|
The
nation’s two major institutions—the Church and the
military establishment—are highly politicized. The
Church, by virtue of its pervasive moral influence, and
the military, by its monopoly of arms, are most
effective in effecting political changes, particularly
at crucial historical junctures. But they are also the
nation’s most misunderstood institutions.
Despite
their proven roles at the most critical moments, they
are always the first to profess an apolitical stance on
a myriad of social, political and economic issues
confronting the nation. This is inevitable—or
understandable.
The 1987
Constitution is explicit about the separation of the
Church and the State, a constitutional doctrine that
effectively bars the Church from any incursions into
State affairs. Within the Church, the call to attend to
the spiritual needs of its flock is more pronounced than
intruding into their more mundane and temporal
requirements.
The
Constitution is also explicit about the supremacy of
civilian authority over the military, another
constitutional doctrine that effectively forbids the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and its adjunct,
the Philippine National Police (PNP), from going into
civilian functions. Besides, the “civilianization” of
the military is a continuing process to check any power
grab.
The
Church’s institutional strength comes from its moral
influence over nearly 90 percent of the nation’s
population. Since ours is the only Christian nation in
Asia, the Church possesses an intricate network of
dioceses, parishes, schools, Christian communities and
Church-led people’s organizations which exert enormous
influence on a typical Filipino. Besides, the Church has
about 10,000 pastors, priests and nuns and tens of
thousands of lay workers nationwide attending to the
spiritual requirements of its faithful.
The
Church is divided into the majority and minority church.
The majority Church is the Roman Catholic Church and its
faithful of almost 85 percent of the population. The
minority Church
refers to the various Christian evangelical ministries
and Protestant denominations. On several controversial
occasions, the majority and minority Church speaks with
one voice, obviously setting aside fundamental doctrinal
differences.
The
Church’s interventionist tendency emanates from a form
of theology that stresses the Christian mission to bring
justice to the poor and oppressed mainly through
political activism. Some call it theology of liberation;
others, theology of struggle. It has gone some reshaping
from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which
emphasizes the “preferential option for the poor.” The
other Christian denominations have taken a more radical
view of Christian teachings to approximate the theology
of liberation.
On the
other hand, the military’s strength emanates from its
monopoly of arms. In realpolitik, he who has the gun
rules, so to speak. This stark reality is being tempered
by the civilian-supremacy doctrine, although this is
somewhat obliterated by a constitutional provision that
defines the Armed Forces as the “protector of the
people.”
Somehow,
the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over
the military and the AFP as protector of the people are
conflicting doctrines that confuse even the best and the
brightest and the well-intentioned in the military
establishment. In the absence of scholarly discourses
and elucidations on these two seemingly conflicting
doctrines, many unsettled questions continue to linger
even in the military mind.
Does the
“protector of the people” doctrine allow the military to
exercise political intervention to the point of
supplanting the civilian authority, which the
Constitution says should be supreme at all times? What
exactly are the limits of this doctrine? How can the
military be a factor in the continuing process of
democratization in the country?
Incidentally, what was taking place in the military is
not exactly politicization. In fact, it was the
opposite. Since 1986, the military establishment has
produced only two factions: the careerists and the
opportunists. This is a sad commentary on the current
state in the military establishment.
The
careerists are officers who consider their military
careers as stepping stones for bigger careers. They are
spread in schools taking MBAs, MAs and other
postgraduate studies or detailed in some government
offices as aides of politicians and other bureaucrats.
They project an image of old-school, apolitical soldiers
who are ready to defend the Constitution.
As
“constitutional soldiers,” they are apathetic to all the
political happenings and noises. But they hope to leave
military service in the soonest time possible to settle
in some well-paying but less stressful post-military
careers. In short, their career is first and foremost in
the many decisions and choices they have to take as
soldiers.
The
opportunists are political flunkeys, who later assume
some government posts by virtue of their closeness to
the appointing power. They are the politician-soldiers
or soldier-politicians who are adept in the exercise of
the “politics of me first,” which is just a phrase for
political opportunism.
As
acolytes of the powers that be, they serve the status
quo, hoping to get appointed to some juicy government
posts when they retire from military service. The
country may turn upside down, but they will always
remain as faithful and loyal political flunkeys. Bereft
of any reformist agenda, they are just happy to align
themselves with the politicians, believing this is the
best possible option for them.
From
another point of view, the so-called politicization of
the military is a fluke. This is because the country has
yet to produce a Kemal Mustapha or a Nasser, two leading
soldiers-turned-political leaders who were characterized
by intense vision to lift their countries from mass
poverty, and who had presided over the modernization of
their respective countries.
But
whatever happens to the military, the country has to
contend with the fact that a politicized Church and an
equally politicized military establishment will always
be around at the crossroads of history. A hard Church on
a soft State like ours and an interventionist military
with a touch of opportunism are two striking realities,
which every Filipino can always observe. They are the
things we have to live with. |
