Subscribe to FOP E-Newsletter






Focus Job Openings

DRTS Intern
Home arrow Newsletter arrow FOP Number 11, 2004
FOP Number 11, 2004 PDF Print E-mail
Between Extrapolation and Hyperbole
by Manuel Buencamino

 Joel Rocamora's answer to our paper exposing his implied endorsement of GMA is called "Between Anti-FPJ and Boycott." While I don't speak for the groups since we signed as individuals, I would suggest that he use my title instead; it describes his rejoinder more accurately. Rocamora's rejoinder is a cleverly argued paper that is built o­n extrapolation, hyperbole and putting words into our mouths. Hence, my reply is rather lengthy.  I have to quote him extensively, unfortunately.
 Rocamora's title is misleading and forebodes his reply to our expose. We stated in our paper criticizing his "The FPJ Bomb in a Populist Lamp" that "we have no unity about whom we will vote for or even whether we will vote for any presidential candidate."  That disclaimer clearly shows our position is not limited to anti-FPJ and boycott. How is Rocamora able to consolidate our different positions into boycott?

He glosses over our differences regarding the value of a vote:  "My point simply is that my position, oppose FPJ then support whoever you want, is at least as logical as your position. The o­nly difference is, I oppose o­ne, you oppose two candidates."

No way, Jose. That is not the o­nly difference. I vote for someone I believe in. I don't cast a vote for someone I do not like just to defeat someone whom I find more repulsive.

The point of this election, Rocamora argued, is to defeat FPJ.  He said in "The FPJ Bomb in a Populist Lamp": "Decisions o­n who to support can be a matter of personal and organizational decisions. But preventing an FPJ presidency is work we have to do for our country, and for our people." So, doesn't his caveat imply that we have an overriding patriotic duty to cast a preventive vote against FPJ by voting for the candidate who can beat him?  This is why we said, "Rocamora's article is of note not just for what he states, but more so for what he leaves unsaid."  Is asking someone to cast a preventive vote just slightly different from asking him to vote for someone he believes in?
Rocamora accuses us of falling into a "logic trap" of comparing GMA and FPJ and seeks to prove his point by posing a series of trick questions. "Do you really believe that GMA's political moves 'are as pernicious as Gringo's aborted putsch'?  If you had to choose between two bad appointments to the COMELEC and a coup de etat (sic), what would you choose?" 

Rocamora conveniently ignores a couple of other things we said that show the totality of GMA's moves to undermine democratic institutions. But I can overlook Rocamora's omission. It is inconsequential because no matter how he slices it, his choices are obviously false. Two bad appointments to the COMELEC, a fact that Rocamora does not dispute, hint strongly at the possibility that dagdag-bawas is o­n the administration's agenda. If GMA were to win through cheating, is there not also a strong possibility that the cheated candidate would try a coup d'etat or an EDSA 4? So we can more accurately describe two bad appointments to the Comelec and a coup d'etat as o­ne thing leading to another. We cannot be asked to choose between cause and effect or stimulus and response.

Furthermore, if o­ne kills democracy, it is dead and it does not really matter whether it was done through manslaughter, homicide or cold-blooded appointments."
Rocamora says we are forcing others into "errors of political judgment." He says, "Would you really have us believe that because "GMA has likewise accommodated Marcos-Erap-Danding interests," it would make no difference to Imelda Marcos, Estrada, and Danding Cojuangco who between GMA and FPJ wins?" 

I would answer Rocamora's question with a couple of questions of my own that may, hopefully, help him avoid "errors of political judgment" that result from trying to fit facts into preconceived notions. Why would Boss Danding allow his two sons and a majority of his NPC to work for GMA's election? Does Rocamora think that Danding Cojuangco is stupid? Or is it more likely that Boss Danding sees no difference between FPJ and GMA as far as his personal interests are concerned?

Rocamora loves to raise the Gringo bogey. This time he asks, "If Gringo failed to come to power through numerous coup attempts, would you now put him in power o­n the coattails of FPJ?" 

 
Rocamora should have tacked o­n Enrile's name. That would have been even more frightening because now there is a brain behind the muscle. But the question is really just a bogey because o­ne can simply ask Rocamora whether he truly believes that Gringo and Enrile were ever really out of power at any time. Enrile may be out of the Senate and Gringo in the minority, but are they really out of power? Danding is not in government but is he out of power? Lucio Tan is out of government but is he out of power? What do they need coattails for?

Rocamora reminds us that up to now there is still no accounting for the Marcos-era crimes. He says, "If we cannot get them into prison, the likes of Enrile and Maceda should at least be relegated to the dustbin of history where they belong. That will not happen if FPJ wins."

He begs a fill-in-the-blanks question, "and that will happen if who wins"?

After Rocamora is done with us he says, "Enough of polemics. If we have to debate, let's debate the choices available to progressives."


Now it is the turn of progressives and the Left to endure his attacks. He says, "People who consider themselves progressive are particularly responsible for leading the fight against right wing populism because the ascendancy of people such as Erap and FPJ are the result of the Left's failure to provide leadership to the rural and urban poor."

But, why just blame progressives and the Left? Why not blame everyone who is against right wing populism, including the Church, businessmen and all of civil society? Don't we all share the blame? Furthermore, why should we default leadership of the rural and urban poor to the Left?

Rocamora continues his assault, "Yet another defeat for the Left is the failure to make Marcos cronies accountable for their crimes. It is already 18 years since the fall of Marcos but neither Imelda nor any of the cronies have spent a day in jail."


Isn't the failure to make Marcos cronies accountable for their crimes the failure of government and not of any group that is out of government? How can any group outside government hold Marcos cronies accountable? Is Rocamora suggesting "people's justice"? o­ne certainly hopes not, because that would be recommending a course of action that is even more frightening than his FPJ scenario. That scenario would be like, well, "the Rocamora bomb in a populist lamp."

Rocamora returns to FPJ after his diatribe against progressives and the Left. He says, "The Davide-led Supreme Court has shown that it is willing to finish the job. With key Marcos cronies in his camp, should we believe that FPJ will allow this to happen?"

Well, where exactly was GMA during the Davide impeachment and how could she allow it to happen? The Political Science 101 answer to that question would be "unless we abolish our tripartite form of government, no o­ne branch of government can dominate another" and that answer, horror of horrors, is as good for FPJ as it is for GMA.

Which is probably why Rocamora has to make a pitch for constitutional reform, he says, "The issue of political reform is in many ways the most important. Unfortunately, it is also the least clear-cut. FPJ would not know constitutional reform if he stepped o­n it.... Raul Roco is o­n record as being opposed. o­nly Pres.Arroyo has consistently supported a shift to a parliamentary and federal system through a constitutional convention."

Could this be an implied endorsement of GMA? It doesn't matter. What I'd like to know from Mr. Rocamora is:  What exactly does a vote for GMA mean if she won't serve out her entire term? Why is she running for a six-year term? Oh, I know, to prevent FPJ. Silly me.


At the end of his paper, Rocamora tells us how he traveled from being a Leftist intellectual to a "nudger" of elite players. "There are those who believe in varieties of 'smash the state' strategies. The rest of us have asked ourselves if we are willing to stay with civil society 'advocacy,' to criticize from the sidelines or to build political vehicles for challenging elite control of the centers of political power. Those of us who have chosen to build open political parties understand that to do political judo, you have to get close enough to elite players to nudge them towards progressive directions."

I would nudge Rocamora to read a little book by Daniel Ellsberg called Secrets. He might learn from Ellsberg how effective "nudging" is. Or he can ask Teofisto Guingona why his political judo with GMA did not work and why he thinks it will work with FPJ. Hope springs eternal for wannabes.

Meanwhile, Rocamora and I owe it to our readers to state exactly "what floats our boats" before anyone dives headfirst into whatever it is that floats his boat. And mine.

Ako, talo o panalo, para kay Roco. Ikaw, kanino ka?

 
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]