Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Gloria Arroyo- Bonapartist?

Gloria Arroyo- Bonapartist?

Last time, I watched a paid ad regarding the "alleged" achievements of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Her "achievements" seemed to be more of a bragging, acknowledging that the works are hers not of the people who paid taxes to end as those things. For sure most of her projects seemingly a desperate acts like those of emperors of past ago-from monumental infrastructures made, invoking an "alleged" progress that in fact, coming much from remittances courtesy of contract workers, migrants-turned-dual citizens than domestic development.

I also really think that her administration, trying to act parental, basing much on "populist" and "militaristic", "Machiavellian" tones, would make her a Jesuitist or rather say a Bonapartist, who advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, based on popular support of a strongman or caudillo, and it includes using popular tones, contributions, and even carrot and stick tactics. It also refer to a situation in which counterrevolutionary military officers seize power from revolutionaries, and then use selective reformism to co-opt the radicalism of the popular classes. But Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo got the Presidential throne after a "peaceful coup" mobilized by the people than of the military, that, like the same idea done last 1986, it end up given to a "deserving" person to rule then doing the latter: of selective reformism to co-opt the ideas of the popular classes that in fact, end up failed or benefited from the selected ones.

She tried much to act like a Bonapartist, once as what the late strongman Marcos do, trying to appear having great power, firmly establish its authority in its own name, trying to oppose those who oppose her by hook or by crook like using the army like those of Palparan and his rabid anti-Communist stance to the point of persecuting the legal left.

And somehow like Sudhir Hazareesingh's widely-revered book The Legend of Napoleon, it points out the virtual minefield of interpretations regarding its usage. His own scholarship sees the term, Bonapartism as a reference to a:
"popular national leader confirmed by popular election, above party politics, promoting equality, progress and social change, with a belief in religion as an adjunct to the State, a belief that the central authority can transform society and a belief in the 'nation' and its glory and a fundamental belief in national unity."
And thus, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as well as former Presidents of the Philippines, especially Marcos did to try so, trying to become the "embodiment of the state" and ending up being "worshiped" by those loyal to her regime, calling it "an era of progress" which in fact shallow to say despite the infrastructures being made.

One group loyal to the trying hard Bonapartist said this:
"Our goal is to facilitate actions / activities and promote awareness for POSITIVE and SUSTAINABLE CHANGE. We believe that the future belongs to those who give the next generation reason for true hope and not false promises, reason for positive-forward change not negative-status quo mediocrity, reason for proactive-prudent reforms and not passive-reckless hate campaign-nonsense agenda - that is Sustainability and that is Sustainable living for future generations to come."

But then,
Despite its message, it shows how they wanted to retain Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the head of state, wanting her pursue the dream as Prime Minister or even both! Like Napoleon Bonaparte having the Directory replaced by a military leadership, the Consulate within revolutionary movements or governments. And if that's the case, then the elected Congresswoman of the second district of Pampanga, with outmost opportunism may wanted to be the Speaker, then stubbornly pursuing charter change along with her clique to turn the nation Parliamentary and herself as Prime Minister, and possibly to oust Aquino from the presidency, having Presidential powers under hers, including the right to dissolve the Parliament if she do so! All in the guise of change with the support of her allies at the same time bragging off her achievements trying to win the hearts of the people!

Forget the future if they insist on the past good old days as they insist on the trying hard Caesarina (my term for a female Caesar, as to the Tsar as Tsarina), the female Bonaparte who vent off change to retain the status quo through a series of "achievements" that, in fact made by the people through its taxes and obligedly end up in every infrastructure band be bragged by an administrator as its project!

But then despite the road, the bridge, the rail transit, the system remains rotten, same policies, conservative and neoliberal that the rest of the people simply felt it too negative than positive as the few felt so, seeing much poverty despite the increase in the stock market, seeing oppression instead of justice through Oplan Bantay Laya, of deteriorated educational policy while increasing tuition and other fees?

Well... like Napoleon, who experienced the difficulties amongst the French people while gaining victories in the battlefield, the outgoing President who got the Presidential throne through a "peaceful coup" mobilized by the people in 2001 and legitimatised (thou illegally courtesy of the Hello Garci scandals) last 2004 tried much in contributing to a greater mess in a rotten system while putting usable monuments at the same time. But unlike Napoleon, whose inclination is too progressive, who even against the status quo like those who defend feudal tradition far from a Caesarina who, with her clique, trying to preserve rottenness, and also benefited from it whilst bannering change through meaningless reforms and infrastructures branded as her "achievement."

In the end,
Her alleged achievements, of the road and of the rail transit may end up nothing and instead be called a contribution courtesy of the people, especially those who paid taxes. Gloria, being the President tried much to brag along with her clique, and its allies that she "uphold" the rights of the people, an enlightened despot imbued by "divine right" and elected by the "will of the people", only to be accused as she do the exact opposite of what the people wanted.

In short:
She's too far from what is what intended, she's just a Legitimist (a term used to refer the Bourbon royal family in France like Louis XVIII) acting as a Bonapartist.