Can political elites initiate reform?

Note: This is my spontaneous response to the article "Dagdag-bawas" of journalist Conrado de Quiros (PDI, 2 October 2012).

This is one article that I applauded (again) Conrado de Quiros. He writes what he thinks is right. Or at least, that's what he said he is as an opinion writer. Some comments, however, seek to clarify:

The one supraparty, proposed by JV Ejercito, is the most apt description of how our political leaders conduct politics today. The presentation of two contending parties (the LP conglomerate versus the UNA coalition) is a facade meant to trick the people to believe that authentic political and social change is within their reach, and all they need to do is to choose the better group. It's a market politics based on who are faster and more industrious to gain the winning spot, insensitive to the need of the people for real leaders who make things happen. It's a politics of opportunists based on lacking of arms not for a cause but for a strong financial and political machinery that operates nationwide ensuring more seats in Congress. It's a circus--it heightened the need for change as the elite politicians elbowing one another to get the best costume and mask for the people to rally behind their self-centered agenda. Today, they are singing and dancing around carrying the moral slogan "kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap" of the "daang matuwid" claiming that their group is better than the other group in making this vision of a new society a reality. Of course, the opposition verbalized the obvious by accusing the seasoned political butterflies as "political hypocrites" who once supported the former president and conveniently self-invent themselves as new reformers today. This capability of the politicians to transform themselves as "reformers" overnight is truly a disgusting feature of our politics. Conrado de Quiros observed,

"I saw these things and realized that there is only one constant in our politics, or history. That is the incredible capacity of the elite, political and social, to survive. That is the incredible capacity of the elite to mend their differences, however those differences seem stark at one point, and find a new lease on life. That is the incredible capacity of the elite to come together and build a united front against a common enemy, which is change."

De Quiros is correct. These political elites know no perpetual enemies, or allies. What motivates them is their common need to self-perpetuate in the political arena. Make no mistake. Just because they carry a moral slogan of anticorruption that they are now espousing a principle-based politics. What we witnessed is a political strategy of forging coalitions around the winning president, de Quiros reminded us, based on convenience rather than principle. This is purely a survival of the elites exercise. That's why we witnessed the unification of perceived opposites of the Aquinos and the Marcoses, the political marriage of Madrigal and Villar, the return of the old names with new make up, the rise of the sons and daughters of the traditional elite politicians. There is a never-ending war within the elites and each entity conglomerate to the stronger power-base especially the successful political machine that persuades the masses that they hold the key to open the door for the desired change: either a change that reforms the dysfunctional parts of the system that sustains our democratic republic; or a change that permeates all levels of society that calls for dismantling the old dead system of governance in order to build for a new one. However, this idea of "political elite-reformers who are holding the key for change" is a lie. These political elites do not want change-- either for reformation or for  revolution. 

Can the marginalized political elites in the elite power struggle initiate the necessary reform in our system? De Quiros is toying with the idea that there are political elites who are supposed to undertake reform but did not. Conrado de Quiros wrote:

"The people who are supposed to undertake reform are the very ones who are allergic to reform. The people who are best suited to undertake reform, who are the people themselves, are excluded from it."

Is this true that reformation is supposed to be exercised by the elite politicians but they are simply allergic to it? No. If Conrado de Quiros is a full-blooded red, ala James Bond of the left movement during martial law, he ought to know that change is conceivable only by those who are oppressed by the system. The oppressors (even those who are marginalized in the elite power struggle) can never initiate any meaningful historical reconstruction and reformation. Oppression is originally disclosed to the subjugated people and the desired ethical society can only come through the revolutionary actions of the oppressed. This is why de Quiros put more premium to the people themselves as the best suited force to undertake reform (the second part of his assertion).

As a zealous believer of the Cory Magic-- the abused yet still effective tool of the ruling elite--the "people power", Conrado de Quiros awfully failed to remonstrate that real people power includes the awakening of the people for them to see the evil intent, the political hypocrisy, and the political tricks of the elites, both the ruling and the marginalized elites. So long as there is a Conrado de Quiros (and people like him) who continues to pamper and protect the president and his friends, the desired reform-- which takes the central stage as a rallying point of the political elites during campaign and election time but quickly set aside in the dark corner in the political arena (awaiting for another election to resurrect) as soon as the people selected a new set of leaders--remains an elusive dream in this land.

The party-list system is supposed to address this vacuum to represent the voice of the voiceless to undertake the needed reform. However, the political elites, especially those who are losers in the elite power struggle, managed to abuse this mechanism to forward their own political agenda. They claimed to be the voice of the voiceless, to represent in Congress those sectors which are not represented. If they are sincere, they must help those people to select among their rank who can truly represent them in Congress. They do not need to be their party-list representative. The yellows are now fielding their own version of party-list groups (How can the elite Black and White Movement be a marginalized group?). The aspiring inexperienced Aquino is claiming now as the voice of the youth in the senate. These actuations are no different from making Mikey Arroyo as the party-list rep of the security guard. The failure of the yellows to expand their criticism of the anomalies of the Arroyo administration to the current administration is the current bane in our political liberation as a people.

The cycle continues to exist: "It was so then, it is so now."