A Risky Move by Filipinos

The 1986 “people power” revolution in the Philippines was a seminal event in modern history.

When the Philippine people took to the streets to get rid of Ferdinand E. Marcos, others watched and followed. Sometimes, those efforts failed, as in Myanmar, and China in 1989. But people power also spread successfully to South Korea in 1987, through Eastern Europe in 1989, to the Soviet Union in 1991 and to Yugoslavia last fall.

Now, let’s hope that latest incarnation of people power, the ouster of Philippine President Joseph Estrada on Saturday, won’t set a precedent too.

For it appears as though, without much thought, we’ve just crossed a risky line. This time, what happened in the Philippines was different from all these other examples.

In every one of these earlier instances, people power was used to oust a dictator, a political party that refused to hold elections, or a leader (Marcos or Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic) who held onto power after a disputed election.

Now, by contrast, we are witnessing the use of people power against a leader who was the winner of a legitimate democratic election. No matter how understandable it was, this outbreak of people power doesn’t seem like an advance for the cause of democracy; quite the opposite.

This is not to sympathize with Estrada. The evidence of corruption against him was so overwhelming that, in many people’s eyes, he should have resigned months ago.

Instead, Estrada fought impeachment proceedings--in large part by preventing the use of bank records--until people took to the streets, some army generals mounted a coup attempt, and the army chief of staff finally withdrew his support.

“It seemed as though Estrada was abusing the office and wasn’t being an effective president,” observed former Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

And yet quite a few of the Americans who, like Shultz, played important roles in the tumultuous events of 1986 admitted this week that they had some qualms about people power, Chapter 2.

“My reaction is one of disappointment that the impeachment trial could not proceed to conclusion,” said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).

Lugar called new Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo “first-class.” However, he said, “the danger of resolving things in this way is that in the future, there may be some call again for the armed forces to withdraw their support from an officeholder, or for large crowds to take to the streets, rather than resolving these things by normal constitutional means.”

So too, Stephen J. Solarz--the former Democratic chairman of the House subcommittee on Asia who in 1986 goaded the Reagan administration to withdraw its support from Marcos--was not as enthusiastic about people power this time around.

“Getting rid of Estrada was in some respects essential for the long-term future of the Philippines,” Solarz said. “But it’s a mixed blessing, because of the manner in which it was carried out. It would have been greatly preferable if he would have been removed through the constitutional processes of impeachment and conviction.”

Still, others argue that the questionable process by which Estrada was forced from power counts far less than the fact that the outcome was peaceful.

Richard Solomon, a former U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, said he views people power in the broader historical context of nonviolent protest movements.

The lessons of these movements show that “those who take over [power] with guns usually end up ruling with guns,” Solomon said. A classic example was Fidel Castro’s overthrow of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Nonviolent protests can succeed if they break a leader’s hold over the nation’s security services, observed Solomon. “That’s usually the cracking point,” he explained. “What does it take to get the security people so demoralized that they can no longer support a Milosevic or an Estrada?”

But the pivotal political role of the armed forces in both of the Philippines’ people power movements gives a slightly different meaning to the word “nonviolent.”

The main reason the latest people power outbreak in the Philippines is unusual for democracy, and hardly cause for cheering, comes into focus when you ask this question: Who or what, ultimately, was this particular movement against?

Who was responsible for making Estrada president? Answer: The voters of the Philippines--or at least those 10.7 million people, a 39% plurality, who voted for Estrada in the election of May 1998.

In a sense, people power was against, whoops, the Philippine people--or at least the people’s judgment three years ago.

OK, the specific evidence that has accumulated against Estrada recently wasn’t available back then. But no one claims that this guy had a sudden personality change after he arrived in Malacanang Palace.

Many of Estrada’s character traits--including his gambling, womanizing and relationships with shady lowlifes--were on display, indeed were campaign issues in that last election. Did voters in the Philippines not pay attention back then, or didn’t they care?

From afar, we can only hope that the people of the Philippines give more scrutiny to their presidential candidates next time--and that people power remains largely a way to topple leaders in dictatorships, not democracies.

*

Jim Mann’s column appears in this space every Wednesday.