Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, December 8, 2000Filipinos must press
for Estrada’s ousterThe issue: The Philippine Senate has begun the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada.
FILIPINOS have a habit of adopting American fashions. So it is perhaps unsurprising that the U.S. Congress' impeachment -- and subsequent acquittal -- of President Clinton should be followed by a similar exercise in Manila with President Joseph Estrada as the target.
Whether the flamboyant Estrada will survive, as Clinton did, is yet to be determined, of course. But the decision of the Philippine Senate is likely to be strongly influenced by public opinion -- as was the U.S. Senate's.
All politicians who know their business are sensitive to public opinion. It was evident from the opinion surveys that most Americans, while condemning Clinton's behavior, did not support his removal from office.
Despite the insistence of senators that their votes were based on the evidence and their consciences, the fact is that Clinton's acquittal was consistent with the public's wishes. A significant, perhaps crucial, number of Senate votes was probably influenced by the polls.
In the case of Estrada, the current controversy erupted with the disclosure by one of his cronies that the president had been taking millions of dollars in bribes in connection with a mammoth illegal gambling operation. But that disclosure might not have resulted in impeachment had it not been for the torrent of criticism that subsequently engulfed Estrada and generated weeks of mass demonstrations demanding his resignation.
The protests recalled the "people power" movement that overthrew the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. But this time the authoritarian constraints of the Marcos era did not exist. Newspaper and television criticism was unrestrained. People poured into the streets to express their outrage without fear of arrest.
The message was not lost on the Philippine Congress. In the House, the pro-Estrada speaker defected and, without taking a vote, abruptly announced that the president had been impeached. (He based his action on the number of signatures on the impeachment petition.)
In the Senate, a majority of the members is expected to vote for Estrada's removal. The only question -- obviously the critical one -- is whether the required two-thirds majority is attained.
Like Clinton, Estrada has spurned calls for his resignation and resolved to fight the impeachment. It's possible that his opponents will fall short of the votes needed for conviction.
In that event, the analogy with Clinton's case probably would fail. At the moment, at least, public opinion in Manila seems to favor Estrada's removal from office, which is contrary to the situation in Clinton's case.
It's possible that the public could grow weary of the issue as the trial dragged on and the protests could fizzle out. That could lead the politicians to believe they would be safe in voting to acquit the president.
But if the demonstrators refused to tire and Estrada nevertheless managed to survive impeachment, the protests could turn violent. There is a possibility that the military might stage a coup on the pretext of restoring order.
Even if such dire consequences did not follow acquittal, Estrada could emerge as a political cripple. The three years remaining in his term could be a disastrous period of drift and turmoil unless he underwent an improbable transformation into an effective leader from a corrupt and incompetent one.
The most desirable outcome would be removal of Estrada from office. But to achieve that goal, the people must keep up the pressure on the senators to heed their voice. Otherwise it will be politics as usual.
Calif. power shortage
DEREGULATION of California's electrical power industry was supposed to lower prices by increasing competition. Instead it has contributed to a severe power shortage.
The state has ordered some major commercial users to cut back on electricity usage and warned of the possibility of rolling blackouts.
As the Associated Press reported, the crunch has been blamed on cold weather in the Northwest, the shutdown of some power plants for repairs, and the effects of electrical deregulation.
Companies and individual consumers who had previously agreed to reduce or shut down their power in emergencies were ordered to do so yesterday when officials declared a Stage Two emergency. It was the fourth such declaration in as many days and the eighth in three weeks.
A Stage Two emergency is declared when power reserves fall -- or are expected to fall -- below 5 percent. This was followed by a Stage Three emergency, which indicates reserves have fallen below 1.5 percent.
Plant shutdowns were part of the reason that a quarter of the system's capacity was down on Wednesday by 11,000 megawatts, enough to supply 11 million homes. Of that amount, state officials said, 4,000 megawatts were from plant breakdowns. Another 4,500 were from scheduled maintenance and 2,500 were from plants closed because they had reached the state's annual limit for pollution.
Deregulation hasn't worked out as anticipated. Demand for electricity has outstripped supply because of a growing population, a booming high-tech economy, and less power available from neighboring states that haven't deregulated.
Hawaii's situation forces each island to be self-sufficient in electrical supply. This is very different from mainland states, which can obtain additional power from their neighbors.
Nevertheless, Hawaii may be able to learn valuable lessons about power deregulation from California's experience.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
