|
Assessment
By Michael Alan Hamlin
August 19, 2003
Last Thursday, supporters of presidential aspirant
Panfilo (Ping) Lacson reprinted an editorial that recently appeared
in The Washington Times in full-page paid advertisements in major
Manila papers. The hard-hitting Times editorial argued that the
administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo doesn't deserve
the fine treatment it's been getting from U.S. President George
W. Bush, and portrayed Ms. Arroyo as a weak leader incapable of
governing her country.
The Manila reprints ran under the banner, "The editorial that
shook Malacañang," apparently because it suggested that
Lacson may be the only politician capable of demonstrating the political
will and leadership necessary to effectively deal with the Philippines'
myriad problems, which include chronic political and economic instability.
But do editorials like the Times piece really matter much back in
the Philippines?
Well, there are at least a couple of reasons Malacañang may
be concerned. The Times is a staunchly Republican newspaper, and
is published in the U.S. capital of Washington D.C. I'm told that
it is the first paper that Bush picks up every morning because it
is a barometer of Republican sentiment, especially the right wing
of the party that always flexes its muscles during election season.
Whether it is the first newspaper Bush picks up in the morning or
not, with a Republican administration in power the Times is influential,
and its editorials are meant to contribute to development of Republican
Party positions on key issues. If Ms. Arroyo does wind up running
for president next year as we've speculated in this space before,
the planned Bush visit to the Philippines will provide a significant
boost. A visit will strengthen perception of Ms. Arroyo as a respected
leader, and the Philippines as an important U.S. ally under her
leadership. In effect, the visit will be an overt, defacto endorsement
worth much more political capital than an endorsement by anyone
else whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. Worth even more than
a Times editorial.
On the other hand, should the planned visit be cancelled, the opposite
effect would likely result. A cancellation would undermine the Arroyo
administration's assertion of close ties with the U.S., and more
importantly, the high level of appreciation for Ms. Arroyo personally,
which her administration has sought to bolster in the minds of voters.
The net effect could conceivably and substantially negate chances
she has for re-election.
Sources close to the administration suggest, nevertheless, that
Ms. Arroyo and her handlers are more concerned with the public relations
war on the home front, than with the Times and its influence on
the Bush administration. The Arroyo administration, they say, is
concerned that local media is portraying the leaders of the July
27 mutiny as heroes, rather than turncoats, and thereby undermining
Ms. Arroyo. It is she, not the rebels, Ms. Arroyo's supporters believe,
that is the new hero of Philippine democracy.
This says a couple of things about the state of Philippine politics,
and public perceptions. First, as polls suggest, Filipinos are looking
for charismatic leadership that is willing to take bold steps in
order to bring about significant change; specifically, to clean
up government and boost prosperity. Filipinos are so desperate for
strong leadership, this line of reasoning would argue, they are
willing to take big chances when it comes to choosing their next
leader. This is what Lacson and his supporters are counting on,
and according to Malacañang spinmeisters, is in fact the
administration's principal worry.
Second, it suggests that Malacañang's already shaken credibility
has further and substantially eroded, especially its own perception
of its credibility. I'm reminded of the story of Bonnie and Clyde,
the murderous bank robbers who terrorized the U.S. South during
the Great Depression. The average American was so jaded with government
and its inability to improve economic conditions that Bonnie and
Clyde became great folk heroes. Bonnie and Clyde of course weren't
presidential material, but consider the effect of an endorsement!
In fact, however, while Filipinos are clearly dismayed with their
government, the Rebels' action generated virtually no popular support.
The fact that no violent coup ever has suggests that there is very,
very little popular support for those who would sweep away democratic
rights by force, and purport to be in a better position to make
decisions for Filipino voters than the voters themselves no matter
how appealing their virtue may appear. And the rebels certainly
worked, and continue to work, hard at appearing virtuous. Regrettably,
that's not hard to do, given the sickening level of corruption in
the armed forces.
Ironically, the Rebels intended to close down the same media that
now portrays them, in the view of many inside and outside the administration,
as heroes. The bigger irony, however, is the notion that these disaffected
soldiers matter much. They can only matter much, in reality, if
they escape punishment and therefore continue to plague the country's
efforts - feeble or otherwise - to move forward, as their mentor,
Senator Gregorio Honasan has for close to two decades.
Punishing the rebels is certainly not the only thing the administration
needs to do to demonstrate the political will and leadership the
Times and Lacson suggests the Philippines needs so badly. But it's
an important start.
(Michael Alan Hamlin is the managing
director of consultancy TeamAsia and the author of three books on
Asian economies and companies. His latest book is Marketing Asian
Places, of which he is a co-author (Wiley, 2001), and he is
currently at work on High Visibility: The Making and Marketing
of Asian Professionals into Celebrities. Write him at mahamlin@teamasia.com.).
Copyright © 2003 Michael Alan
Hamlin. All Rights Reserved.
|
