Sometimes we can read too much into the “meaning” of a particular vote.

I found Raul Pangalangan’s last column, on the meaning of the Honasan-Trillanes vote, a provocative read. I especially thought this particular passage was right on the money.

By manipulating the various arms of government to harass its enemies and protect its own, the Arroyo government has weakened the rule of law. It has conditioned the people to look to end-results — stop corruption, improve education, expand health care, make housing more accessible — and be indifferent to the means, constitutional or not. It has lowered the bar, so to speak, that the law has placed to guard against extra-constitutional power grabs.

This weakening of the rule of law — “culture of impunity,” anyone? — must be counted as one of the main legacies of the Arroyo administration.

There was much else in the former law dean’s column to agree with. But on one key point, I thought he had overreached. The fifth paragraph reads:

The Honasan-Trillanes vote shows a voter who is prepared to get rid of President Arroyo whatever it takes. It helps that the two are Philippine Military Academy graduates, untainted by graft and corruption, and who to the lay public embodied certain ideals for which they have made personal sacrifices. At least 1.3 million voters so far have cast their lot with two former coup plotters and, irony of ironies, would now reward them a fully constitutional way of expressing their rage.

I have a quibble or two about the second sentence, but about the first, well, I think Raul is just plain mistaken. In the first place, a Pulse Asia survey conducted soon after the Oakwood mutiny in July 2003 found that while many Filipinos sympathized with the grievances aired by the mutineers led by Trillanes, most Filipinos rejected armed violence as an option for change. That rejection, if the surveys since 1986 are right, is a constant of public opinion.

In the second place, this is not the first time Honasan will be seated in the Senate. He has already served 12 years there. Did his two previous terms mean the electorate had embraced the “whatever it takes” option? Again, the surveys at that time showed the public’s rejection of coups and other forms of violent takeover.

There must be another explanation.

The other day, I found out that Torn and Frayed had the same reservation about this particular part of Raul’s analysis.

Still, deplorable though the administration’s record on law and order has been, it can’t be the whole answer. Voters have been supporting Gringo for many years now, to the mystification of foreign observers. Shortly after I arrived in the Philippines in 1997 I remember asking a friend “whatever happened to that guy Gringo Honasan?” and almost falling off my barstool when I discovered he was a senator.

(Incidentally, the view from that barstool, so to speak, has often been stimulating. Torn has written some of the best commentary on Manila city politics available.)

To be sure, reading the true outcome of an election can often be a heady exercise (and heady in more ways than one). But in the end it must still be based on the facts. Of course we (or our controlling paradigms, to borrow philosophy-talk-turned-business-jargon) can choose the facts we deem most relevant. Sometimes, however, an omission can prove crucial. In this case, not accounting for the previous victories of Honasan, the most famous coup plotter in the country’s history, undermines the assertion that, now, today, the public is ready for “whatever it takes.” (Besides, Rodolfo Biazon, who gained national fame for defending Camp Aguinaldo against Honasan’s men, was voted into the Senate too.)

I understand the Trillanes vote as a symbolic protest, in almost the same way that many of the votes cast (but not necessarily counted) for Alan Peter Cayetano can be said to be symbolic. The vote for Honasan, however, may be a bit more complicated to read, in part because he did already serve in the Senate. It may be that his detention and then, at just the right time, his release, did more than anything to return him to the Senate.

It must also be noted that man-on-the-street interviews suggest that Trillanes and Honasan share the “matapang” image. That can go a long way in explaining their popular appeal. (Conversely, I think Joker Arroyo is in the dagdag-bawas zone now in large part because he diluted his message. He should have stuck to his “Pag bad ka, lagot ka” message. But maybe that’s just me, overreading.)

Other overreadings include Darlene Antonino-Custodio’s victory over boxing icon Manny Pacquiao and Among Ed Panlilio’s “miracle” win over Baby Pineda and Mark Lapid in Pampanga. These were two “good fights,” but they were not necessarily a rejection of the losers’ patron, the commander in chief herself. Ask anyone in Gen. Santos City, and people will say they retain a great affection for Pacquiao. Many welcomed his defeat, because it would mean he would focus on boxing. Tough love, so to speak: They wanted him to remain a first-rate boxer, instead of becoming a third-rate congressman.

PS. This contributed post to our Eleksyon 2007 blog, plus the sometimes impassioned comments, sharpen the Manny’s-better-off-losing-to-Darlene perspective.

Welcome to

Inquirer Current. A current-events blog by Inquirer columnist Manuel L. Quezon III and Inquirer editor John Nery.

Search

Archives

• October 2009 (4)
• September 2009 (3)
• August 2009 (3)
• July 2009 (1)
• June 2009 (6)
• May 2009 (11)
• April 2009 (6)
• March 2009 (5)
• February 2009 (7)
• January 2009 (11)
• December 2008 (7)
• November 2008 (14)
• October 2008 (8)
• September 2008 (3)
• August 2008 (10)
• July 2008 (1)
• June 2008 (4)
• May 2008 (2)
• April 2008 (3)
• December 2007 (5)
• November 2007 (5)
• October 2007 (8)
• September 2007 (13)
• August 2007 (6)
• July 2007 (14)
• June 2007 (5)
• May 2007 (24)
• April 2007 (23)
• March 2007 (18)

Categories

• Foreign affairs (17)
• May 2007 elections (36)
• May 2010 elections (5)
• Media matters (22)
• Philippine politics (131)
• Religious issues (13)
• Rule of law (13)
• Terrorism (7)
• test (1)
• Uncategorized (41)
• US relations (16)