Here you could make a strong case contrasting the pseudoimperialist policy of Marcos complete with proclamations, to Marcos Jr’s defeatism. Another would be to ask him about FM’s declaration PH would drop Sabah claim. Potentially interesting question(s) for presidential debates.
3. A longer Twitter thread that compares and contrasts the careful, responsible international institutional approach of PH govs versus FM’s imperialist fantasy-building:
Along thread with a Friday reflection on family, power, change, and country. With a lot of readings. It begins with something I heard Paulynn Paredes Sicam say in a peace advocates’ forum close to 20 years ago: for change to become permanent, she said, you need ten years…
In a fundamental way I think shortening Marcos’ rule to “20 years” is misleading; it was 7 years of democratic rule and 13 of dictatorship. The distinction is important and requires a bit of explanation. The 1st phase was within the confines of institutions and precedents;
The 2nd phase was without limits and even more fundamentally, without the possibility of establishing a succession because despots cannot risk it; if democracies are about succession, dictatorship is about elimination.
Thoughts on candidates and platforms, a thread. I really think 2010 was the last election in which all the candidates had detailed thought-out platforms, the end of a political road that began in 1935. mlq3.tumblr.com/post/130462282…
In fact referring to this example from 1935 reveals some basic realities of platforms in the PH political experience. This one was the platform of the winning candidates who ran as coalition candidates. archive.org/details/WhiteB…
The coalition consisting of two major parties (that had once been one party) meant the platform was a compromise document designed not only to appeal to voters but also as a basis for unity of parties that had different POV.
My column today argues at its core, a weak presidency cultivated an image of strength enough to sap the vitality of national institutions including parties. Local parties filled the resulting power vacuum changing the political landscape. opinion.inquirer.net/146772/barons-…
When the history of this admin's written, one will see how its chest-thumping disguised its inability to actually effect political change. Example: like all admins, it postponed barangay polls, but failed its ultimate objective, to appoint barangay OIC's. opinion.inquirer.net/107441/go-grow…
Another element that will prove to have mattered politically was the President's own limited attention and support to candidates: he only ever truly cared for a few at a time, which ensured they'd be outnumbered in the end. opinion.inquirer.net/119512/all-roa…
It has a nice mayo-mustard dressing (but needs a lot more). More heavily flavored than the Zinger which is most comparable rival. Tasty and nice bun, but I think Zinger would do better in the still tasty even if cold department.
Just a note on the Dutertes and the Marcoses, based on the interesting book by Earl Parreño (a thread)
The President's father, associated himself with Sotero Cabahug and his brother Tosong who were appointed Sec. of Public Works and Acting Governor of Cebu respectively by President Osmeña in 1945. Vicente Duterte was appointed acting Mayor of Danao, Cebu.
The vice-mayor of Vicente Duterte was Luis Almendras, uncle of Alejandro Almendras who would become a political kingpin in Mindanao.
So the past few days, down to this morning, a thread. The image we should bear in mind, is Goya's famous painting of Saturn devouring his son.
The original dilemma: FMJr. was a candidate representing the ruling coalition, yes, but leaving the President and his people without a viable contribution and thus no guarantee FM Jr. will have their back.
This situation arose because the President and Go and even Daughterte took a hit from Pharmally, but the President and Go took the biggest hit, meaning Go had to slide down and the President had to bow out of running. This left Daughterte.