PHILSSA - Middle Forces, Idle Forces?

Home » Features » Middle Forces, Idle Forces?

Middle Forces, Idle Forces?

Edzel Jose L. Mirafelix

Our present political turmoil may be likened to one of the basic principles of classical mechanics, or what is more popularly known as Newtonian Physics. Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis in 1686. Newton’s first law of motion, often referred to as the “law of inertia” states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. In a similar manner, such forces are responsible for our trajectory as a society, and our actions from active to passive. Perhaps it would be easier to find the answers from empirical science since most of us find it difficult to arrive at a convincing explanation on how the prevalent dissonance among the so-called middle forces has come into being, notwithstanding the compelling evidences and blatant maneuverings by government to cover the truth and deny us of justice.

The mass resignation in the cabinet, matched by calls of prominent icons in the business community, civil society, and even former President Cory Aquino should have been more than enough to send shock waves to the discerning majority who fought twice for a government free from corruption and abuse and subject to accountability by the people. Alas, no critical mass has been reached thus far.

Most civil society organizations recognize that the people have a deep sense of urgency for political change but are conflicted by how to undertake the changes and what are to be gained from such pursuit. Recent polls showed the glaring sentiments across sectors from all over the country. Public opinion surveys indicated that dissatisfaction and disapproval with Gloria Arroyo were at the worst compared to any President since 1986. Yet this cannot be translated into people’s participation that should set the needed systematic and political transformation into motion. Therefore, we ask why is this so?

The schizophrenic attitude towards the issues at hand and the inertia that hinders affirmative action affects not only individual citizens but also civil society as a collective unit. While it may be said that the organized quarters within civil society were not remiss in their duties to inform, educate, elicit corresponding action from the people, varying and oftentimes conflicting views only added up to the people’s bewilderment and misunderstanding. The alleged electoral fraud evidenced by the wiretapped GMA-Garci tapes is a case in point. How many times did we hear civil society leaders regard it as a moral issue when it is clearly a criminal act and therefore should be dealt with as a legal issue? Such perplexity goes on with the rest of us ordinary citizens wherein we are convinced that our electoral system is rotten, but we still cling onto popular elections as the best way to choose our leaders. We want to get rid of massive and widespread corruption, achieve more stability and greater effectiveness in our political system, but we are suspicious if changing the constitution will deliver our desired outcomes.

The lengths of time that we devoted our convictions and ideals to remain in the middle of the political spectrum, overcautious to lean towards either end, could have had a significant contribution to where we find ourselves now – at rest, and motionless. And so two People Power revolutions later, we find ourselves in a state of ambivalence, unable to distinguish what is moral and decadent, right and wrong.

Overcoming the Inertia

Our long and complex history of political struggles since the Marcos dictatorship has revealed what the middle forces stand for: peaceful and non-violent means for change, constitutional democracy, human rights, civilian supremacy over the military, and good governance. Over time, these ideals and characteristics have come to fade and diminish even as some of our colleagues in the middle forces entered government, the most recent of which are part of the now well-known Hyatt 10.

Back in the recent days of our mass revolts, the political divisions were clear and instantly recognizable. There was the majority aspiring for a genuine democracy, and the few who favored power and authoritarian rule. Allies and foes were easily identifiable – red versus yellow - and this made it easier for us to win the battle against a cheat and dictator. Likewise, the Erap forces were unmistakable during the last uprising, and once again we emerged victorious. Today, we are faced with a different scenario wherein some of our previous allies, both in government and civil society (FVR, Catholic Church, other party list groups, etc.) have dissociated ties from us if not having taken the opposite end of the battlefield. In contrast, we see ourselves standing beside our known nemesis (Marcoses, Erap forces, etc.) in our various protest actions. Such mixture of colors and changes in the order of political and ideological alignments gave birth to a nebulous battleground that may account for the seemingly insurmountable static mindset of many of our people.

For these reasons, we could not move forward toward a single direction to undertake the necessary corrections. Even if blinded by the myriad of colors in the political kaleidoscope, we should be able to set the forces towards a single direction, such that the only two contrasting hues would be left and our efforts would no longer cancel out each other.

On Moving Faster

We must come at a consensus where our principles and values are not compromised by accommodations in the interest of increasing our numbers. We may all agree that the longer GMA lasts, the worse it is for us, but our conformity should transcend our short term agenda and sustain the clarity of morals and ethics that we fought for during People Power 1 and 2. This means that while we may work hand in hand with the Marcoses and the Erap forces, who still owe us justice and remorse, does not mean granting absolution to their crimes and misdeeds.

Systems change has been a nagging clamor among us but in order to significantly influence the developments, we would need to work not only on concentrating and consolidating our strengths and energies but also on how we would shape the new government structure. This brings us to Newton’s second law of motion which states that “The acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables – the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. Government bureaucracy as we know it has been unwieldy due to its size and numerous redundant offices and bureaus. And while some believe that government is not monolithic, it would still be beneficial to trim down the unnecessary functions and the problematic branches that are frequently at odds such as the deadlocks between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Hence, it is incumbent on the middle forces to propagate the exigency of changing to a federal-parliamentary government. A leaner, smaller-sized government would be simpler to move and operate, due to minimized red tape.

With our concerted efforts as enlightened civil society, we can achieve an excellent synergy in the dynamics of our political environment, where the sum of the efforts of each individual will surely be greater than their numerical addition.

By the way, what about the third law of motion? The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. I hope that this does not apply to us.

Some Thoughts on Love of Country

Silver Lining