What reconciliation?

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

What reconciliation?
Sunday, 11 16, 2003

Kung ang isalubong sa iyong pagdating ay masamang mukha’t may pakitang-giliw, Lalong kaingata’t kaaway na lihim, Iyang isaisip na kakabakahin. – F. Baltazar, Florante at Laura

The overtures for reconciliation, coming from the author of every conceivable aspects of the division of our nation, comes rather too late in the day. It’s like stabbing someone repeatedly and telling him, as he lies dying, “O my God! I didn’t mean to do it. Can we be friends again?” At a stage where no end appears in sight for this sorely wounded nation to return to a healing, forgiving frame of mind, every move of hers, every statement she makes, only gives rise to the suspicion that there must be a catch somewhere, a trapdoor ready to swing inwards and doom the unwary.

Once burned, twice shy – has she forgotten this basic reminder for winning friends and influencing people? Or does she prefer to derive her amoral cynicism from the exhortations of Machiavelli, who called for a ruler that is above the law and morality in perpetuating political power as an end in itself?

One can almost see the smirk that forms at the corners of her mouth as President Arroyo calls on the contending parties to sit down and forge a common agenda for the good of the nation. Already, almost everyone has rejected the call. And who could blame them for reacting that way?

Here is one who claims to be Ina ng Bayan, but who has so far managed to be the scheming godmother in the telenovelas that daily assault our TV screens.

Unhesitatingly, she gives the order to eliminate a friend of hers, in the name of national security, as a knee-jerk reaction to muzzle the man’s desire to air his grievances against a government awash in corruption. In the age-old tradition of tyrants and depots, she has eliminated the messenger of bad tidings. That merciless killing atop NAIA Tower 2, where Capt. Panfilo Villaruel certainly posed no threat to national security, has brought the nation into wondering whether it still has sensible and rational leader.

The leader who authorizes the police to brutalize those who thronged to Ayala Avenue last week to say one more time that corruption in the government must end, hardly deserves our sympathetic ear when she asks for reconciliation after the carnage. This callous disregard for human life, this disrespect for the longings of the governed with for decency in the government hardly conforms to what we what our Ina ng Bayan to be. It must come to a stop.

All the more’s the pity. When she foreswore last Rizal Day any plans to stay in office beyond June 2004, she received a resounding cheer. Many thought she had been enlightened, and that she should be given the chance to proceed with her dreams of building a strong republic, unburdened by the ambition to cling to the throne in the Palace. But just as fast as she stunned the nation with her announcement call all the marks of an insidious design to rule for six more years. The plunder of billions that followed ensured that the campaign kitty must be filled to the brim, to ensure victory.

All chances for reconciliation are now shards of the broken vessel of governance.

A moratorium in politics simply would no longer do. This is now the political season, and any moratorium at this period, where she is a certain candidate for the May 2004 elections that is already in the hustings, would only be a trapdoor her political opponents should best avoid.

If the call for reconciliation came from somebody else, the entire nation would probably cooperate. But as it is, she is a candidate transparently wanting to rake in obsequious points among the electorate by deftly maneuvering the fragmented institutions critical of her government to contend against each other. Take notice of how she, in the recent impeachment moves against the Chief Justice, initially took a disinterested attitude, and then stepped into the fray. What do we have here – a divide et impera Malacañang policy?

When in mock disappointment she said “I thought he was a friend,” in reference to Capt. Villaruel, she was clearly making a massage to those who have legitimate grievances: “Those who are not with me are against me, so shut up if you know what’s good for you.” What do we have here – a Catch-22 in a Code of Ethics approved by Malacañang where one must “disclose corruption but give no information?”

The doublespeak is endlessly foisted on the public that the unreal becomes real, the callous becomes humane, and the crazy becomes sane. But enough already – this time she cannot peddle he plea for reconciliation. Many conditions have been cited by those on her side of the Pasig River and those opposite it, and it would take beyond May 2004 for reconciliation to take place.

The whole problem is she moves and talks without regard for the intelligence of her opponents and in contempt of her friends. This arrogance of power, albeit merely borrowed and with genuine questions to its valid exercise by her, has gone into her head. Tragically, it will take her a long time – maybe never – to realize that reconciliation is a function of sincerity, truthfulness and a commitment to do good. She does not exclude sincerity at all; she has not been truthful to her pronouncement to foreswear power; and the corruption that abounds in her government disqualifies her from ever doing good.

Only when she goes back to her words on Rizal Day can she expect a genuine response to her plea for reconciliation. Only then can she be believed for her sincerity, admired for her truthfulness and extolled for any good that she can do and any kindness that she can show, until she steps down for a worthy successor on June 30, 2004.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2003