The Dilemma of 2007 Elections

The debate about the Third Flank or Force continues.

William Esposo’s column is a rather strongly-worded argument for a Third Flank. Willy Prilles hopes there will be a Third Force if the current trend (the names being floated as UNO candidates) goes.

MLQ3 pragmatically believes that such a force will lead to a disaster and will benefit Gloria Arroyo. John Marzan agrees and further adds that the idea is probably concocted by someone in the Fortress by the Pasig.

Esposo’s column is like a long exposition of a dilemma presenting several horns, all unacceptable:

* The United Opposition, composed of remnants of Marcos and Estrada regimes, already rejected by voters
* The administration, generating so much stink
* The Communist Left
* The Military Right

There is another horn to this dilemma, which is unacceptable to others but acceptable to Esposo and Patricia Evangelista – the third force.

The UNO is unacceptable because Esposo believes it carries the Estrada banner. In short, the UNO wants this election to be a continuation of EDSA 2. For Evangelista, she cannot accept it out of principle; after all, these are the people why EDSA 2 had to happen.

To attack this horn, read this post by DJB.

The administration is unacceptable because it has put us where we are right now, and electing its slate means virtual acceptance of the current situation.

To attack this horn, read Belinda Cunanan and Alex Magno.

The military right is unacceptable, so is the communist left, for historical reasons.

And the last horn, the third force. To attack this horn, I leave you to MLQ3 and John Marzan. And this comment by Manuel Buencamino in MLQ3’s blog:

Now a third force, which some people propose as the way out of the evil of choosing between two lessers, looks tempting but we must bear in mind whether we want to take the risk of allowing the greater evil to win because our forces became divided.

There’s actually another horn, equally unacceptable: do not vote at all.

William Esposo made a bad medical analogy, as what MLQ3 had said. He made another one, that of World War I. That war did end monarchies in Europe, but it had also left a lot of unfinished business and more problems, that another war was needed to resolve them.

Or maybe he meant it that way. 2007 will probably lead to the administration losing the battle but not the war, and 2010 will be another battle.