State of the Nation Address

Pussyfooting

Posted July 29, 2009 00:26:00(Mla Time)

Philippine Daily Inquirer

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s ninth State of the Nation Address was unremarkable in many ways, particularly in terms of being self-congratulatory throughout while dismissive of critics to the point of crass hostility. Tooting one’s own horn and castigating the opposition are normal features of the State of the Nation Address. The President merely deviated from the example of her predecessors in terms of degree—a question as much of perSONAl preferences in taste as it was a reflection of what she considered politically expedient.

The President hewed back to an earlier age in viewing Congress as her primary audience. Rhetorical—that is, essentially cosmetic—concessions were made to the public, but her fundamental concern was putting rivals, including her potential successors, in their place. No one should have any doubt, after Monday’s performance, that she believes that place is one thoroughly subordinate to her.

She did this by means of trumpeting her achievements and more significantly deviating from the post-Edsa tradition established by President Corazon Aquino of making the last SONA of her term not merely a valedictory address, but also the formal start of the transition period from one administration to the next. Presidents Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos made such commitments in their final SONAs and categorically stated that they would hand over office to whoever was their duly-elected successor come June 30 of the following year. To borrow a word revived by Ms Arroyo, instead of following this democratic precedent, she pussyfooted around the question of handing over power on June 30, 2010.

What she didn’t pussyfoot around was the question of a transition. There will be none. “There is much to do as head of state, to the very last day,” she declared.

Even if, as the President’s apologists want us to believe, she felt it politically inconvenient to usher in her retreat to the political background, her pussyfooting represents a dangerously undemocratic attachment to her office. We need only refer to the problems her own father faced when President Carlos P. Garcia decided there was much to do as head of state to the very last day of his term. Garcia saddled President Diosdado Macapagal with what have come to be known as “midnight appointments,” in an effort to limit the authority of his successor—which resulted in cases being pursued all the way to the Supreme Court.

The President may have virtuously declared that she is more interested in governance than politics, but her determination to cling, limpet-like, to every single one of her presidential prerogatives makes her a compleat politician. Again, her apologists might object that every president is a politician, too, but there comes a time— specifically, the final months of a president’s term—when the politician must at least attempt to transform into a statesman.

This, the President refuses to do. She remains in campaign mode, demonstrating every indication that she intends to maintain a vise-like grip on her administration coalition and compete with her potential successors.

The result of the President’s pussyfooting around the question of her leaving office—not only when, but under what circumstances—will guarantee more politics, not less. It ensures that whatever governance takes place will be firmly subordinated to politicking since she will be aggressively ensuring that everyone continues kowtowing to her until high noon of June 30, 2010, not least because she refuses to commit to a specific role beyond that hour.

Since the President knows that not very many Filipinos trust her, she couldn’t ask her political peers and the public to trust her to simply retire from politics in 2010. Since she has gone back on her word before, she said nothing that might prove politically embarrassing down the road. Particularly if her coalition brings the country to a fork in the road, constitutionally speaking.

A dismissal of nagging questions out of hand is not the same as a positive commitment to do the opposite of what she claims are the paranoid delusions of her critics. Rather, she has crossed a line precisely put in place by means of a fixed presidential term: her stewardship is not just supposed to be for six years, it is supposed to include the peaceful, orderly transition from her regime to the next. Regardless of whether, in her opinion or by her own subjective measure, her successor meets her elevated standards or not.