...

"Choosing between the lesser evil..." I had once learned in a political forum what this old cliche means. If my memories serves me right, it was during the political instability brought about by the Jose Villarde Account by the once president of the republic, now deposed. Choosing the lesser evil, as it is literally and figuratively, was the most significant line of that time, that stirred people to instill the now incumbent president of the republic.

Now as the republic is being dragged again to another instability caused by numerous allegations and accusations that needed direct answers; it had made me ponder whether it was really worth it to replace the sole person who should had managed the democracy that was inherited from the third republic or did the sovereign people made a huge mistake in partaking to the second people power that had placed the so-called "lesser evil" in a position that is vulnerable to huge demand of temptation which in a fact also had it's roots buried for more than a century. I was also wondering, was there ever a politician in this republic that is good prior to ascending to the position and steps out of the said position he or she had served as a better law maker and individual? I doubt whether there really was an individual that can resist all the temptations enveloped in the rotten system of government that this republic has.

Now the same scenario exist again. Sovereign people are being called again to march towards the streets to ask and to force the president to step down of the position she had, as a lot of people views it, usurped from the former president, for she had became a victim of the temptation within the rotten system of government. Then what next if ever the incumbent president is ousted by the people and other extraneous forces? Would things change the way the sovereign people wanted it to be? I certainly doubt whether the reforms the sovereign people, including me, will ever take into effect, because the root of all the corruption still exists in the government per se.

If ever the sovereign people would again empower themselves to act for the change, and for that change to take effect, the sovereign people should at least see to it that the next person to inherit the position should not inherit the same corruption that spans for more than a hundred years. The sovereign people should in effect call for a plebiscite to change the system of government and the kind of governance they wanted to see so as to eradicate the roots of corruption embedded within the old system. Why are we called sovereign people where power lies, if we can't change the whole system the way we wanted it to be?

I do hope this as well help you out in thinking whether to support the call for the ousting of the incumbent president of the republic or you're just like me waiting for the proper time the sovereign people will realized that despite the urgency of the stopping the conjugal greed being exhibited by the first family, the corruption still exists and persist even if she was ousted or not, because the system of government itself is buried in corruption.