an assasination is the most convenient way of eliminating political opposition. especially in a third world country like the philippines where warlords still rule the countryside, the barrel of a gun is a powerful tool in advancing political agendas. in an environment where politics is seldom governed by issues and ideas but by money and name recall, the electorate has a tendency of re-electing politicians regardless of their violent record.
look at congressman bersamin. all kinds of motive can be deduced from his assasination, but one thing clear is that 60% of the time, killings like these will never be truthfully resolved. spins by the government, or by the police, or by the family of the victim, or by their local adversaries may be floated to the public for PR purposes. but in the end, the victim is dead and everybody will nicely move on. including the victim's family.
why not. while not discounting the grief and loss that they may suffer, these heirs will eventually inherit the victim's economic and political legacy. and that legacy is enough to keep them in power, albeit locally, for a significant period of time. that's simply the nature of politics in the country. it doesn't require long resumes nor a mandarin education from the country's elite univerisities. you just need the right last name.
in that sense, it negates the impact of the assasination on the part of the opponents who may openly or secretely wish the subject dead. it even creates renewed legend on the person, and hence on the heirs of the family legacy.
some societies openly advocate assasinations as a legitimate political tool. israel for one has never been shy about its not-so-covert operations in getting rid of the leaders of hamas and fatah in the west bank and gaza. entire buildings with tens of men, women and children are bombed in gaza targetting just one or two militant leaders. israel views it as paramount to its survival as a nation that their enemies are silenced. at all costs.
i'm not dealing with this topic from the moral point of view. not that it's not important, but i''m merely discussing assasinations as effective tools in political struggles. of course, there's a right and a wrong when talking about human life, but history has shown less sympathy for persons than to the cause they, or their opponents, espouse. in the long run, history judges persons on what their contributions to their time or their movement. regardless of whether they were assasinated or lived the full life cycle.
in this backdrop, given the degree of public anger against an unpopular "president", would an assasination be a viable option for those wishing the immediate downfall of the government? and given the callousness of this government in pursuing its agenda like chaha, its obsession of perpetuating itself in power and the relative helplessness of the people in removing this impostor, would an assasination still be a logical last desparate move? would it pave the way for a new political order or would it trigger the spiralling of intensified violence? in other words, should anyone advocate taking down this president violently?
yet despite some quarters wondering aloud on where the hell is the Alex Boncayao Brigade when you most need it, i strongly believe that the more traditional ways of removing a corrupt and despotic regime is still the only way forward. gloria arroyo is on her way to landing the top spot as one of the most hated figures in philippine history, why spoil it by creating a martyr? somehow, this president's greed will only be outlived by the patience of the people. assasinating this president will never be the answer in removing her from power, instead nature will inevitably take care of her.
more violently perhaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment