“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Sometimes, this refrain applies to many things in the current political crisis of the GMA administration. Similar to the situation just before Marcos assumed dictatorial powers in 1972, the crisis, from the start, is fraught with extra-constitutional dimensions. Witness the various attempts to circumvent the constitutional requirements in the Cha-cha maneuvers, the constitutionally-untenable refusal to recognize the Senate power to question Executive officials, and even the attempt to impose martial rule in the guise of a “national emergency.”
The Glorietta incident is evidently a political event, fraught with grave implications on the political crisis and its actors. What happened was simply too coincidental to dismiss as a random act of terrorism. It happened on a Friday afternoon, as the weekend starts and people have difficulty in meeting or reacting in an organized manner. It targeted Makati business, a favorite target for political messages. If the report on the use of C4 explosive is confirmed, another unique element in past political bombings is present.
It is, of course, too early to have any firm conclusion as to who are the perpetrators. However, strictly from the point of view of political implication, a simple cost-benefit analysis can be done.
The Glorietta bombing basically creates an atmosphere of unease, tension, and fear among the populace. If there are others that followed, it may create panic or cause cumulative harm on the body politic. Such a situation puts pressure on a target political opponent and/or derails its normal activities. It may precede a decisive extra-constitutional move.
A convenient culprit remains the Abu Sayyaf or some other Moro rebel group. This is possible but military offensives against them have led to disarrays in their organization and capabilities. Small bombings in the South can be expected of these groups but a massive bombing in Metro Manila–such as the one in Glorietta–raises questions.
Two other groups have the capability for such an obviously carefully-planned bombing. One is the rebel group in the military. The other is the military itself.
Their engaging in the Glorietta bombing would mean a political connection or an incursion into the political arena by the rebel military. Assuming a political motive, the bombing would represent a demonstration of political strength–and nothing else. It flies against the logic of the present stage of the political crisis where the pressure is on the president and not on the opposition. Such a move can only weaken the political momentum of the opposition. The only logical reason–not necessarily tenable politically–is to prepare for a much more decisive strike at the center of power.
Involvement of military elements in the chain of command in the Glorietta bombing would mean that a section of the military has taken sides in the political conflict on the side of the president. The logic is to create a reason for an imposition of martial law or some form of national emergency. There is a precedent in the past–that of the series of bombings Marcos did to justify martial rule in 1972.
The Glorietta bombing will not immediately produce any clear indication as to the motive(s) of the perpetrator. Succeeding incidents will create the patterns that make clear a decisive political–albeit extra-constitutional–strategy. Whatever happens, we have entered the final stretch of the political crisis.
Are we facing a straight and happy road ahead? Or are we on the brink of an abyss?
[…] 8:25 a.m., October 20, 2007: Mon Casiple expounds this: The Glorietta bombing basically creates an atmosphere of unease, tension, and fear among the […]
[…] Mon Casiple’s analysis is the most chilling. Remember, this is a person not given to off-the-cuff statements or for letting his emotions veto his circumspection. He goes through the list of potential suspects and the implications if any specific group is proven to be behind the blast: The Glorietta bombing basically creates an atmosphere of unease, tension, and fear among the populace. If there are others that followed, it may create panic or cause cumulative harm on the body politic. Such a situation puts pressure on a target political opponent and/or derails its normal activities. It may precede a decisive extra-constitutional move. […]
I had posted my comments earlier this evening in other blogs:
According to the National Security Adviser, Norberto Gonzalez, the bomb blast in Glorietta 2 “could be a show of force and capability by a local terror cell.” (abs-cbnnews.com).
If we were to take this man’s statement seriously, wouldn’t the likes of terrorist cells like the Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiya, MILF, or other Al Qaeda-connected groups, be rushing to grab the limelight-as they seem to love to do after they succeed in an attack ?
It’s been over 24 hours since the bomb blast, & we have not heard from any terrorist groups claiming victory to prove to the public that they are formidable force. The only one mentioning, or alluding to, terrorists is Norberto Gonzalez. Which, to my mind, is suspicious. I know it is his job to open his mouth & say something, but his opinion on the matter is too shallow. Anyone could have said that for the sake of saying something. The Abu Sayyaf has said (abs-cbnnews.com) that “..the group has no involvement in the bomb blast..” & that “the Abu Sayyaf has not fielded any operative in Metro Manila.”
Which leaves analysts, for now, to deduce that the Glorietta 2 bomb blast was an “inside” job. It could have been the handiwork of the right-leaning military men (who would also have access to a C-4 bomb) who want to remove Gloria from Malacanang at all cost. The bomb was a warning to her. This could explain why Gloria cancelled her trip to Ormoc & Tacloban today. What I also gathered last night, was that some generals were called to Malacanan while they were attending a party for an ex-General. After the meeting in the Palace, the Generals went back to the party. They all looked nervous.
However, one may ask, “why such a ruthess act, like a bomb blast, at the expense of people’s lives ?” We must remember that the enemy (Gloria) IS ruthless.
as it turns out, the glorietta blast may have been an accident, a gas explosion, in which case it would be the handiwork of no one in particular. however, this does not make the political situation any less hazardous for gloria.
whether a terrorist bomb or a gas explosion, what matters is that it was deadly and destructive to glorietta, and that it coincided with the multi-million peso bribery scandal attributed to gloria. as i’ve just posted in my blog, coincidences, even if apparently unconnected, are meaningful. and so it may be that the palace payola can blow up in the face of gloria the way the bomb/gas suddenly blew up glorietta.