Puno is not Obama
The search for villains and heroes of our time and for the future remains a staple of political and social discourse. It offers a convenient perspective on the political situation that most anyone can understand – good guys and bad guys. So depending on one’s political persuasion, GMA is evil incarnate, Chief Justice Puno is salvation in waiting, Jun Lozada is one of the villains turned hero, and undisputably, Pacman tops them all.
Puno has been characterised as our own Obama – a force for good and for change.
In a few hours Obama takes his oath of office, with more people attending the inauguration than has ever been known, and with more people around the world watching the moment in history. But this is not a triumph for Obama - it is a celebration of America, where nothing is impossible, where people have said “yes we can” and in a few hours can say amongst themselves “yes we have”. Obama as an event is that moment in history when the nation that asserted everyone is born equal in opportunity, sees that assertion come to fruition.
My difficulty in casting GMA as the villain, and with Puno as the hero, is that this view discounts the responsibility the electorate has played in putting GMA in power. It exalts Puno without acknowledging the change necessary in our nation’s culture, that Puno or any future leader would need, if they are to succeed in all that we hope they can achieve.
GMA did not come into the office of President by stealth. She was voted into office – albeit with help at the margin, but still with enough of the vote that a final nudge could tip her into office. She does not govern in a vacuum. She is supported by the civil service and armed forces, by a substantial portion of local and provincial government, and despite all the denunciation, she continues to be tolerated and accepted by the electorate. Public commentary excoriates GMA, but one would have to concede all the criticism does not look to amount to anything like a popular movement to forcibly dislodge her from office.
What does this say about the country and its voters? What does this say about its media and their choices of coverage? Like most other countries, we probably do not expect our leaders to be much better than you or I, and precisely because corruption is so insidiously present in our lives, we always end up with more of the same. But that is the problem, and it should now be painfully obvious to everyone that a continuation of how we’ve been going will condemn the Philippines to the scrapheap of failed states. Change is needed.
I do not despair about GMA - I despair that the country continues to tolerate her. That is the tragedy. I think that as a body politic, we do not take responsibility for the choices we have made. Our pundits go on, without really taking the people responsible to task – engaging in a critical examination of what drives our vote. As long as we keep on making those choices, keep on repeating those mistakes, is it any wonder we keep on getting the same results? Some serious national introspection, some national reflection would not go astray at this point, before we enter next year’s presidential elections.
Isn’t it naïve for the punditry to expect that somehow our politicians will find their way on the road to Damascus? The problem, as Cassius would have said, is not that we lacked an Obama, but that we did not vote for him, even when he was there. As one illustration, their naivete aside, the “Ang Kapatiran” party could have received more exposure at the last senatorial contest. Could anyone say they received more than passing coverage? If you agree that corruption is the dominant problem in the nation, then shouldn’t that party have received more exposure?
I have not enjoyed much success at all in inducing change on the basis of what seemed to be an obvious moral imperative. Morals are a fickle measure that varies in as many ways as there are people. However self interest has often been a more effective instrument of persuasion. If it is not obvious now how crippling every act of corruption is for every person and every generation that comes after that act, just how bad does it have to get before the Philippines will make the right decisions? How much worse before action is taken? Why do we still have so many individuals in office who wear the odium of corruption like an Olympic gold medal?
So coming back to point, I think it will be a long time before we can call anyone our Obama. Although I live in hope, I fear that the time will never come when Philippine society develops the values that will call for an Obama to come forward and be a singular embodiment of an enlightened Filipino society.
Unless we change.
Puno has been characterised as our own Obama – a force for good and for change.
In a few hours Obama takes his oath of office, with more people attending the inauguration than has ever been known, and with more people around the world watching the moment in history. But this is not a triumph for Obama - it is a celebration of America, where nothing is impossible, where people have said “yes we can” and in a few hours can say amongst themselves “yes we have”. Obama as an event is that moment in history when the nation that asserted everyone is born equal in opportunity, sees that assertion come to fruition.
My difficulty in casting GMA as the villain, and with Puno as the hero, is that this view discounts the responsibility the electorate has played in putting GMA in power. It exalts Puno without acknowledging the change necessary in our nation’s culture, that Puno or any future leader would need, if they are to succeed in all that we hope they can achieve.
GMA did not come into the office of President by stealth. She was voted into office – albeit with help at the margin, but still with enough of the vote that a final nudge could tip her into office. She does not govern in a vacuum. She is supported by the civil service and armed forces, by a substantial portion of local and provincial government, and despite all the denunciation, she continues to be tolerated and accepted by the electorate. Public commentary excoriates GMA, but one would have to concede all the criticism does not look to amount to anything like a popular movement to forcibly dislodge her from office.
What does this say about the country and its voters? What does this say about its media and their choices of coverage? Like most other countries, we probably do not expect our leaders to be much better than you or I, and precisely because corruption is so insidiously present in our lives, we always end up with more of the same. But that is the problem, and it should now be painfully obvious to everyone that a continuation of how we’ve been going will condemn the Philippines to the scrapheap of failed states. Change is needed.
I do not despair about GMA - I despair that the country continues to tolerate her. That is the tragedy. I think that as a body politic, we do not take responsibility for the choices we have made. Our pundits go on, without really taking the people responsible to task – engaging in a critical examination of what drives our vote. As long as we keep on making those choices, keep on repeating those mistakes, is it any wonder we keep on getting the same results? Some serious national introspection, some national reflection would not go astray at this point, before we enter next year’s presidential elections.
Isn’t it naïve for the punditry to expect that somehow our politicians will find their way on the road to Damascus? The problem, as Cassius would have said, is not that we lacked an Obama, but that we did not vote for him, even when he was there. As one illustration, their naivete aside, the “Ang Kapatiran” party could have received more exposure at the last senatorial contest. Could anyone say they received more than passing coverage? If you agree that corruption is the dominant problem in the nation, then shouldn’t that party have received more exposure?
I have not enjoyed much success at all in inducing change on the basis of what seemed to be an obvious moral imperative. Morals are a fickle measure that varies in as many ways as there are people. However self interest has often been a more effective instrument of persuasion. If it is not obvious now how crippling every act of corruption is for every person and every generation that comes after that act, just how bad does it have to get before the Philippines will make the right decisions? How much worse before action is taken? Why do we still have so many individuals in office who wear the odium of corruption like an Olympic gold medal?
So coming back to point, I think it will be a long time before we can call anyone our Obama. Although I live in hope, I fear that the time will never come when Philippine society develops the values that will call for an Obama to come forward and be a singular embodiment of an enlightened Filipino society.
Unless we change.
Labels: Corruption, Obama, Philippines
posted by JayM at 2:58 am
0 comments
