PKR Have To Do Nothing Because BN Is Self-Destructing

                         PKR Have To Do Nothing Because BN Is Self-Destructing

MAY 29  2013

One of the main reasons BN regime (Barisan Nasional or National Front), led by PM Najib Razak, fails to perform better in the May 5th 2013 general election was because it lost in the cyber psychological warfare. Actually opposition PR (Pakatan Rakyat or People’s Alliance) didn’t do anything extraordinary to win the heart of the young urban voters. Instead, it was BN that screwed up by scoring its own goal, and in the process gave away additional 7 parliamentary and a whopping 32 state seats to the opposition. Basically, what BN did over the past 5 years since the 2008′s 12th general election was to scream and broadcast 1Malaysia propaganda almost 24 hours a day.

Back in 2007, Khairy Jamaluddin, then PM Abdullah Badawi’s son-in-law, insulted netizens as “monkeys” and called for tougher punishments against bloggers. If that was not bad enough, Information Minister Zainuddin, a cabinet member who had difficulties differentiating between “election” and “erection”, called bloggers as nothing less than “Goblok” (Indonesian slang for “stupid”). And who can forget Nazri, the controversial minister who threaten bloggers with ISA and had fun in Parliament shouting “You have no brains – Stupid, Stupid, Stupid …” at DAP MP Lim Kit Siang, insulting wheelchair-bound DAP MP Karpal Singh because he couldn’t stand, yelling “racist … bloody racist” at DAP MP Kulasegaran 41 times and whatnot prior.

2007 was also the year where tens of thousands took to the street under Bersih Rally. The rally was an instant success, with subsequent version 2 and 3, primarily due to publicity generated through online blogs. Like it or not, netizens were being forced to embrace the alternative online media simply because the BN regime uses their controlled mainstream media for self-praise while attacking opposition. Najib administration could have win over huge urbanites support should his propaganda print and electronic media gave a more balance coverage. Urbanites flock to the internet for alternative (read: opposition) updates simply because BN’s self-praise effort was excessive thus overkill, so much so that it was so fake and insincere.

After 2008′s 12th general election, BN recognizes the influence of online media. Millions of dollars were spent in recruiting cyber troopers to fight the cyber war dominated by the opposition. Unfortunately, besides spamming hates, sex and racist comments in every blog, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and whatnot’s corner, these UMNO mercenaries could hardly deliver any intelligent substance to help counter corrupt and mismanagement allegations. It was a losing cyber war that UMNO fails (or rather refuse) to understand. It was like deploying former Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin to argue a court case against the “Lion of Jelutong” Karpal Singh.

Post 2013′s 13th general election, it seems Najib administration still does not understand the cyber psychological warfare which they lost dearly. BN’s stone-age mentality will not help them much in the next 14th general election. Their dominance in the traditional mainstream media alone will not help them to capture Selangor or Penang. It was UMNO’s own suppression and oppression which make Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang and Nik Aziz relevant. UMNO’s suppression and oppression were like fuels that Anwar needs badly to keep his machines moving. That was why Anwar’s first priority after failing to march to Putrajaya was to organize nationwide rallies.

Rally is Anwar’s only option to keep his supporters alive, without which PKR is as good as dead come next general election. Of course PR knew they have lost the 13th general election due to gerrymandering and “first past the post” voting system. They smartly use 51% popular votes which they won as the silver bullet to convince their supporters that they’ve actually win the election. What else do you think they can use to justify their rallies? But people will get bored and tired of excessive rallies. They can’t possibly attend rally every month, can they? That was why Anwar and his team didn’t hold back in urging (or rather provoking) people to get ready for street demonstrations.

Sadly, UMNO walks into the trap set by Anwar. UMNO with its new sheriff in town, Home Minister Zahid Hamidi, is actually doing more harm than good by showing his newly found muscle in cracking down opposition leaders. It seems PM Najib has appointed a worse person to replace his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein for the job. By telling people who does not like the present (unfair) electoral system to migrate elsewhere shows Zahid Hamidi’s arrogance and “gobbedegokness”. Now, by arresting and re-arresting opposition leaders, Zahid Hamidi is giving new life and justification for opposition to call more people to take to the street. What was illegitimate has now become legitimate, literally speaking. The crackdowns anger the average Joes and Janes.

Many PR supporters who initially despise street demonstration may now see it as a responsibility to do so because of such brutal crackdown. No wonder Mahathir’s worst enemy is none other than his former protégé Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar is a master in toying with peoples’ sentiment. If a clever person like Mahathir couldn’t even contain Anwar, did goblok Zahid Hamidi think he can checkmate opposition Anwar Ibrahim by using similar expired intimidation tactic? Perhaps Zahid thought he could show off his intelligence by arresting all 89 opposition MPs and throw them into jail thus forcing by-elections in all the 89 parliamentary seats (*grin*).

An “Operasi Lalang 2013″ will not work the same way “Operasi Lalang 1987″ did, if that was what Najib administration plans to do next. Unlike 1987 where mobile phone was like a sci-fi Star Trek toy, 2013 is the smartphone era where your photo would be uploaded and shared by millions worldwide instantly if you’re caught bonking David Beckham’s wife. The best thing to do is to lay low, just like what deputy PM Muhyiddin is doing now. Ever wonder why Muhyiddin refrains himself from cursing the Chinese for BN’s less than spectacular win? That’s because Muhyiddin knows he needs the Chinese votebank in case the Malay swing the other way in the future.

Now that PM Najib and de-facto PM Mahathir have burnt the bridge on the Chinese voters, they can only rely on rural Malay votes, and that’s a foolish strategy. For Mahathir to spew anti-Chinese venom is understandable but for PM Najib to parrot the former is absolutely flabbergasted. What if global recession or depression happens in another five years and the palm oil prices tumble? Will PM Najib pacify the rural Felda strong supporters to the tune of millions or billions in taxpayers money due to income losses, without which this ethnic-Malay voters would throw their support behind the opposition? That’s the price you’ve to pay by playing racial cards.

On the other hand, opposition can expect the urban vote-bank, especially the Chinese, to remain loyal with it. With the estimated 80% – 90% Chinese votes in its pocket, PKR can now pull all its resources concentrating in the rural areas. It’s safe to speculate at this junction that the Chinese will not go anywhere but the opposition. If BN’s free flow of money, food, beers, entertainments, lucky draws and whatnot cannot change the Chinese hearts, nothing will. But the same cannot be said about BN – it has to not only defend its rural votebank but to pray there’s no internal nor external factors that could potentially swing its only rural supporters.

In short, opposition PR has a better chance of swinging the rural Malay voters than BN in changing the urban multi-racial voters’ perception. Najib administration has to understand that unlike 1987 where the memory about the political crackdown would disappear over time, a repeat of similar brutality in 2013 will be remembered for a very long time, thanks to online media. While the opposition is growing its cake, Najib administration is shrinking its cake. That’s not a very clever thing to do and clamping down on opposition just after the election is helping Anwar’s justification in questioning Najib administration’s legitimacy.

Home Minister Zahid Hamidi is equivalent to Perkasa Ibrahim Ali and Nazri Aziz combined – arrogant with stupidity blended. If 12th and 13th general elections were the Indian and Chinese tsunamis respectively, will 14th general election be the Malay tsunami? Looking at Najib’s newly formed cabinet members, it seems Anwar would have relatively easy meat come next general election. Anwar’s next plan should go all the way into the rural villages and start his provocation strategy, with some fine tuning and bells and whistles thrown in

The Decline of Malaysian Apartheid

                                                The Decline of Malaysian Apartheid
By Sunil Kukreja 20 May 2013  Asia Times

It has been practically a given that no facet of Malaysian society is untouched by matters of race. The recently concluded general elections and the aftermath that has ensued has again affirmed the centrality of race in a society that continues to grapple with reconciling its own contradictions. 

For decades, the racial compromise ostensibly affirmed a form of "Malaysian apartheid", where the constitutionally protected bumiputera status of ethnic Malays increasingly became co-opted and morphed into the cornerstone for an ideology of Malay supremacy, known locally as Ketuanan Melayu. This race-based system was conveniently mirrored in the ruling coalition’s political framework for governing. Now, the political arrangement, reflected in the dominance of Barisan Nasional’s (BN) race-based political parties, may well be on its last leg - although how long that leg can remain standing is uncertain. 

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and various politicians from his United Malay National Organization (UMNO) party have ratcheted up anti-Chinese rhetoric and essentially scapegoated the ethnic Chinese minority for the UMNO–led BN coalition’s disappointing results at the polls. This vividly reflects the degree to which UMNO has been and remains invested in the formula of perpetuating a race-based body politic. It is also a main basis for BN’s predicament with voters over the last two election cycles. 

The rhetorical assault from UMNO’s machinery (championed especially by the UMNO-controlled broadsheet, Utusan Malaysia) on ethnic Chinese voters, which by any measure seems pointed and provocative, was continuous for days following the elections. The pro-UMNO newspaper’s headline the day after the election shrieked, “Apa Lagi Cina Mahu” (What more do the Chinese want?). 

This was published merely hours after Najib himself stoked the racial embers by insisting that a "Chinese tsunami" was responsible for BN’s second consecutive election slip-up. While BN retained control of parliament with 133 out of 222 seats, it lost the popular vote for the first time since 1969 to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition coalition led by Anwar Ibrahim. 

Najib’s salvo seemed to signal to the extremist ethno-nationalist wing within UMNO that it was time again to play up the race-blame game. It also didn’t take long for former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad to pipe in that the "ungrateful" Chinese were largely responsible for BN's poor showing. A retired judge, Mohd Noor Abdullah, aligned with UMNO went as far as to warn of a backlash against ethnic Chinese. 

The communally charged rhetoric has since remained palpable, with even a group of Islamic nongovernmental organizations jumping into the fray with a call for Malays to boycott a number of Chinese firms it accuses of having backed PR's political campaign. 

The fact that some moderate and centrist voices within UMNO, such as Saifuddin Abdullah, have had to react and distance themselves from this systematic process of race-baiting and intimidation suggests once again that UMNO's default tendencies remain very much rooted in the race-based ideology of Ketuanan Melayu. While moderate voices are not absent in UMNO's inner circle, they are far from dominant. 

More relevant is that while a significant segment of the electorate has for two consecutive general elections shown a willingness, and even arguably, eagerness to transcend race-based politics, UMNO and by extension BN appear trapped in an increasingly stagnant ideology and institutional framework. 

While there are a number of compelling factors influencing the surge in support for the Anwar-led opposition coalition, voters have undoubtedly shown an explicit desire to reject the race-baiting and racism that UMNO has methodically peddled - both during the campaign leading up to the elections in specific locales and more broadly in the days following the elections. 

                                                Failed model, dying ideology
While clearly it would be premature to write-off BN as a formidable force, there are clear signs of the decline and even demise of the BN model of a race-based multi-party coalition. Race-based parties such as UMNO, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) have long been the embodiment of a communal-based coalition framework that seemed unshakeable. 

By contrast, the longstanding opposition party, the Democratic Action Party (DAP), though it has the label of being Chinese dominated, has not been a race-based political entity. Nor is Anwar's Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Since the emergence of PKR on the political scene, two of the three parties in the opposition coalition differ in one fundamental way from the major parties in the BN: they are not communally-based in their constitution. 

This represents a stark juxtaposition of the BN and PR coalitions. To be sure, the other major coalition partner in PR, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), is exclusive to Muslims and so happens to be exclusively Malay in its composition. Yet in a concerted - and some may argue expedient - effort to become more mainstream, the leadership of PAS has for years now been courting non-Muslims and has established a non-Muslim wing of the party. 

For unrelated reasons, both PAS and DAP had for decades been in the political wilderness. BN's past ability to make inherently unequal race-based social and political stratification palatable ensured that the status quo prevailed. Until recently it would have been inconceivable to have imagined PAS and DAP - one committed to hudud law, the other to preserving a secular Malaysia - to be on the same page on any policy agenda, let alone to come together to forge a coalition. 

While their three-way coalition with Anwar's PKR may be a marriage of convenience, with their differences now largely papered over by their common desire to dislodge UMNO and BN from Putrajaya, much of the historical mistrust that contaminated their relations have become less toxic. That has enabled the PR's parties to transcend the de facto race-based boundaries that underscored the ideological divide between them and put the PR on the vanguard of political and social change. 

To be sure, their alliance may not be permanently cemented. But the coalition partners joint assault against UMNO's racism and propensity to reaffirm the rhetoric and policy prescriptions that flow from the ideology of Ketuanan Melayu appears to be in consonance with the sentiments of younger and even older voters who opted to cross over to PR. That said, PR's win of 51% of the popular vote at the May 5 elections is not attributable solely or even primarily to voters' discontent with UMNO's racial politics. 

There were clearly other major contributing factors, including widespread frustration with rampant government corruption, nepotism, crime, and the declining quality of education, to name but a few. Yet, the emphasis given by all three major PR coalition parties during campaign rallies on the failings of UMNO's and its ultra-Malay nationalist allies' crude racism and communal politicking made it abundantly clear how PR aimed to position itself on the matter of race inequality. 

When Najib singled out and admonished the Chinese for having betrayed BN, he was no doubt trying to play the tried and tested UMNO strategy of exploiting racial anxieties to solidify his position. This affirmed the sober reality that UMNO's ideological bent is still rooted in a Malaysia that is - and must be - compartmentalized by race. 

To envision another possibility would bring into question the very essence of UMNO and BN's raison d'etre. But it has been clear for some time now that a growing and substantial number of Malaysians envision a nation where the value of one's citizenship is not weighted by the construct of race. 

Sunil Kukreja is professor of sociology and associate academic dean at the University of Puget Sound in the United States. 

Jerusalem in IMAX 2

Jerusalem in IMAX 1

Rightful Rule: Romans 13 For Today

A good exegesis and interpretation of  Romans 13. Article by Dr Bel Magalit (16 Aug 1986) posted in The Micah Mandate 2 May 2008.  

http://www.themicahmandate.org/2008/05/rightful-rule-romans-13-for-today/?fb_ref=above-post&fb_source=email

Rightful Rule: Romans 13 For Today

“Read Romans 13!” wrote a Roman Catholic layman to a newspaper as he chided Jaime Cardinal Sin for being critical of the Marcos government.

“Read Romans 13!” wrote back a Baptist leader when asked to endorse “A Call to Repentance,” issued by Diliman Bible Church in September 1983, two weeks after Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino was assassinated at the Manila International Airport.

The “Call” included a litany of “Philippine realities”–widespread poverty, rampant graft and corruption in government, militarization, a suppressed press, unfair elections, uncertainty over succession, a subservient parliament, a Supreme Court losing its credibility, etc.

Both letters illustrate the pivotal importance that Romans 13 held in the attitude of Bible-oriented Filipinos–Catholic and Protestant–toward their government and the political situation. This was true all throughout the Martial Law years (1972-81), as well as during the more recent events that culminated in the February Revolution of 1986.

On the other hand, Oscar Cullmann, referring particularly to verse 2 of Romans 13, wrote some years ago: “Few sayings in the New Testament have suffered as much misuse as this one” (The State in the New Testament, pp.55ff.). He cited particularly its misuse in justifying uncritical submission to the dictates of totalitarian governments.

What does Romans 13 actually say? What did it mean for the saints in Rome (at the time of writing)? What does it mean for Filipino Christians today?

An Exposition Of Romans 13

Here is the text of Romans 13: 1-7 in the New International Version:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time in governing. Give everyone what you owe him; if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This passage teaches four vital principles concerning the Christian and the State :

1.  Power and authority are not the same.

2.  We submit to authority because it is God-given.

3.  The authority of rulers is limited.

4.  Rulers are given authority for a purpose.

Power and Authority Are Not The Same

The Bible clearly distinguishes between power and authority. Power is dunamis, from which we have dynamite, while authority is exousia, from the verb exesti, meaning it is lawful. Power is might, the force of an army or the strength of an Arnold Schwarzenegger. Authority is power rightfully held and lawfully exercised, as that of a parent over his child, or a just

judge over a criminal. Power is simply might, while authority is might that is right (see “Authority,” New Bible Dictionary, pp. 111-113).

Paul is dealing with authority in Romans 13, or rightful rule.

We Submit To Authority

The reason we submit to our rulers is our recognition that their authority comes from God Himself. We submit to Him by submitting to them. We cannot rebel against them for that is to rebel against Him. To rebel here is literally to be anti-what-God-has-established.

A subtle distinction can be made between submission and simple obedience. To obey is to do what one is told while to be submissive is literally to rank oneself under another. Perhaps the reason Paul uses submission is to show that our obedience is not blind but is qualified by God’s law. He may also be stressing the needed attitude: we are to willingly submit to our rulers in recognition of their God-given authority over us. It is for the Lord’s sake that we submit (cf. 1 Peter 2:13).

The Authority of Rulers is Limited

Our rulers do not have absolute authority. When Jesus was asked the tricky question about paying taxes to the imperialistic Roman government, His reply was: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17). Some have seen here a reference to the tithe (which belongs to God), but if this is so, then some governments which get more than ten per cent in taxes are getting more than God! What Jesus meant rather is that Caesar is entitled to be supported with taxes, but only God deserves absolute loyalty! When Caesar claims allegiance that belongs only to God, the Christian has no choice but to say no.

When rulers give orders which are contrary to God’s law for example, by ordering infanticide (Exodus 1) or the worship of idols (Daniel 3), or by prohibiting evangelism (Acts 5), then Christians must say: We must obey God rather than men! (Acts 5:29).

Rulers Are Given Authority For A Purpose

Governing authorities exist in order to promote good and restrain evil. In fulfilling this divine design, rulers function as God’s servants(or ministers, literally as deacons in verse 4 and liturgists in verse 6).

Caesar may not be aware that this is what he is doing, but this is biblical teaching that goes back to the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah 10: 5-11 concerning Assyria, and Isaiah 45: 1 regarding Cyrus).

It is extremely important to understand the divine design. God delegates His authority to human rulers (verses 1 and 2) and the purpose is for them to promote good and restrain evil (verses 3 and 4). These two parts of the one paragraph must not be separated from each other. We must not understand the delegation of divine authority apart from the divine purpose for which it is given. This is basic hermeneutics.

Reflections On Romans 13

Do rulers lose their right to rule? Do rulers ever lose their right to rule?

Certainly. When they reverse the divine design by promoting evil and restraining good, rulers frustrate God’s purpose for human government and lose their right to rule.

This is a difficult judgment to make, and some Christians simply refuse to make it. They argue that whatever government there is is God’s provision–a de facto government is the de jure government as a matter of course.

They admit that government exists to promote both order and justice(equivalent to restraining evil and promoting good) but order is more important than justice. Order is a prerequisite and therefore prior to justice. Anarchy is the great evil so that unjust government is better than no government. The Christian is in fact the exact opposite of the anarchist who says that all governments are bad and some are worse than others. In contrast, the Christian says that government is God’s provision for social good (order and justice), and even bad government is to be preferred to no government. Anarchy cannot be God’s will for human society(cf. Judges 21:25).

There is merit in the argument against anarchy. However, to conclude that whatever government there is is God’s provision is to interpret verses 1 and 2 of Romans 13 without the context of verses 3 and 4. It is to overlook or ignore the purpose for which God delegates His authority to human rulers: to promote good and restrain evil. To simply accept a ruler who oppresses us, or steals us blind, or deceives us constantly–because he is God’s provision–is illogical. The most we can say is that God tolerates such a ruler, not that God has installed him to do us evil! That is to make God a partner in wickedness! What a ridiculous conclusion. If God delegates His authority to rulers so that they may promote good and restrain evil, how can we say that He also installs certain rulers who do exactly the opposite of what He wants?

Six Grades of Government

When we reflect on historical experience and the contemporary scene, we discover that most governments are a mixed blessing. Some are quite good, others do some good, and there are regimes that are particularly evil. None is perfect. We may range them thus:

1.  Perfect government will come only when Jesus the King returns to establish His kingdom in all its fullness.

2.  Just government is possible where full participatory democracy is in bloom so that the people elect good leaders, and replace them as necessary.

3.  Mediocre government takes place if less than the best people are chosen to rule.

4.  Ineffective government happens in places where rulers are changed too frequently or the people are ungovernable for some reason.

5.  Corrupt government develops when rulers assume public office mainly for private gain.

6.  Wicked government ensues when those in authority are particularly wicked, unjust and oppressive.

Christians as well as other people have made the judgment on Hitler as a wicked ruler. Many have made similar judgments on Idi Amin of Uganda and “Baby Doc” Duvalier of Haiti in more recent times. And Pol Pot of Kampuchea.

Filipino Christians have been more hesitant to come to the same conclusion regarding Ferdinand Marcos. Hitler has been easier to judge because historical hindsight gives us 20/20 vision. We cannot now plead myopia when what we are viewing is up close! Uganda and Haiti are not only far away; often the only news we get is bad news.

Marcos was a clever propagandist who knew how to use the media. During the early years of Martial Rule, he cleaned up the streets of garbage and loose firearms. He was friendly to evangelical Christians and imposed no restrictions on purely evangelistic activities. He rolled out the red carpet for Billy Graham when Graham came in 1977. He received Jerry Falwell as a V.I.P. in 1985.

The Christians who finally decided to class Marcos with Hitler and Amin and Duvalier came to their conclusion slowly and only in the light of mounting evidence.

What About Roman Rule?

What about Roman rule? Some Christians assert that Nero’s reign was wicked too but Paul did not tell the Roman Christians to reject it! We can respond to this assertion in one of three ways.

First, we can say that Paul knew that Roman rule was wicked but he still told the Roman Christians that it existed to promote good and restrain evil.

Paul was either a liar or an ostrich!

Second, we can say that Paul’s experience with Roman justice was actually good and he could testify that Roman rule existed to promote good and restrain evil.

He was certainly proud of his Roman citizenship and made use of it (Acts 16:37, 22:25ff). His appeal to the Roman emperor for his trial (Acts 25:11) was implicit confidence that he would be tried more justly in Rome than in Palestine. Furthermore, when he wrote the letter to the Romans–many scholars say in AD 57–Nero had been emperor for only three years. The Neronian persecution was to come later.

The third possibility is that Paul was not making any judgment on the quality of Roman rule at all. He was only explaining God’s design for human government in general.

Option two is attractive but option three cannot be ruled out.

Replacing Wicked Rulers

Suppose our rulers are wicked, how are they replaced? May Christians oppose such a ruler? May they join others in a “just revolution”?

Romans 13 does not actually deal with these questions. The biblical perspective as a whole however is clear: believers are to entrust themselves to God. It is His business to enthrone kings and depose them! (Daniel 2:21 for example; also Jeremiah 27:1ff). Even wicked peoples and rulers are under His sovereign rule and may be used by Him in judgment of others (Isaiah 10 and 45).

Jesus certainly rejected the zealot option of revolutionary violence (e.g. John 18:36, Matthew 26:52ff), even if it can be shown on other grounds that a nationalist attitude to imperialist Roman rule was just.

Reformed doctrine has upheld this view. Passive disobedience to unjust law is one thing; it is even mandatory when the ruler’s command is contrary to God’s law (Exodus 1, etc.). Armed resistance–even to an unjust ruler–is something else. Calvin could write: “Better that all the children of God in France should perish than that the Gospel be dishonored by the bloodshed of resistance…” (quoted in Vernon Grounds, Revolution and the Christian Faith, p.136). Luther, on the other hand, is described as one who “always sided with those who condemn rebellion against those who cause it” (Paul Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience, pp. 119,120).

The Barricade Question

To join or not to join, that was the question of the barricades.

On February 22, 1986, Saturday evening, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Armed Forces Chief Lieut. General Fidel Ramos announced over the radio that they were quitting the Marcos government, saying that Marcos did not win theFebruary 7 election. They holed up in Camp Aguinaldo (later transferring to Camp Crame across the road), with only a few hundred soldiers to defend them. Over the Roman Catholic Radio Veritas the call was issued for a large number of civilians to surround the military camps to serve as a buffer between the rebels and the Marcos forces that were sure to come.

Many evangelicals were in a quandary. Can they respond to a call from a Roman Catholic radio station? Would not participation in the barricades be equivalent to armed rebellion against the Marcos government? Is it not better to simply pray in our homes and in our churches? As it turned out, for many evangelicals, prayer was the main or only response.

There were evangelicals who did not hesitate to join the barricades (see Christianity Today, April 18, 1986). They had no intention of toppling the Marcos government by force of arms. Their reason for joining the barricades was simple and straight-forward: by providing a civilian buffer between the Enrile/Ramos forces and the Marcos soldiers, a shooting war would be prevented from breaking out and a peaceful resolution of the conflict could hopefully be worked out. The barricaders knew of course that their lives were in danger should the Marcos forces decide to attack.

Many of them came to grips with this fact but were ready to lay down their lives. They knew that there would be safety in numbers, but their faith was in God. They were clearly unarmed.

As it turned out, the civilian barricade was so large (perhaps a million people surrounded the military camps by Sundayafternoon, February 23) that Marcos finally had to flee for his life, as defection after defection characterized his armed forces. A non-violent “revolution” finally toppled his 20-year regime!

The Evangelical Barricaders

Who were the evangelicals who joined the barricades?

The bulk of them came from churches where the input from the Inter-Varsity student movement had been significant. Even through the Martial Law years, many of these Bible believers were not comfortable with the simplistic interpretation of Romans 13 that said that whatever government you have is God’s provision.

They did not join the chorus that gratefully greeted the declaration of Martial Law in September 1972. They were thankful for some of the reforms that characterized the early years of Martial Rule. Nevertheless, from their study groups, the conviction slowly grew that Marcos was a very clever lawyer who used the law mainly for his private gain and that of his family and close friends.

At a conference sponsored by the Institute for Studies in Asian Church and Culture (ISACC) in June 1981, like-minded evangelicals took a hard look at “Philippine realities”–widespread poverty, corrupt government, etc., for the first time. It was inevitable that Diliman Bible Church–with many Inter-Varsity people in its leadership–would issue its “Call to Repentance” when Ninoy Aquino was killed, two years later.

Convinced that as Christian citizens they needed to be more involved in the political life of the nation, many of these Christians joined the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections or NAMFREL. It was their participation as NAMFREL volunteers or citizen watchdogs in the February 7 presidential election that finally convinced many of them of the wickedness of Marcos. As eyewitnesses to rampant cheating, vote-buying, intimidation and coercion, ballot box switching, etc., they could only conclude that Marcos had systematic well-laid plans to keep himself in power by any means.

They also came to the conclusion, like C.E.B. Cranfield (Commentary on Romans, Volume 2, p. 663) that their political duty as Christians in 1986 was more than simply to pray and to obey. They saw that Romans 13 needed not only to be interpreted faithfully in its original context (an epistle to Roman Christians in the First Century) but also needed to be translated into the situation of the present day (of Filipino Christians in the 20th Century).

Roman Christians and Filipino Believers

It was not right to think of ourselves as First Century Roman Christians who had no particular participation in the choice of our rulers. To do that was to turn back the clock, an impossible task!

The exegesis of Romans 13 has not changed. The four principles it teaches remain the same: power and authority are not the same, we submit to authority because it is God-given, the authority of rulers is not absolute, rulers are given authority for a purpose.

The new element in our time that distinguishes us from the Roman Christians is called participatory democracy. Democracy is a truism today. Even the East Germans call their state a “democratic republic,” in spite of the Berlin Wall. Lincoln’s dictum of a government by the people, of the people, and for the people is now everywhere embraced, in theory if not in practice.

Democracy is perfectly consistent with the biblical doctrine of man (see Chapter 11 in John Bennett, Christians and the State, pp. 146-162). If we are equal in dignity and worth before our maker, then no one has the right to enslave his brother or to impose his rule on another. Dictatorship, slavery, and apartheid are all wrong for essentially the same reason: they all trample upon a human being who is made in the image of God.

Participatory democracy is a historical development that should not be resisted and for which we should be thankful. To pretend that we are still in the first century may seem to make our political duty simpler, but it is a step backward. Today we can no longer say that the choice of rulers is entirely in God’s hands. In a democracy we have the awesome privilege of choosing those who rule over us. To opt out of this process on the ground that the Christians in Rome did not vote for the Emperor Nero is a cop-out.

It is to read Scripture simply as a book of precedents rather than as a book of principles. We might as well say that slavery should be restored, and the work of William Wilberforce and company was a mistake. It is to lend support to those in South Africa who defend apartheid and still call themselves Christians–as P.W. Botha does.

The modern declaration is to say that sovereignty resides in the people and authority comes from them. It is more biblical to say that authority comes from God, and he delegates some to rulers, who are chosen by the people.

Two Tests of Legitimacy

In other words, there are two tests of legitimacy. How do we judge rightful rule?

The first test we have already seen as conformity to divine design. If rulers promote good and restrain evil we may say that they have God-given authority to rule. It is to them–rather than say, a rival claimant or a shadow government–that God has delegated His authority. Such rulers do not have to do their job perfectly in order to qualify. However, when a regime becomes so bad that it reverses the divine design, it loses all moral authority to rule.

The second test that a government has the right to rule is that it has been freely chosen by the people. The corollary is that the same rulers may be replaced peacefully when the people decide that they are incompetent or insincere in promoting the public welfare.

This is why the ballot is precious, why it is a sacred trust. For the same reason, elections must be free and fair. Those who subvert elections, frustrate them, and install themselves in power by force or fraud are usurpers and have no right to rule. We must be clear that we are deciding something very important when we vote: who we should honor as rulers, to whom we should submit, who gets our taxes, who has the right to wield the sword in punishment of evildoers, etc. We are deciding who our rightful rulers are.

To the question, Who has the right to rule?, the Roman Christians had at most only half an answer. We however have no excuse for saying we don’t know! We have two clear criteria to go by.

Using both criteria, many evangelicals who joined the barricades were already convinced that Marcos had no right to rule. He had cheated in the February 7 election. If there was some doubt in the canvassing of the ballots at the Batasang Pambansa which was followed by the hasty proclamation of Marcos as winner, the massive throngs at “the revolution on EDSA” settled the issue. Marcos lost the election and no longer had a mandate to remain as president. The people had spoken.

While Waiting For the King

The people power revolution at EDSA was like a cool breeze at the end of a long hot summer. It not only gave the Filipino people a sense of hope, it has also restored their pride. We recovered not only our freedom but also our dignity.

Nevertheless, we do not put all our hopes in human government. Several months after the wonderful experience at EDSA, the problems of the Filipino nation remain serious. This is the morning after, and the arduous task of nation-building has barely begun. Reversing twenty-years of misrule is no picnic.

The communist insurgency has shown few signs of abating. The economy is still in the doldrums (much aid has been promised but little has actually come). A new Constitution is being written and its approval is vital for the needed transition “from revolutionary to constitutional government.” The appointment of local officials has generated much controversy that may be resolved only by elections. The recovery of the Marcos billions is a slow process, though some progress has been made. Often there is wrangling in the Cory Aquino cabinet. The problems are serious indeed.

All this is no cause for despair. It is a call to prayer on behalf of the nation’s leaders–that they may fulfill their God-given task of promoting good and restraining evil. It is a call to greater participation in the life of the nation–Jesus says: Christians are preserving salt and guiding light (Matthew 5: 13, 14).

It is also a needed reminder that the perfect government will not come until the return of the Lord Jesus. It is upon the shoulders of the Baby of Bethlehem that the kingdom of peace, righteousness and justice will be placed (Isaiah 9:6). Then the kingdom of this world shall become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. And He shall reign forever and ever! (Revelation 11:15).

Meanwhile, as we wait for the coming of the King–and His kingdom in blazing splendour–we can still pray as He taught us to pray: Our Father…your will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

We can be the sons of the kingdom who hunger and thirst after righteousness and who shall be filled (Matthew 5:6). We can be those who are zealous for justice to roll on like a river, and for righteousness to flow like a never-failing stream! (Amos 5:24).

by Dr. Isabelo F. Magalit
Diliman Bible Church
Quezon City, PHILIPPINES
16 August 1986

---

Dr. Isabelo Magalit was in the staff of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship in the Philippines for almost 20 years and later served as the president of the Asian Theological Seminary