The Next Ferdinand Marcos

Presidential candidate Eddie Villanueva found himself in the hot seat during yesterday's episode of DZBB's 'Ikaw Na Ba?' series. The program, hosted by the controversial Mike Enriquez, revolves around interrogating the ten Presidential candidates for the upcoming May 2010 elections.

In essence, Mike asks each candidate if they believe they are deserving of the position of the next President of the Philippines and why. It's somewhat similar to 'American Idol' where Mike Enriquez plays a rather brash version of Simon Cowell, guiding the audience in deciding which candidate to vote for. Unfortunately, like 'American Idol,' the election system in the Philippines is also often driven by popularity rather than genuine ability.

Eddie Villanueva shared his plans if he were to win the Presidency, which seemed to bear uncanny similarities to the actions of the late President Ferdinand Marcos during his term (excluding the Martial Law aspect, of course). Villanueva revealed that he would not immediately appoint a Secretary of Defense; instead, he would personally take on the responsibilities of that position until he could eliminate what he referred to as "scalawags" from the system. This approach mirrors what Marcos had done in the past. Villanueva also emphasized that he would utilize the full force of the law against such individuals.

Although I was too young to fully comprehend the events of the Martial Law era, further research has provided me with an understanding of the pros and cons of the Marcos regime. When examining it, especially from the perspective of those who lived through it, the cons significantly outweigh the pros. However, it's important to acknowledge that there were indeed positive aspects, whether one admits it or not. This is the point that Villanueva was trying to make. He aimed to emulate only the favorable aspects of former President Marcos, claiming that "Marcos was the best President the Philippines ever had" and that "he was simply blinded by excessive power."

Villanueva may have a valid point in his statements, but something still troubles me. How can he assure every voter that he would not succumb to the same thirst for power? As someone who appears flattered by comparisons to Marcos, using similar hand signs and threatening a firm leadership approach, can he truly guarantee that he would not be susceptible to the same hunger for power? If a prophet could become a king, shouldn't we be concerned that a preacher could potentially become a dictator?