THE military establishment, obviously at the instance of civilian authority (which is supreme), warns that anyone recruiting for the overthrow of government by force will be arrested. Of course, it’s illegal to overthrow the government by force.
"Force" means force of arms; in a word, revolution.
Now, the bloodless EDSA "revolution" that the Marcos government failed to quell was a welcome one. So was the so-called EDSA II. In both cases, the military withdrew its support for Marcos and Estrada. No one was arrested because the street demonstrations were considered overwhelming.
The difference is that while EDSA gained approval from the international community, mainly from the US, the second EDSA was not as well regarded. According to international media, notably the
New York Times, while Estrada deserved his fate, the means by which his ouster was carried out was not quite legitimate.
This must be the basis of the changed stance of people who played prominent roles (with the exception of Corazon C. Aquino) in EDSA I and II. Now, so-called "people power," despite its enshrinement in the 1986 Constitution, has lost its appeal and outlived its usefulness. Sections of media and majority politicians are against it.
Nevertheless, demonstrations calling for GMA’s resignation or ouster will go on until, as GMA rightly suspects, they reach a "critical mass." That’s clearly the reason behind the "calibrated, pre-emptive response" and the military’s recent warnings about "recruitment."
Recruiting people for armed uprisings is, of course, illegal, but not recruiting them for peaceful demonstrations. Should the government blur the distinction, that will put Gandhi’s satyagraha, Thoreau’s civil disobedience, peaceful protest, and EDSA in the dustbin of history.
Even Marcos understood this when Batasan Pambansa 880 was passed, allowing peaceful demonstrations when the authorities refused to grant permits.
But, of course, demonstrations are not absolutely peaceful, especially when they are dispersed by truncheons. Police justify the use of truncheons when demonstrators become "unruly," but one can only guess what provokes them into being "unruly."
Provocateurs can come from both sides of the fence; the question is which side has more reason to use them?
