Monopoly of the Legitimate Use of Force
The military is one
actor in state society relations which holds the most blatant manifestation of
power – martial might. And in the
context of state building there are two important questions to consider:
- How much power must the military hold?
- should government be arranged or structured by the law to ensure this power be properly wielded?
Schulzke (2010)
cites Tilly (2007) that weak states have a tendency to become undemocratic due
to the presence of distrust in the state-society relationship, along with the
situation of the need to contend with non-state centers of power. In this situation the ultimate power of
monopolized use of force must be properly balanced. Too much power in the hands of state makes it
abusive with the power to control elections, and almost every aspect of the
life of the people. On the other hand,
too much power in the hands of non-state actors can not only lead to a weak
state but to a collapsed state since the state loses power and other
institutions and agencies jockey for social control.
But why the need
for the armed forces in the first place?
It is essential to maintain security both from within and from outside
of the territory. Security at its basic
form within the borders is to help control crime and maintain order. However, certain factors rise up that
complicate simple governance. In the
Philippines these belong to geographic, historical and economic areas of
politics.
Philippine Political Geography and Geopolitics
Castillo (2011) in
his thesis described Philippine political geography as:
“The Philippines is an archipelago composed of 7,100
islands. Several of these islands are
populated by peoples of unique cultures, languages, and traditions. Governing over all these
territories and peoples is a central government located in Metro Manila. Manila
is a metropolis, center of both government and economy, at the heart of the
largest island located to the north of the country. Observing the Philippines,
one would notice how unequal the regions are. It is noticeable that Metro
Manila and its immediate adjoining cities enjoy greater opportunities of
development. In contrast, the farther one territory is from the capital, the
less opportunities for development it has.”
This describes
geographic, socio-cultural, and economic sources of tension with the borders of
the Philippines. Because of thes
tensions of differences, and economic disparity, armed rebellions are produced. To add to this, geopolitically - the
Philippines’ islands are scattered across a territory of 300,000 km2. Most of the dry land is covered with thick
jungles (Schulzke, 2010). More so, the
islands get more scattered, more mountainous, more thickly forested as one goes
farther away from the plains of Luzon in Manila.
The Arms Race History
The power to
monopolize the use of force has been maintained as much as possible within the
state by the authoritarian rule of the former colonizers. However, Schulzke cites (Van der Kroef, 1987)
that the coming of the United States and the involvement of the Philippines in
World War II allowed the spread of weapons to local resistance fighters. These fighters once fought against the
Japanese, but eventually, new groups arise after the war. These new groups now fight against the
Philippine state. Kessler (1989) as
cited in Shulze observed that these local resistance fighters replenish arms by
stealing from the national military itself, buy them from soldiers, or from
actual arms sellers.
Non-state Weilders of Force (illegitimate wielders)
A reading of
Shulze’s article allows us to enumerate the following autonomous agencies who
jockey for power using military might:
- National Liberation Front (MNLF) / Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) – raises arms due to socio-political conflict.
- Communist Party of the Philippines-National People’s Army (CPP-NPA) – raises arms due to widespread economic gap between the rich and the poor in the country.
- Officials with private armies – to maintain their grasp upon government.
The Military Itself
The Philippine
military itself had three prevalent illnesses coming from within and outside
its ranks. These according to Schulzke
are:
- The military itself lacks legitimacy in the areas where they get assigned within the Philippines. The local citizenry resent or do reject their presence. This is usually due to their conduct and manner of treating the residents.
- The military has poor counterinsurgency tactics. It is not that they lack technology, but they lack “cohesion, loyalty, and morale”. The leaders are unable to instill these traits among the soldiers.
- The military is politicized. They are personal tools of those who seat in government, and the various politicians (whichever is more influencial, usually in terms of money payments) are able to pull their strings.
The Solution
For all three
problems, Schulzke proposes that the military arm of the government must be
depoliticized. Politicization is the
effect of politicians, not statesmen, who try to use politics as a game to
pursue their own personal agendas (usually either to enrich themselves or
maintain their government positions).
Proper depoliticization of the military will bring about professionalization
both in skills and conduct. A professionalized
military can then focus on training. A
professionalized military can focus on doing their constitutional mandate
rather than obeying the commands of their patron politicians.
Sources:
Castillo, R. M.
(2011). Federalism and Its Potential Application to the Republic of the
Philippines. MA Thesis. Manila:
University of Santo Tomas Graduate School.
Schulzke,
M. (2010). Democratization and Military Reform in the Philippines. Journal
of Asia Pacific Studies, 1(2), 320-337.
______________________
For the class
The first question was answered by Schulzke
through Tilly. For todays blog
discussion, I want your own professional points of view on any of the topics
covered. That includes the second
question as raised above, along with all the boldfaced subheadings. Note that you are not to discuss every topic.
Focus only on one. Your task is to give substantial explanation
on the phenomenon (e.g. What is the true reason behind a particular
insurgency? Are there other private
armies in the Philippines?).
Or give a
particular example of one of the topics (e.g. How is the military politicized?
How poor is the military’s strength or counterinsurgency tactics?).
Since you are
focusing only on one topic, ensure no duplication of discussions and samples,
and use sources to establish your claims.
Each student gets
one paragraph, 3-5 sentences. This is
considered as an online class recitation (75-100 pts to be factored in the
individual recitation grades). Deadline
of comment posting is until August 28, 2012 (7:00 p.m.).
Ps.
First two rounds of
debates start on Sept. 3, 2012.
Here’s the complete
list of groupings and their motions:
Round 1 – N vs F :
Juvenile criminal laws should be made harsh.
Round 2 – G vs C : Religious
symbols must be prohibited in government offices.
Round 3 – M vs D :
Gay couples should be given a chance for legitimate relationship rights.
Round 4 – H vs B :
The Philippines should maintain friendly relations with China.
Round 5 – L vs I :
Employer’s must accede to worker’s demand for higher wages.
Round 6 – J vs E :
The control over utilities such as power and water supply should be returned to
the government.
Round 7 – K vs A : The
Philippines require a bloody revolution.
(May be defined thematically)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince our country went on through war along with the Americans against the Japanese in World War II, it is presumed that for every war, in the end there will be depression that in a sense where good will be lacking. I would discuss on the part of arms race but I would borrow the idea in the Geopolitics and Geography where it is in Metro Manila and the nearer cities that goods are given greatly yet as farther as it gets the goods become less and enjoyment of goods are not satisfying. In arms race, since there was a war, people needed to fight ergo weapons are distributed, and as said earlier as presumed that there will be depression after wars which our country had, people needed weapons in order to survive because people need goods to live yet if there are lacking goods people will resort to violence just to obtain what they need. Security according to Rotberg is the best and most important political good and therefore is the thing needed by our country even as of today, because if weapons are in the wrong hands, then there will be chaos, like saying that if a child holds a blade and plays with it, the child is presumed to get wounded and kill itself in enjoyment. Our governments should be made and shaped by law because since no one or nothing is above the law, that law is the driving force to where and how we and all will move, ergo law is a primary aid in security and ergo people or rather the Government should send the military to discipline the weapon-wielders who use violence as a last resort to obtaining goods.
ReplyDeleteAn example of politicized military is when former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is still in position being president of the philippines. She appointed a total of 12 generals as Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff to have these generals on her side. The "hello Garci" scandal, proves that these AFP Generals were involved to force her power for another 6 years as president of the republic.
ReplyDeleteRoselle Elizabeth B. Gozum, 3LM3
Our own Philippine military is politicized and this is very evident during the reign of former President Arroyo when she appointed retired star-rank generals to key positions in her official family such as former AFP Vice Chief of Staff Eduardo Ermita who served as Executive Secretary and many others in the list (PCIJ, 2011). While military and politics are two different entities, they are interrelated because military is an independent political force and constitutes a distinct political phenomenon; (Finer, 1962) the government officials/politicians being the ones to appoint those who will be in the military. But just because they are interrelated does not mean that the military can be politicized and corrupted; a solution for politicized military as Schulzke suggests, is depoliticization. This can be done by eliminating politicized promotion system in the military and replacing it by meritocratic system so as to discourage officers from becoming involved in politics, thus reducing the risk of corruption and allowing them to focus on restoring national security (Schulzke, 2010). Another solution to turn the military to a apolitical bureaucracy is to underscore the civilian supremacy over the military so that they may realize that the power comes from the people whom they shall serve and defend; not from the politicians who appointed them (Morales, 2003).
ReplyDelete-Ma. Ninna Roem A. Bonsol, 3LM3
One of the most controversial private/politicized armies in Philippine history is that of the Ampatuans in Maguindanao. Composed of around 2,000 members, the Ampatuan private army has been an essential tool in enabling the clan to perpetuate their rule for around 20 years having little competition in the seat of authority in the province. The best situation to exemplify this use of force of the clan’s army is the so-called “Ampatuan Massacre” case wherein 58 people were killed in broad daylight who were supposed to be on their way to file the certificate of candidacy of Esmael Mangudadatu (who was challenging Andal Ampatuan, Jr., the son of, at that time, Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr.) in preparation for the 2010 National Elections. The clan has established a type of a warlord rule in Maguindanao wherein military and civil authority comes from them and their “goons” do all the dirty work to carry out the will of the clan.
ReplyDeleteJustin Benedict S. Mungcal 3LM3
It should not be construed that Military Power is coterminous with the present Administration. The lack of military independence and the continuous intervention of political power towards the armed forces is an uphold towards a politicized military. The position of the Chief of Staff should never be defined nor constrained by the position of the Commander-in-Chief. One concrete and classic example of this in the context of Philippine Military and Political affairs is the presence of the Rolex 12 during the Martial Law. Wherein, President Marcos established this military autonomy through his particular sets of powerful military advisers. Obviously to obtain full authoritarian control over the state. By nature, a politicized armed forces exist due to the weak foundation and philosophy of the institution itself and mentioning also the factors of low salary, favoritism in military promotion, weak and indecisive military leadership and another factor is that "the politicization of the officer corps is a function upon the strength and cohesion of the civilian elites." (Ruben Fulgueras Ciron 1993).
ReplyDeleteDacanay, Margarette
3LM3
Politicized military is very evident during the reign of Former President Ferdinand Marcos when he declared martial law on September 21, 1972 and this proclamation placed the entire country under the military. Unfortunately, because of the absolute power that the military has, they became abusive of it and it corrupted them very much. Many were held in military detention camps for years without trial. They picked up and detained thousands of Filipinos SUSPECTED/ACCUSED of subversion, hundreds of them were tortured by their captors and some of them were never found again and examples of people who fought against the government/military were Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr., Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo, Jose Diokno and Jovita Salonga. It is very important that the people in power, for instance the military will know how to limit the use of their powers so that they will not abuse it by using it just to benefit them and by using it against their subordinates so that in the end, it will not lead into a politicized military.
ReplyDelete-Marie Bernadette M. Racadio, 3LM3
In the hierarchy of political goods, the Military or security is said to be one of the most important or is the most critical political good that a state must give to the society (Rotberg, 2003). In the Philippines, it is evident that this military power does not fully go beyond the borders of the capital. The farther the province the weaker the military has the grasp of power. It is also why the MNLF, MILF and others base their camps in the province. The article above states three reasons why the military is weak in the Philippines, the people do not recognize them, they lack morale and they are politicized. The people do not recognize the military because it is most likely that they are anxious with their presence whether because that they are suppressed by the military men or they are anxious if the non-state actors who wield power attack the military men and they would be also harmed in the cross fire. Another reason is that they lack morale; this can be also linked in the next reason, that the military is politicized. The military is already politicized that is why they lack morale, the higher officials of the military failed to infuse them with these qualities because they are being controlled by the politicians and only use them for their own good not for the good of the people, there is the lack of nationalism in our military. Politicians use the military to force the people to do their bidding; they use the military for their purposes such as perhaps in the elections they use them to gain leverage to other candidates and to the other factors which contribute to their success.
ReplyDelete--Joaquin, Marione 3LM3
There had been a private army in the Philippines, and one of the most well-known private armies in the country was the Kuratong Baleleng of Ozamis City Mayor Ronaldo O. Parojinog that was made by the military in 1986 because they wanted a vigilante group that would antagonize the burgeoning influence of communist guerrillas in some provinces in Mindanao which became very effective as a counter-insurgency organization. Kuratong Baleleng was actually a private armed group before and was only officially disbanded in 1988 because of the decline of the insurgency threat(ISAFP, 2001). But I guess almost all crimes were traced to the organization because other criminal groups started using the Kuratong Baleleng name only to ride on its notoriety. Various national and local government officials reportedly provide protection to the group (ISAFP, 2001). They're called 'the untouchables' by the fact that even those of higher offices refuse to even investigate felonious activities allegedly perpetrated by the group. They have never ever been infiltrated since it has bigtime protection such as former Generals,former mayors and former military people. But of course, the Ampatuan's forces is more disturbing than the Kuratong Baleleng because they have showed how local police/paramilitary forces were allegedly used by the clan to do their command.
ReplyDelete- Alvyl Zamora, 3LM3
The politicization of the military was carried out during the Martial Law regime in Marcos Administration which suspended the civil right and imposed military authority in our country. Before Marcos, past administrations engaged military power in civic actions duties, which had increased their role in politics. But due to this military power, they became more abusive and the corruption during that time increased. During that time dictatorship emerged, and every citizen who is against the government was captured by the military. In that sense, the use of military power is not a good tool in the progress of our country.
ReplyDelete-Estrella, Angelica Kane R.
3LM3
In the case of the politicians in Mindanao, the Magundadatu and the Ampatuan families, the military there is evidently politicized. It is politicized in a sense that they are controlled by the families, or private armies. I think soldiers take sides of a particular politician because of money, they get paid to do what the politician wants them to do; I think it is also because these soldiers want power, to be above other people.
ReplyDelete-Ang, Earvin R.
Is military counter insurgency poor? We may say that is given. But the Philippine geography is so complicated for us to rest our case in our assumption that plainly it is weak. The idea by Professor Ronald Castillo that the Philippines is of 7,100 islands and the more far off they are from the capital they seem more and more rural, more and more forestated. Where do the insurgents reside? That's a fundamental question. They seek their solace far from the capital into the depths of the Philippine forests and mountain areas like in Bataan, Bicol, Zambales, Bukidnon, etc. The point is it appears that we have enough troops only in the capital or within NCR and that there is no sufficient number of troops being assigned to different parts of the country. Another issue is that most insurgents are not uniformed hence the military is still clueless on who their enemies are in a particular place. They are being spied on without them knowing it. These are only few factors of weakness in the part of military but then it must not be construed that the troops and generals are inherently weak but the geographic and even linguistic factors themselves comes in the way.
ReplyDeleteIt is undeniable that our geography is one of the reasons why there are so many military conflicts in the Philippines thus we could say that the farther the place from the capital(NCR REGION), the weaker the military control is. Schulzke (2010) pointed out that most of the dry land is covered with thick jungles hence there are more strategic places for these rebels outside the capital to hide. For example was the NPA Ambush in Compostella Valley that happened last February 27, 2012,which killed one soldier and wounded three military personel because of NPA Rebels who detonated a landmine (Philippine Communist Insurgency Report, 2012). Based on the February 2012 Philippine Communist Insurgency Report, most of the encounters which involved the NPA happened on the far places of the country like Compostella Valley, Northern Samar, Agusan del Sur and Camarines Sur. Hence, it is discernable that indeed common places for encounters are the ones which are far from the capital.
ReplyDeleteGUTANG, Alvin J D.
3LM3
According to an article i read, Philippine private armies are linked to a local politicians and they continue to grow in Mindanao, the predominantly Muslim region in the southern Philippines, where the Filipino armed forces and Muslim rebels battled it out for the past 40 years. Our present President Noynoy Aquino wants military to show “professionalism, integrity, discipline, valour, and hard work” in working for national security. As part of this, he wants to boost the strength of the Armed Forces in order to retake control of all the regions of the country. The Ampatuans are examples of small time-politicians that wants to become warlords. Because of his wealth, he has his own private army which he used on the incident of the Maguindanao Massacre which lead to the death on many Filipinos.
ReplyDeleteTan, Mark Jasper L. 3lm3
DeleteThe roots of the Philippine communist insurgency problem are multidimensional, encompassing political and socio-economic dimensions. The Arroyo administration recognized this when it formulated the National Internal Security Plan (NISP) in 2001. The NISP developed the Strategy of Holistic Approach (SHA) with the following components: 1) legal, diplomatic and political; 2) peace and order and security; 3) socio-economic and psychosocial; and 4) information. The SHA involves the mobilization of the whole government bureaucracy from the national down to the regional and local levels to address the different aspects of the communist insurgency problem including its root causes. The NISP intends to implement the SHA in four phases called Clear-Hold-Consolidate-Develop (C-H-C-D) but Insurgency should be fought both on the priority fronts and secondary and no priority fronts. But while the SHA calls for the application of the C-H-C-D operational methodology in the priority fronts there are no comprehensive plans, programs and projects by the government Departments as to how the C-H-C-D will be implemented with the coordination and integration required in the NISP to be an effective counterinsurgency measure.
ReplyDeleteBaltazar, Gerard
3LM3
Marcos announced martial law in 1972. Against the end of Marcos’ administration the military became “Very politicized,” and Marcos blow down to an integrated military defiance and city disturbance in 1986. The Philippine judicial arrangement at the bounded position is dishonest or corrupt, acknowledging rich persons such as owner of property leased-- to win arguments through illegal means. The judicial order is also wasteful; judicial standings are understaffed, public defense attorneys are difficult to meet with, and there is no absolute period for trials. These circumstances make it hard for farmers to protect or fight their land in court or try to get land on which they live and work if it is towards the wishes of very much organized, rich landlords. Given the inability of judicial answers to farmers’ problems, the NPA’s abundant group and comforter base is not surprising. It is the NPA that connects these judicial dilemmas to human rights injustices, which overflow on one and the other parties of the war among NPA and government forces.
ReplyDeletePamatmat, Nikolai O.
3LM3
There are a lot of military around the Philippines, but still Crime rate is still high. They can't do their job right because some of them are really arrogant that makes the local citizens hate them and disrespect them. They also lack education, training, budget for better facilities, coordination and specially respect for each other. If they respect and help each other they will be tough and be able to gain the respect of the local citizens.
ReplyDeleteUy, Justin Ryan
3LM3
The Geography of the country is a big factor to why there are these rebel groups all through out the country especially in the southern parts of the Philippines (Mindanao). The country is truly lacking legitimacy with it's military power because people tend to choose money to live than choose to protect their country with less money. These people who have their own private armies tend to abuse their power and use it to strengthen their grip on their lands.
ReplyDeleteBernal, Reiner Van Jey C.
3LM3
The military is politicized as shown by the power and wealth of the Ampatuan's in Maguindanao. The family occupied almost all the positions from governor to mayor and counselors of the province. They have amassed so much wealth in government specially during the time of Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. They have there own private armies with so much weapons and artillery smuggled from the Philippine military. This made them invincible so much so that they massacred the wife of now governor Esmael Magundadatu while the victims were on their way to file a certificate of candidacy for Esmael Mangudadatu, during that time vice mayor of Buluan town, they were kidnapped and brutally killed together with 58 other people composed of his two sisters, journalists, lawyers, aides, and motorists who were witnesses or were mistakenly identified as part of the convoy. All these came to an end when Pres. Noynoy Aquino became president of the republic of the Philippines. They were investigated upon and found guilty and put in to jail. There are other places in our country were military are politicized specially in places where almost all the positions in a province are occupied by same family. An example of this is the Fuentabella's of my province Caramines Sur.
ReplyDeleteLeelin, Johann A.
3LM3
The military lacks legitimacy because they treat the people within their assigned places unjustly. Some members of the military think of themselves as the highest. They just give commands to the people that's why trust and respect are not given to them by the citizens. The military should learn to get along with the different cultures in order to unleash their doubts. According to Schulzke, the military didn't lack technology, but they lack “cohesion, loyalty, and morale”. Some people in the government bribe the military to do illegal acts and cover for them in exchange for a large amount of money. They follow the people who are very influential and can give them large money payments. The leaders are impotent to instill the values among the soldiers. All these problems should be addressed first before anything else because how can the military instill the values if they themselves do not have these values.
ReplyDeleteGuerrero, Vina L.
3LM3
Since the Philippines exhibits an archipelago structure it would be inevitable that the delivery of such political goods like security and assurance of safety will be interrupted. The Geographical structure of the Philippines hinders such delivery, making the citizens far from the capital feel neglected and could lead to an uproar to gain the attention of the government about their rights(MNLF, MILF rebellions). The GDP of the country mainly comes from the NCR and Southern Tagalog region(Briones 2009), indicating that opportunities are usually limited to the places near the seat of power causing a feel of injustice to others, since the people near the capital can easily grab the chance to convert such opportunities to personal assets, on the other hand the citizens far from the capital will need to strike while the iron is hot when an opportunity arises, making themselves feel the sense of independence from the government. The limited opportunities also creates a huge gap between the rich and poor causing distrust in the government in the process. Not only are opportunities limited, but ethnic, religious and other classes would also always clash, making others stand up and protect what they believe in that will eventually dismantle any effort made by the government to bring forth peace to such places.
ReplyDelete-Jacinto, Ma. Christine Joyce A.
3LM3
I believe that conviction from the military people themselves is the key to a better Military governance. The loyalty of the leaders of the military shall not be invested in the politicians who give them monetary support alone, but never give them the courage to stand up and serve for their countrymen. The Military have been viewed upon by the people as impotent and ineffective; this is because in times of need, they lack service and worst, training. Rolando Mendoza’s hostage incident in 2010, for instance; This proved their lack of training as 9 tourists have been killed in this incident. Indeed, depoliticization is the best solution we could make to help the Military power get better and this is the best way to at least assure the people that they are in good hands.
ReplyDeleteOur government seeks assistance in the foreign country to build a credible defense which indicates that our military is poor. Sec. Voltaire Gazmin said that the 30million dollar donation of the US is not enough to modernize the AFP. Enrile also added that the amount is insulting for they benefit more from us. (Inquirer,2012) Another example why our military is poor, 2 out of 10 police in the country do not have a gun (front row, 2012) In case there are insurgencies then we are not ready because the arms of our defense is inadequate and insufficient.
ReplyDelete-- Janina Rhearlou V. Calma 3LM3
In my view, the military force in our country is indeed powerful, so powerful that sometimes it forgets its purpose which is to defend our sovereignty. Military are often politicized because they don't stick to the mandate given to them. Instead, they are glared with the money they could get through corruption using their ranks. For example: How can the young bloods of the military force perform their duties well if the Military Comptroller of the AFP corrupts all the funds intended for the acquisition of new boots, guns and helmets? Can the newbies, who are usually assigned immediately in battles, gain high morale in the leadership of the institution they're in? I don't think so. Instead of the high morality, it is the corruption values that our Generals hand over to the lower ranks. That's the reason why sometimes, in some areas, coercion between the local government, military and bandits occur. Our military needs a Chief-of-Staff who is independent from anomalies and is properly educated so he may be able to initiate reforms in the institution.
ReplyDeleteJustin Longboan
3LM3
The military is bound to protect the state from any attacks either outside its jurisdiction or within. They have the duty to protect the state’s territory and most especially the people. However, there are some military members who fail to do their duty and at the worst scenario they are being the aid in inflicting harms to the people. Abusive officers for example use coercion through intimidation or torture in order for them to gain obedience from the people who are vulnerable or dependent to someone’s protection (who happened to be the military itself). The people are expecting protection from them and if some of the military members are actually the one who is inflicting harms to the people for their own advantages, the reputation of the military in view of the people will be degrading and will tend to reject the military presence.
ReplyDelete-Mariz Lerona, 3LM3
Military organizations in the Philippines tend to obtain abusive power among their people where the image of the military is now cooperating with corrupt politicians who do the dirty work. This is saddening because instead of protecting its people from evil men, they have now become powerful leaders who deprive its own people from their liberty and abuse the use of their authority. The problem with our military organizations is that they lack so much in training and have been weak in their usual role in protecting its people. The crime rate in the Philippines is definitely high because of the lack of protection by the military and for me, the best solution for the protection of their people is simply to train them on how to use their military power and maybe to hire more competent forces to be expected that the crime rates will diminish and the people of our country will at least be safe from evil men.
ReplyDeleteThe military as part of the society’s institutions is tasked to provide a particular public good which is security within and outside the territory. In the Philippines the military has showed certain illnesses just like what Schulzke said. One in particular is corruption; it may be inside or outside of the institution. One issue concerning this is the testimony by a former military budget officer Lt. Col. George Rabusa that former chief of staff Angelo Reyes and at least two other AFP chiefs illegally received millions of pesos drawn from military funds called provisions for command-directed activities or PCDA (Osorio, 2011). And it only shows that the military itself is not immune of corruption. Second is the growing numbers of demoralized soldiers. There is an increased in the numbers, because of the first reason which is corruption in the military, which involves high rank positions within the military and due to this, it provides negative or bad image on the society. I think of power as the ability to influence the relationships and structures within institutions and that power when use inappropriately can lead to destruction. That is why the government should provide a law which ensures the power to be properly wielded, because if one has power he or she might abuse it in order to stay in a position which will benefit him or her. They can also use it to threaten the people, in order for them to control a particular territory.
ReplyDeleteTacderas, Gaea Marie
3LM3
Our country’s military force is absolute to the control of the head of the state. With the past experiences our country had during the Marcos regime where he solely used the military force for his own benefit where military become his most worn force for him to be able to do what he wants which is evident during his proclamation of the Martial Law and during the Arroyo administration where she the issues regarding the appointment of Generals that would be her ally. In these situations our military was well politicized. With this politicizing of the military, it does not only harm those who are being acted upon but the whole state as well, for whatever the actions of the politicians made the society is always affected and could cause entropy due to the greedy and ambitious politicians. But if ONLY our country would depoliticize it would be of big help to our country. Instead of those in power wasting their time making themselves richer and bossing around, it would make a big difference if would just focus on making our country’s military force stronger, in a sense that it would do their main task which to protect the country from outside harm that may affect the country and those internal conflicts within the state.
ReplyDeleteGAMBOA, Leolita Isabell M. || 3LM3
Our own Philippine Military has not fully functioned well and has been unable to give a full defense to our country. And this is the reason why this institution is not immune to be politicized or even prone to corruption. With this, private armies keep local politicians in power by intimidating rivals and voters. Local warlords also use the threat of violence to ensure the election of politicians at the national level—usually those already in government or most likely to form the next government. National politicians return the favour by providing patronage to the warlords and gave them support and had government-issue weapons. One example of this is the Maguindanao massacre wherein great number of journalist died and is considered as the worst case of political violence in recent years- an illustration of corruption witihin the Philippine Military and Police as well as the rest of state bureaucracy and officialdom. Therefore, non-corrupt behavior within the military is a great challenge and the responsibility of a countervailing power from the citizenry through elections by removing incompetent and corrupt officials.
ReplyDeletePalanca, Irvin L.
3LM3
Our military are often used by our officials. As an example that military has been politicized when Marcos declared the Martial Law in 1972. There are more than 30,000 opposition figures that include Senator Benigno Aquino, students, journalists and activists were detained at the military bases. And also the case of Maguindano massacre where the Ampatuans has its own private army since 2001. Most members of their private army were also members of the police, military, state-sanctioned paramilitary forces and Civilian Armed Force Geographical Units (CAFGUs). You can see here how corrupt our military is. They are looking for someone who can pay them higher than what they are receiving in military institution. Our military should have only pursued only a military function, not by being paid by an actor of a state and it also deteriorates the political and economic condition in the Philippines.
ReplyDelete-Capistrano, John Leonardo F.
3LM3
Military must served people with protection inside its territory or even outside of it these are the services that a military must provide to the people. As we can see recently, the Philippine's military is not powerful enough to terminate criminals in the society because there are things that they are lack off. These things have huge effect on them that they can't protect anymore its territory and this could be the initiate to become a collapse state. One example why the Philippine's military is not that powerful enough is that heinous crimes everywhere and I know that Philippine's archipelagic territory is difficult to give protection to its people but they must remember that the people of the Philippines are their main goal and they must protect its territory to other countries.
ReplyDeleteVILLA, Hermie Jr. A.
3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe know that military people are the ones who perform certain functions, fulfill certain roles and have additional functions of use to its greater society that use lethal forces but what we are expecting, results to our disappointment within their actions. The military itself treats the residents improper, unprincipled and immoral even in the places where they are assigned as they don’t really accomplished all the learning’s they’ve got because they began to think only of themselves and thus affects many citizens which began to be threatened. Their actions are very visible by their poor counterinsurgency tactics because of the lack of professionalism in the military itself, even the important cases where action is really needed, they move very slow that often results to sadly incidents. And lastly military is politicized because they are using their power to widespread affliction of corruption through terms of money payments as said by Schulzke, moreover, they abuse civilians and instilled in themselves ineffectiveness against established authority. To get thy solution, military shouldn’t focus only on their own necessity thus they should be lighten up to what the society needed for the common good of everyone.
ReplyDeleteBASSIG, Ma. Karina A.
3LM3
The military in essence is supposed to be loyal only to the President of the country - their commander-in-chief. What happens in the Philippines is that military men are controlled by the governing political leaders in their respective regions. One example of this is the private army of the Ampatuan family in Maguindanao. This practice of having private armies or even a band of armed men (military and non-military) creates chaos and somehow sets the law aside in order for them to flourish. This happens because these local politicians give these military actors more than what the government gives them. Schulzke mentions that the military “cohesion, loyalty, and morale." This is not surprising because the government lacks in shelling out the needs of its military. As we all know loyalty is founded on trust and trust is a mutual relationship. This means that if the government gives more of what the military needs then the military will also stay loyal and give out their all in terms of loyalty to their leader - the commander-in-chief-, loyalty to their country and to their fellow military officers.
ReplyDeleteOBEJAS, Kiefer Thomas M.
3LM3
Former President Marcos offered the Filipino people economic progress and national dignity, but in return he made the Philippines under dictatorship, poverty, politicized military and militarized politics. The Arm Forces of the Philippines became politicized under Marcos Regime. Corruption is said to be one of the reasons that AFP are ineffective in dealing with both local and national terrorism.The traces of the problem of politicization to the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, who fostered loyalty among troops by promoting favorites instead of the most talented (Schulzke,2010) .It is very sad to know that there are some military members instead of protecting the people from harm,there are the ones who is causing harm. "Be political-minded not politicized" a PMA graduates said.
ReplyDelete-SIGNEY,Jerriene T.
3LM3
As defined the Military is legal use of lethal force authorized by the government and the society to protect and defend its country, and this definition also fits what our country has. mow the question is does our military still embodies that definition? A very evident example of Politicized Military is during the term of the former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, former Armed Forces of the Philippines AFP vice chief of staff Eduardo Ermita served as executive secretary. Angelo Reyes and Hermogenes Esperon Jr., both former AFP chiefs of staff, handled several portfolios, while former Philippine National Police director generals Leandro Mendoza and Hermogenes Ebdane were appointed transportation secretary and public works secretary, respectively. Critics use this certain type of evidence that our military is indeed politicized. In my point of view since this so called defenders took an oath and that is to protect the country and it citizens, i believe this line is slowly vanishing from their duties, because while the military is busy covering up some faults of the government, and taking private orders from their "superiors" and now lessening their attention from the reality the is happening to our country, which is very sad to think that the ones protect us are the root cause of the problem.
ReplyDeleteCorpus, Aedriann Veemar S.
3LM3
The Military is to maintain order and protect their people from possible harm or threats in public order and make sure that anyone who will go against the public policies shall be duly punished. The Military was made powerful to be able to fulfill their duties. MIlitary politicization will greatly affect not only a number of people in a state but all. Being subjected to anyone for any particular reason will destroy peace and order in a certain state. The MIlitary should never favor anyone for any reason for their duty is to protect and maintain order for the common good, and not to secure the intentions of a certain man, it should always be for all.
ReplyDelete-FRANCISCO, Erlaine Faye M.
3LM3
Military power has been the primary instrument of nation-states that have used to control and dominate each other. But there are some politicians who abuse the use of military power. And it is very evident in the Marcos’ and Arroyo’s regime. Marcos declared martial law on September 22, 1972 that suppressed the increasing civil rights. Under the president's command, the military arrested opposition figures, including Benigno Aquino, journalists, student and labor activists, and criminal elements. A total of about 30,000 detainees were kept at military compounds run by the army and the Philippine Constabulary. Weapons were confiscated, and "private armies" connected with prominent politicians and other figures were broken up. Another is when Arroyo is planning to impose a martial law to put an end to military coup plots. And on December 4, 2009, through Proclamation No. 1959, President Macapagal-Arroyo has officially placed Maguindanao province under a state of martial law. The declaration also suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the province. The announcement was made days after hundreds of government troops were sent to the province, which would later raid armories of the powerful Ampatuan clan. Abusing military power is bad in a sense that people are abuse or suppress, but if we look in a brighter side, the said presidents who declared martial law is when our country has a good progress.
ReplyDelete--Darylle Hannah D. Aguilar
3LM3
Guns are a huge part of Philippines culture. It has been with us since the begining of time. Because the philippines had many rulers in the past and therefore many rebel groups trying to topple these rulers. and in the Philippines, guns are extremely easy to accquire. You can buy it from a police officer, convert a pellet gun to fire real bullets or even make one your self out of household plumbing. So with this in mind, along with the alarming amount of pilitical killings outside and even inside NCR. Powerful people would feel safer by hiring a couple of bodyguards. But sometimes this is not enough. These people maybe under treat from the NPA or MILF they mght choose to have a private army. And this type of power may corrupt them. They start to throw their weight around. and use their private armies to do their bidding. This might cause other people to hire bodyguards to protect them selves from the abussive private army of another person. -mattsia 3lm3
ReplyDeleteThe last successful counter-insurgency operation was done by Ramon Magsaysay, his efforts had put an end to the "Hukbalahap" and also gave him a leverage in the presidential elections. Modern counter-insurgency tactics haven't fared well since then, there have been no reports of successful major operations to stop any rebel groups. The military lacks not only tactics but also initiative to eradicate insurgents who plague the countryside. Soldiers should be willing to fight for the state to make it a safer place for its citizens. The military has the brawn but what it needs is a brain. "Strategy without tactics in the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat"- Art of War.
ReplyDelete-Neil Jasper Tulauan
3LM3
p.s. Sorry for the delayed comment, I wasn't able to connect to the internet earlier due to the expiry of my broadband promo. Please understand, thank you :)
Police power and promoting peace and order in country: these two things don't go well in our present society. Yes, maybe we witnessed recently a dedicated MMDA who just got slapped by a immoral educated man, but this event does not follow that all who are assigned to promote peace and order are that loyal to their specific tasks. We cannot deny that our police power, having many controversies from the past administrations, has a somewhat a bad reputation. Starting to the lack of funds being allocated to our military. We are being left-out by other countries who can defend themselves from future disasters. One of which is the unending issue of Scarborough shoal against China that all we can do is just watch on how high tech patrol ships from China anchored off in the the said territory. Second may be, some military officials being puppets of big politicians for their own agenda. Knowing that our military/police isn't receiving the right benefits and payment for rendering services beyond their jobs and the lives of our unfortunate soldiers they are being blinded by the amount they can get for doing deals "under the table". Resources need not to be the hindrance of such events, sometimes. What we need is not merely a politician, who can discuss what are the do's and don't's in politics, but true public servants who are will to lead at the same time grow with his people he is serving.
ReplyDelete-Alinea, Alyssa Truty C.
3LM3