It seems I’m not the only one who believes that the deep fracture in our political establishment is the biggest problem of the country and that we are on the edge of open civil war.

Acting on a paper of Fr. Romeo Integan SJ, the head of the Jesuits, who said in a paper presented to the Palace that “we are on a revolutionary situation,” the Arroyo government is seeking a total reconciliation with the forces of the opposition. These forces include the Marcos family, Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr., former President Joseph Estrada, the NPA and the MILF, putschist elements in the military, and other oppositionist groups.

In his paper, Integan said that a revolutionary situation now exists in the Philippines, where “there is widespread desire for radical socio-political change among the people, groups could emerge that could lead or effect change and the prevailing system is under serious attack, the holders of state power are hard put to maintain the system or change in the direction they want, societal institutions are under serious challenge and there are real prospects of seizure of power by forces other than the present besieged wielders of state power.”

I’ve said as much before. The situation reminds me very much of the pre-martial law period, when there was a similar deep fracture in the Philippine political establishment. Then, the fracture was caused by former President Marcos upsetting the normal system of factions alternating in power. He became the first Philippine president to be re-elected in the country’s postwar history by staging the dirtiest election in Philippine history in 1969.

Today, this fracture was caused by Edsa 2, which similarly upset the normal pattern of factions alternating in power. The politicization of institutions, particularly the judiciary, is forcing opposition groups to think they can get justice only outside the present system. Hence, as in the period before martial law, a “revolutionary situation” now exists.

However, unlike in 1972, the ruling faction isn’t strong enough to eliminate the other. A pre-emptive strike against all opposition forces, as Marcos did with the declaration of martial law, is not in the cards. It faces the prospect of a third force – the military perhaps – intervening and displacing both factions.

Thus, President Arroyo is forced to reach out with a program of “total reconciliation,” although that is anathema to her hard-core supporters. She’s acting out of an instinct of self-preservation. Although she may win power back in May 2004, the threats against her may instead escalate.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to seek “total reconciliation.” In fact, it’s right that the leader of the nation is trying to forge political unity because without political unity, the principal problems of this nation cannot be addressed.
The problem is the proponent. President Arroyo is the wrong party to lead the efforts in national reconciliation. Aside from the fact that she was the beneficiary of Edsa 2 that caused the rupture, by going back on her word and running, she has little credibility with the opposition.

Had she remained true to her promise not to run, President Arroyo would have the moral capital to bring the warring factions together.

But now, her gestures toward reconciliation are perceived as being political gimmicks and her promises can’t be trusted.

The facilitators that she chose, like Fr. Romeo Integan, cannot be said to be impartial and enjoy a high trust rating with the opposition. Fr. Integan is the provincial superior of the Jesuits, one of the groups which plotted the ouster of former President Joseph Estrada.

Perhaps a genuine effort at reconciliation cannot be started until after the elections in 2004, if a leader with a large mandate is elected. On the other hand, the election, instead of facilitating reconciliation, may provoke a “revolutionary crisis” and all talks about national reconciliation will go out the window.

As for a facilitator, perhaps the US should play that role. For the sake of fighting terrorism, the US has a self-interest in preserving Philippine political unity and preventing Philippine society from imploding. The US would have the muscle to bring opposing parties together. It’s also independent of the contending parties, unlike say, the Catholic Church or the Iglesia ni Kristo.

But the US can only be effective if it performs its facilitator role covertly. US meddling still rouses anti-US nationalist sentiments, although the fact is that our irresponsible elite cannot fix problems by themselves.

Overtly, the US should also refrain from taking sides. The US must be seen as a guarantor of the democratic process (for example, clean elections in 2004) or reformed institutions rather than be perceived as backing a particular candidate.
The reconciliation effort of the Arroyo government is the right initiative, but it has the wrong proponent. National reconciliation will have to wait, if it comes at all.