While we were all “jueteng” to exhale and recuperate from the initial shock of the latest barrage of controversial news that light our daily newspapers afire, the President suddenly revives the issue of Constitutional charter change. What is Juan dela Cruz to make out of all this?

Interestingly, the other day I saw a caricature in the PDI that put into drawing what I have always believed about this issue. It was a picture of GMA and Joe de V standing beside a broken down jeepney ostensibly labeled the Philippines. GMA’s speech balloon said “palitan na natin ito,” to which Joe the V answered excitedly, “sige, sige.” It was like the artist peeked in my brain and drew the caricature, because it is exactly how I’ve pictured our poor country on the issue of charter change. However, what was not drawn in the caricature was the fact that the jeepney is not the problem. It is the drivers. The problem is and has always been the jeepney drivers. (I want to say I mean that figuratively, but somehow being stuck in traffic everyday makes me mean that literally too. Anyway…) The jeepney, like the government, is just a vehicle, where it goes and how it performs is entirely upto its drivers. When I say drivers, I am not pertaining to (nor excluding) the present administration, but all the governments since Marcos, maybe even before him. It was the drivers who drove our country to such a state of disrepair. It was the drivers who banged and crashed it, and drove it down this ravine that we are on. It was the drivers who looted, stole, and sold its parts and kept the money. It was always the drivers that were the problem. If we undertake charter change at this time, it would be like the government went and bought a new car, at the taxpayers’ expense. But even with the new vehicle, the same old drivers are driving it, and all of our nation’s woes would still confront us. And with the same kind of politicking, grandstanding, corrupt officials at the driver’s seats, with their selfish souls, grand-scale corruption and impudence, we are bound to arrive in the same situation some day, in the same caricature, with the broken down vehicle that is our country, and politicians standing on either side of it, wondering what else they can change. There is a Chinese saying my father uses often, “changing the soup but not changing the medicine.” That, in a nutshell, is exactly what charter change means. Changing the broth from beef to chicken is not going to make the sick person feel better if the medicine is truly ineffective.

No, perhaps the answer to our country’s rehabilitation is not the change of form of government, but the change of its people, from the president down to rank and file. Like Lee Kwan Yew has observed on two occasions before, the Philippines suffers from too much democracy, too much politics. Democracy goes hand in hand with politicking. Politicking is the mortal enemy of progress. Pick up the newspaper and smell it. It stinks of politics, with not even a residual whiff of an idea for national development. Yet we are all so pre-occupied with these political soap operas that we’re forgetting that these characters should be working for us, changing and improving our way of life.

To borrow the words of Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, democracy, at least in its European or Western incarnation, is not suited for Asian countries, particularly in third world nations.

For example, in our version of democracy, we have hundreds of political parties, where the platforms are all similar, if not identical. These organizations spring from the ground like weeds every year. In the US, the very seat of global democracy, they have only two political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. These two institutions have been established for more than a hundred years. And while they are constantly in opposition with each other, the left and the right wing constantly work for the same purpose: to keep their sacred American eagle in flight.

In the Philippines, the very seat of perpetual politicking, it has been customary for disgruntled party members to break out after an argument with superiors, and to spin off their own political organization. Or after an election, the members of a losing party will oftentimes jump ship, much like the rats that they are, and join the administration’s party, thereby effectively selling their souls and their credibility, which were both doubtful in the first place. That is our brand of democracy in action. The kind that is impressive and thoroughly entertaining, but fails to deliver.

Mahathir said in Malaysia, polticial campaigning doesn’t end after the elections. Politicians go on and on through the years, always wary of political rivals and foes, always on the look out for mud-slinging and always eager to sling some dirt back. In the meantime, they neglect the work they were elected to perform, grandstands and pretends to look busy, all the while fooling the very taxpayers who pay their salaries. Sounds exactly like another country I know. But at least Malaysia’s economy is moving upward by leaps, bounds and lightyears. Our country’s economy is also moving at the same velocity, only in the opposite direction.

So what do we need? The present “too democratic” system is obviously malfunctioning, and a parliamentary form of government would only cement the positions of traditionally bad politicians. Communism is fast becoming an obsolete concept, and I think it is too late for us to establish a monarchy.

What we need then, what the Philippines has always needed all these years, is a democratic, but authoritarian form of government, with someone inspiring, honest and uncompromising at the helm. Leaders like Lee Kwan Yew, Deng Xao Ping, or the venerable Dr. Mahathir. We came close to electing one such individual last year, but we missed our chance. Still, the fact that he finished third, ahead of the evangelist and the popular education secretary, is an indication that a growing majority of our countrymen are coming around, recognizing the need for such leadership. Another example is the present administration’s very own Bayani Fernando who is receiving the praise, admiration and respect of the public, despite being criticized constantly for the strict implementation of his hard-line tactics.

The answer to the nation’s problems is responsible and credible authoritarian rule. We all know this to be the medicine we desperately need, but most of us are afraid of its bitter taste, as it reminds us all too well of a similar but poisonous potion we once took called Marcos. This is the dilemma that we face. We all know in our hearts that the Philippines needs disciplining and serious house cleaning, but we lack the moral fortitude to pursue this direction to its end. Before long, if we continue with the present kind of drivers, there may not even be a caricature jeepney in our children’s future.

“The way things are and the way it should be.” It is the title of our sad story. The story of the two Philippines, the one at present, and the one we can only dream about.