The most pressing, visible, and crucial political problem today is the deep fracture in the country’s politics.

This fracture is not driven by ideology, but by a life and death struggle between factions of our political elite. The struggle is troubling because it has escalated into the extra-Constitutional arena - people power, coups, rebellion, etc.

EDSA 2 has indeed opened a Pandora’s box. The rules of engagement have changed. The fight between the “ins” and “outs,” between the opposition and ruling power has degenerated into a no-holds barred, winner-take all one. It can be said that we have a civil war in our political establishment.

Collateral damage in this war has been the destruction in the credibility and standing of our institutions: the Supreme Court, the Armed Forces, the Philippine National Police, the entire judiciary, the Senate and Congress, the bureaucracy, the Catholic Church, media, and even the office of the president.

The atmosphere has become so bad that reports of Malacañang desiring to replace BSP Governor Rafael Buenaventura, an appointee of former President Estrada, in order to control the Anti-Money Laundering Council, are given credence.

A victim of this civil war is the economy, particularly in this country where economic matters can’t be divorced from politics. The politicization of the courts (or even the mere appearance that they are being manipulated as in the case of the arrest of journalist Ninez Cacho Olivarez) has further reinforced the perception that no contracts are safe from the volatility of Philippine politics.

Another victim is the war against terrorism. The Oakwood rebellion is the most visible manifestation that the fight against terrorism and criminality is being sidelined by the political civil war within the establishment.

What we are seeing, says De La Salle Professor and political scientist, Julio Teehankee, is a breakdown of the national consensus. Without a national consensus and an underlying social compact, the government cannot do nation building. There will be no unity in how to gain from and reduce the risks in globalization, for example, or to fight poverty. The political “noise” arising out of this civil war will drown out any national dialogue.

The country’s problem is that a national consensus is best achieved through political parties. Political parties are the instruments by which a national consensus can be forged. However, the country lacks a genuine political party system. Accordingly, the political agenda of the warring parties are increasingly set by extremists on both sides - by rebels, coup plotters, NGO activists, the Church, dealmakers, etc. - people, in general, who have no sense of political accountability.

How to heal this fracture is the biggest problem that the country faces today.

It’s far too easy to say that that this fracture is the cost of enforcing the rule of law. The problem with this argument is that the enforcement of the law must be seen as symmetrical. There can’t be one law for Edsa 2, but another law for Edsa 3 and Oakwood; one law for the young captains and lieutenants, and another law for the generals; one law for Jose Velarde and another law for Jose Pidal.

Will a lifestyle check on the generals be made, for example, or will the threat of a coup coming from them ensure that only the prosecution of the junior officers is pursued?

In this light, resolution of this civil war and reconciliation between the warring parties seem impossible.
Conventional wisdom states that elections in 2004 would help heal this nation. Everything would be fine as soon as we elect a president with an electoral mandate.

Would it?

With many of our institutions having such low credibility and under attack, would the institutions presiding over our elections, like the Comelec, the PNP, and the Department of Education be able to measure up? Will the president in 2004 be elected with a firm majority or a mere plurality? It’s also possible that the president elected in 2004 will increase rather than decrease the divisiveness. Given the politics of this civil war, there could be vendetta and vindictiveness after the elections, not healing or reconciliation.

The country faces a long period of political instability unless this fracture is healed and institutions are strengthened.
Unless the problems of politics and state are addressed, the economy will remain in a low growth path, propelled more by OFW remittances than anything else.

I asked Dr. Teehankee if he had any solution to heal this political fracture. He just shook his head.
If the brightest minds in the academe are despondent of a solution, is there any hope of finding one?