Axiomatic and popular it might be, but how President Joseph Estrada left office reflects not people's power or people's choice but the decline of democratic institutions. He was impeached when an old crony, the governor and gambling kingpin, Luis Singson, turned enemy. Witness after witness repeated, in the Senate trial, how each had a role in this bribery.

The Senate threw the charges out. He could not therefore rebut the allegations, but the rolling anti-Estrada bandwagon rolled on, the Supreme Court stripped him of his powers, he resigned and left.

The man elected two-and-a-half years with the highest vote in the Philippines is forced out by a miasma of unproven allegations. What forced the impeachment was not what forced it. It was political correctness. It was a sudden quirk of public morality. It was a clash of different worldviews.

He represents the unempowered poor against the empowered middle class represented by his vice-president and now his successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Was President Macapagal-Arroyo properly elected? Indeed, was President Cory Aquino properly elected in 1986 when she took office in the name of People Power and not the constitution? President Macapagal-Arroyo, like President George Bush, is elected to office because the courts so decreed.

Single factors

But, as Edward Luttwak wrote in his book, Coup D'Etat 30 years ago, all it takes to replace the government - he talked of Africa - was to seize key installations, the military barracks, and the presidential guard. All it needs to replace a leader is Southeast Asia is to have massive crowds demonstrating against him in the capital. And the crowds were on hand in Manila for President Estrada's coup de grace .

Widespread disaffection does not damn a leader. A single often does: President Ferdinand Marcos and the killing of Senator Benigno Aquino as he arrived from exile; President B.J. Habibie over East Timor; President Estrada for a personal vendetta; Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed over his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim's arrest and jailing.

President Suharto stayed on too long and his administration was seen as an enemy of the people that the anger against him was widespread. President Abdurrahman Wahid could well be felled over Acheh.

This widespread belief that people's power is more powerful than people's choice brings into governance not orderly governance but rabble politics. People's Power emerges only when the leader is stricken, not when he is strongest. But to force a change outside the constitution - which is how every leader is run out in Southeast Asia - undermines the sinews of administration and politics.

President Macapagal-Arroyo has said President Estrada would face further charges of misuse of office. But is that why he is thrown out? President Estrada is forced out of office but he still has his legions behind him.

He has, so far, refused to go overseas, which means he intends to fight back. If he does that, the orderly administration his departure would bring is but a pipe dream. He is as capable of bringing the millions into Manila against his president as his detractors are.

Untouchables

Why are governments and leaders hated so much by the people? It is not corruption, nor cronyism, nor even bad governance. It is when they ignore the people who voted them in. It is this belief that once elected, they should not be touched. They become aloof and do not address the people's wants.

Instead, they presume they know what they want, and tell them what they should want. Often, all they want is to make sure his child's birth certificate is in order or his child goes to a school near his house or have the drains in front of his house cleaned regularly.

But can a constant stream of huge crowds think straight, or do they join for not the issue at hand but for their own personal difficulties and problems? Is it the crowds per se that forces the government to disengage or it is personal guilt?

There is often some merit in the single issue that forces the government's hand, but not if it is to force the government out unconstitutionally.

When Benjamin Disraeli, then in the opposition in the House of Commons in the late 1880s, accused the then prime minister, W E Gladstone, of not consulting the people, he shot back: "Of course, I consult the people. Having heard them, I do the exact opposite!" There is some merit in that.

Democracy?

The years of independence, in every country in Asia, has built a gulf between the rulers and the ruled. When there is frequent general elections and elected representatives who represent their constituents, that is narrowed.

In every country in Southeast Asia, the gulf is as wide as is possible. Bottled-up seething resentment built over years over often small problems explodes for no reason at all. And another leader goes into exile. But is this what democracy is?