Reply to a 'Moderate" Duterte Supporter

(A)

(This was written in answer to an FB post that started with the assertion that the supporters of the President who are even now arguing among themselves will just argue even more vehemently if and when a RevGov happens and went on to state the writer's reasons for opposing RevGov. This rebuttal is made in the spirit of intellectual discussion and is not intended to sow intrigue, discord or engage in one upmanship. Rather, it is written in the hope that those who would prefer to be "in the middle" or "more moderate" will wake up and smell the coffee )

The fact is that people will always have their differences. To opine against change simply because the "winners" of a revolution are bound to argue among themselves sooner or later is rather lame. Who is to say that the inevitable differences will cause more problems than the status quo they fought to change?

It is the job of the leader to settle the differences to the satisfaction of all rather than let them run wild. That would certainly be true if we were talking about Leni but would PRRD not be able to do it?

The term revolution is perhaps rather alarming and somewhat misleading. Perhaps a more accurate term would be additional or extraordinary powers to solve the many grave problems facing the country. We want to give Duterte extra powers, not because we are fools wanting to give a madman the opportunity to sow chaos and destruction as you seem to imply but rather the exact opposite. We know that the alternative IS eventual chaos and destruction and that is what we wish to avoid by allowing a proven, capable and most of all TRUSTWORTHY leader to lead the way.

The fact is that we are not asking for some mysterious junta or self-anointed savior or sweet-talking politician to do impose their capricious will on the people.

While Marcos may have accomplished much, perhaps because of his relative youth, his hubris and ambition seemed to be his guiding light. The fact that he was was able to escape being imprisoned for shooting Nalundasan for a political motive does not mean he did not do it. The fact that he was elected on the strength of the political support of his party and was fond of granting favors to his cronies negated any benefits that could have come out of Martial Law.

Cory was a know-nothing who was simply a figurehead for her oligarch family and THEIR cronies. Their greatest accomplishment aside from what they were able to grab for themselves is the creation of the flawed Constitution that is at the root of so many of our current problems. Their RevGov had no other agenda except to ensure the continuance of the oligarchic structure of our society.

GMA's unseating of Erap turned out to be a political gambit by people who were aghast at letting Erap do his thing and who were envious of the potential to make so much money using the systems perfected and set-up by Marcos and Cory.

Noynoy was a go-for-broke take-all-you-can bahala-na-sila-sa-buhay nila operation which simply took over GMA's (or rather, Mike Arroyo's) syndicate and went head-long into narco-politics.

With all these people, we never really had an inkling or proof of what they could and would do until they actually came to power and showed us how wrong our perceptions were and how easy it was to fool us.

On the other hand, Duterte never schemed or connived with anyone to become President. He was not elected because of the support of ANYONE but the ordinary citizens. As such he is beholden to NO ONE but the people.

Perhaps even more to the point, he was elected because he had already proven for the past 23 years or so in Davao that he could do what he promised to do for the rest of the country. And in the scant 16 moths he has bee in office, his achievements have never been equaled in Philippine history, either in number or significance. He is even now probably one of the most popular World leaders having shown everyone including China and the USA a path to settling the South China Sea issue.

The question is, would giving him more powers likely to turn him into a monster or a heel from the hero he has now become?

The ONLY reason we are asking Duterte to accept (rather than proclaim) extraordinary powers is because at his age, he has the wisdom and experience to avoid the mistakes of those who came before him. At 72 years of age, he is not likely to change his lifelong simple way of living, principles and manner of thinking. Unlike everyone before him, no likely unpleasant surprises.

The reason WHY we want him to accept sooner than later is not because we want to arbitrarily put away everyone we do not like in order to simply take their place or replace them with other monkeys but rather simply because unlike Marcos who had over 20 years to do his thing, the most alarming thought is how limited the time we truly have to lead us is. Even without the Constitutional ban on re-election, can we really be sure he will still be alive, much less still capable, by the time he reaches 78 or 80? THAT is perhaps the only comforting thought the enemies of change have and one which they are surely counting on.

And that would be the otherwise INEVITABLE and unbearable cost of NOT giving him extraordinary powers sooner than never. Those are OUR CONCERNS. To say that even the greatest leader in history will be able to effect permanent and lasting solutions to problems, some of which are as old as the Republic, in the next 4 1/2 years would be daunting enough WITH the most absolute of powers. So how far do you honestly think we would get WITHOUT them?

Now as to the oft-stated concerns:

"If RevGov is declared we will have economic and political uncertainty. The markets will crash. The peso will plummet. Foreign investors will keep away."

Why this is even speculated is a mystery! With slight variations, it sounds exactly like the yellow mantra during the last campaign and shortly after Duterte was elected:

"If Duterte wins, we will have economic and political uncertainty. The markets will crash. The peso will plummet. Foreign investors will keep away."

"If Duterte keeps cursing the US (and whoever else) we will have economic and political uncertainty. The markets will crash. The peso will plummet. Foreign investors will keep away."

So why is it we have more economic and political stability than ever before, the markets are doing better than ever before, the peso has not plummeted but has only gone down slightly as a measure of the US dollars strength versus MOST currencies and foreign investors are coming in record numbers?

"Nobody knows exactly what will happen. There is no one coherent plan on how long RevGov will last, or even exactly what is entailed. We cannot even handle the many moving part of running an efficient MRT system and we think we can handle the dynamics of a RevGov?"

I am sorry but this "concern" sounds even more contrived than the first! The fact is, if RevGov is NOT declared, we all know EXACTLY what will happen. which is WHY we are desperately calling for it.

Unless you have your head in the sand, simply will not listen, or are in denial, the fact is that THERE IS a coherent plan on how long RevGov will last and what exactly it entails! But to educate those who still do not know, this is the general outline of the plan and what to expect:

(B)

For anyone who is still not satisfied, and wants more details, perhaps you can try to find out more from the patriotic proponents and organizers who are actually doing something on their own initiative to try to help their country. All you have to do is ask them on FB. That is if you care to listen or believe rather than blindly oppose something that will affect your future greatly or unless you find the opponents of change to be more credible.

Now as to the declaration that "if we cannot even run the MRT properly, how can we handle RevGov ?", I believe the writer forgets that it was the past administration that made such a mess of the MRT that it is proving quite a challenge to get it fixed so easily. If anything, it it sounds like a pretty good argument as to either why we need RevGov or a pretty good argument to just throw in the towel and commit mass suicide.

"There will be a sufficient number of Filipinos who will be against it, seeing it as a return to authoritarian rule. And then what will you do? Fire on the people at EDSA? Start throwing dissenters in jail? Remember during Cory’s RevGov, the Philippines saw multiple coup attempts. The prospect of civil war is real."

Now this is actually the most ridiculous speculation of all! Just where this "sufficient number" will come from has yet to be shown. If one were to gauge by the recent rallies, whether the puny 2,500-5,000 person rallies largely composed of paid warm bodies or the similar in number protest rallies of the left, even if they were all to assemble and run riot on EDSA, that would hardly be enough to start a civil war.

What would be done? "Fire on 10,000 people?" Now why on earth would anyone have to do that? Unless the protesters started shooting at the authorities, the cops could simply let them protest until they are blue in the face, get tired, and go home. Or, the RevGov supporters could also stage rallies of their own of undoubtedly vastly superior number in a peaceful appeal to the minority to let DEMOCRACY, which is supposed to be the WILL of the MAJORITY prevail.

As to prospective coup attempts, given the overwhelming level of support by the military of the President, especially as compared to Cory, how likely is this to happen, who will instigate and lead them, and would they even be able to withstand the wrath of the people? The prospect of civil war is simply because some people "do not like" an interim authoritarian government seems quite far-fetched. Even Trump would not give his support.

And precisely, although Duterte would know what to do with extraordinary powers, just like before he became a presidential candidate, he is not encouraging or conspiring with anyone to make it happen. We do not even know if he will accept our pleadings with him to do so.

Yes, he has a plan about what needs to be done BUT rather, let us be honest with ourselves and seriously consider if he really has enough time to do it, if there would be anyone else who could do it half as well as he could, just in case. and what would happen if he is NOT able to do it.

Is it really as simple as waiting for your order in a restaurant and telling the waiter to be snappy about it to "break out of this vicious cycle" and implement the reforms that even those who supposedly favor them but oppose RevGov admit must be done?

So you believe that the very same person who you task to "break this vicious cycle" in spite of all the obstacles presented by this vicious cycle will instead do abominably unacceptable things instead if given extra powers to overcome these obstacles? Or do you think those obstacles are the very ones keeping him in line so he does not abuse anyone like the obstacles have abused them? HUH? Does that even make sense?

What about demanding strict adherence to a clearly defective Constitution that admittedly needs to be changed to change it for the better? Will that really make it easier to do what must be done?

Exactly why does expediting positive change sound like several steps back to a Banana Republic republic rather than several jumps forward to a better system?

I understand people's fear of the unknown and preference to remain in their comfort zones rather than consider anything out of the box. But this is not a boxing match between equally worthy foes who are abiding by a certain set of rules.

Rather, it is a fight by someone who is being obliged to fight according to the rules with one arm tied behind his back while his opponent is all to willing to cheat and violate the rules at every opportunity. It is about matching wits with CRIMINALS and selfish interests to save the general public from their depredations. This is a true life or death struggle of the highest stakes rather than an intellectual pastime or pissing contest.

The enemy is not fighting "with moderation". To do so would spell our doom. Is it not in fact the extremely criminal side that has forced the extremely revolutionary side to emerge?

There will always be those who think that the "safest" choice is always in the middle. Unfortunately, that is neither here nor there as only one side will eventually triumph.

Does that mean if the criminals win, those in the middle would then side with the criminals and join them in order to avoid being victims?

And if the righteous win, will those in the middle then rush to enjoy the fruits of righteousness while cautioning those in the extreme from abusing them?

So which is really the dark and terrifying road? The clock is ticking. If we must lose, let us go down fighting rather than lose by default or faintness of heart.

(C)