will not and cannot go away even with the coming elections.
As much as we love the legacy of the 1st Edsa Revolution, the whole oust/resign thing is in danger of becoming a little too routine. Even if (or when?) we do decide that GMA must go, we need to consider what we'll do after she leaves before we up and take to the streets. Do we let Noli de Castro assume the role of president? Do we call for a change to the parliamentary system of government? Do we unite with the NPA to oust all our elected officials and instigate communist rule? Whatever the case, we think that what we need is to find the long-term solution to our problems, before we ever get to the luxury of choosing between the resignation of GMA or her ouster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with your position that reducing our current economic and political condition to the question of "whether the incumbent president should resign or not?" is defeating the purpose of thinking otherwise, of considering other possibilities/alternatives. That maybe the change in the head of state is not the only solution to a very big problem. That it is a short term solution only with little or no basis for actual development. However, this query is still as important as thinking otherwise. I think answering this question is a first step towards creating that long term solution. As both answers represent opposite stands and conviction. Convictions powerful enough to steer our country to a new direction. As citizens of this country we need to be aware and involved, to think and act. You are correct in saying that this question attributes our political/economic/moral problems to one person which is unfair and generalizing. But answering it or not also says something about our state of participation. And with that I think we ought to also be more vocal about these issues and think otherwise.
-Phillip Recentes
AB Pol Sci
Just to add to our group analysis, we also said that the dilemma whether we should ouster GMA or not is a question hard to answer because as human beings, it is in our nature to desire for power, wherein power in this case means ruling over the country, whether it may be for a good or a bad cause. It is natural to our human nature, yet the problem with this power is the fact that overtime we tend to abuse this, eventually harassing the public of our power.
So if we should answer the question whether she should resign or not, there would be no answer; if she doesn't resign, then we would still suffer from her tyrannical ways of leadership. If she resigns, who would replace her? And ifshe resigns, does it guarantee us that the person who will replace her will not abuse the power as president?
-Duey Guison
II AB PoS
But then again not answering it means one has resigned to a status quo. Hence, one must say he doesn't agree for the current administration to step down, and give us another chance, a more clearer one at that, reforming our state which includes political, economical, and moral.
Phillip Recentes
AB Political Science
Post a Comment