Wasted Opportunity

PLUS ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. (The more it changes, the more it remains the same.) Edsa II was mounted three years ago to change a corrupt and incompetent administration. It was described by a columnist as "the culmination of a movement to restore accountability and idealism in government.''

But has Edsa II changed the corrupt landscape of Philippine government and politics? The answer should be obvious: No. Has it restored accountability and idealism in government? Again, the answer is no. The business of government and politics is still being conducted, not on the basis of principles, but on the basis of pragmatism, practicality and self-interest.

The principal beneficiary of Edsa II was President Macapagal-Arroyo. To be sure, she was not the unanimous choice of the hundreds of thousands who flocked to Edsa three years ago, shouting for President Joseph Estrada to step down. There was a sector that was urging the top officials in government: "Resign all!'' But the Constitution had to be followed, although the ouster of Estrada was done through an extra-constitutional route, and it was Ms Macapagal who had to succeed him.

The Macapagal administration began auspiciously enough. The new President impressed everyone as a knowledgeable workaholic, a sharp contrast to the laid-back, boozing, carousing Estrada. But soon she began flip-flopping all over the place, sacrificing principles in favor of political pragmatism. There was talk of corruption in high places, although it could not be definitely proven.

Ms Macapagal put a stop to divisive politics when she announced on December 30, 2002 that she was not running in 2004. But then, in what could be the biggest flip-flop of her life, last year she took that promise back and said she was running for a full term after all. She could have gone down in history as a transition president, and history would have looked kindly on her, but now she will be judged by her actions after she reversed her decision not to run.

Now, in violation of the spirit of Edsa II, the President is making all sorts of accommodations and is bending principles in cobbling together a "winning'' ticket. She has accepted into the administration ticket John Osmena, one of the infamous "Balato Twins''; Orlando Mercado, Estrada's defense secretary; and former Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, one of the staunchest defenders of Estrada during the impeachment trial. Obviously Ms Macapagal has no compunctions about her actions because, after all, she was not part of the principled oust-Estrada movement from the beginning. She resigned from the administration and joined the movement only when it was certain that Estrada was going to be deposed.

The President has made the usual noises about curbing corruption, but she has done nothing earth-shaking about this perennial problem. To the contrary, the magnitude of corruption in government has risen, and talk of corruption has involved people close to the President, such as was alleged in the Jose Pidal expos, among other things.

Now, the administration is even tolerating, if not actually pushing for, the departure of Estrada for the United States or another country to have an operation on his knee, although it can be done here by Filipino surgeons who are the equal of their foreign counterparts in surgical expertise. If Estrada is allowed to leave, will that mean the end of the plunder case against him? Will he be allowed to go scot-free? And why would he return when he faces the distinct possibility of a death sentence here? And if he walks free, what was Edsa II all for? Is it going to be remembered as just another exercise in futility?

The pity of it is that Ms Macapagal could have been a notable, if not a good, president had she held true to her promise not to seek election. She could have undertaken wide-ranging reforms and made crucial decisions without minding whether they would affect her political plans for 2004 or not. She could have launched a real, honest-to-goodness campaign against corruption which was after all the principal issue in Edsa II. She could have exerted her political and moral influence to ensure the holding of clean, honest and peaceful elections in May. Now even this is no longer sure anymore.

Edsa II has not changed the political landscape. Probably what we need is not just a change of leaders, for elections have been a game of musical chairs, with people from the same elite taking turns in the seat of power. Probably what we need is a change in men and a change in the system.

~ Inquirer Editorial, 20 January 2004