On May 10, the Filipino people will troop to the polls to elect the man
who would succeed Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and who would be tasked with
straightening up the mess that his predecessor had put the country
into. Tough challenges await the winner, perhaps as tough, if not
tougher than what the late President Cory Aquino had to face after 20
years of rule of a tyrant when she assumed the presidency in 1986.
Corruption, the worst in decades, has all but emptied the government
coffers and threatens to further weaken the bureaucracy, drive away
foreign investors and discourage even local businessmen. Dirty politics
and opportunism have divided the nation. Human rights abuses,
lawlessness and political violence have made the country one of the
most dangerous places to live in. And poverty, the problem that Arroyo
vowed to fight but totally ignored and the issue that every single
candidate in the current campaign vows to eliminate, has become worse
than ever.
At the center of these problems are the people desperate for salvation,
whose hopes for a better life have been vanished by leaders who claimed
to have their interest in their hearts but did everything to frustrate
them.
And now, Filipinos are being offered another chance to choose the
leaders that would hopefully lift them from their desperation and offer
them hope of not even an Enchanted Kingdom or first world status as
Arroyo arrogantly promises, but of a nation that can feed its people
without sending millions of them to serve as domestic helpers and
caregivers to the world; a nation that can stand proud with its
neighbors; a nation where its citizens don’t fear authority, but
respect them; a nation where there springs hope for a better and more
peaceful life.
In these troubling times, the people are looking for a leader who is
tough and sincere. To me, these are fair criteria to measure a man who
would become the next President of the Philippines. Which leads me back
to an anecdote I wish to share with the readers.
In Singapore in 1988, on my way to the historic cities of Moscow and
Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in Russia, and to the city of Tbilisi in
the Republic of Georgia, and the city of Baku in the Republic of
Azerbaijan on a travel and writing grant from the Novosti Press Agency,
I met this taxi driver.
“Philippine?” he asked. “Yes, I’m a Filipino,” I replied.
I was expecting him to say “Dayoff, Lah?” and hoped I would not punch
him if he did. Fortunately, I was male and didn’t look like a “DH”
(domestic helper).
“How is President Cory doing?” he continued. Obviously, he was a fan of
the then very popular President Corazon Aquino, one of many
Singaporeans and Soviets who wanted to know more about the legendary
woman they only knew as “Cory.”
“Not as well as we had expected her to do, I’m afraid,” I said, trying
not to irritate the driver, lest he dump me in one of Singapore’s
immaculately clean streets.
“Why is this so?” he asked, looking flustered.
“Why do you think is Singapore doing well?” I asked back, ignoring his
question. “Because of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, right?” He nodded.
The stern Lee Kuan Yew was the longtime leader of Singapore at that
time.
“And why is Lee Kuan Yew such a successful leader? Because he is
strong, sincere and has the support of the people, isn’t it?”
He looked at me approvingly.
“Look at Marcos. He was as strong, probably even stronger than Lee Kuan
Yew as far as his hold on the government was concerned. But he
apparently was not sincere and, therefore, ultimately lost the support
of the people. That’s why he failed as a leader of his people,” I
continued.
“Now look at Cory. She looks very sincere and has the support of not
just the Filipino people, but of the entire world. But less than a year
since she assumed power, she is losing her grip on government, and is
now slowly losing the support of the people. Why? Because she is not as
strong as Lee Kuan Yew and she let emotion get the better of her. She
has become too vindictive, alienating a large number of the population.
She has vacillated often on so many important issues that the people
started having doubts about her credibility and her intentions.”
I was glad we reached our destination before I could go on. I hated to
erode the myth of EDSA, but that was how I felt then and that’s how I
feel now.
That was 1988. By then, Marcos was history. And so is Cory now.
How did Cory’s successor, President Fidel V. Ramos, fit into the Lee
Kuan Yew model for a developing country, such as the Philippines? Did
he posses the three S’s of good leadership — strength, sincerity and
support of the people?
I think there was no doubt about Ramos’ strength. He had complete
control of the government despite having run under a fragile coalition,
and winning on only 23% of the votes. His coalition eventually
controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives. His
closest aide, Speaker Jose de Venecia, lorded it over in the Lower
House, which was the originator of important legislations, such as the
all-important national budget.
His policy of reconciliation successfully galvanized his hold over the
entire populace, including many leaders of the Left, Right, and the
oligarchy. And his military aides were in control of the military and
the national police.
Was Ramos sincere? Many ranking government officials at that time were
one in saying that President Ramos had the best intentions for the
country. Even most of the Philippine media agreed that President Ramos
was sincere. This was despite the erosion of his claim to being a
non-traditional politician. His style of work — attending to every
little detail of governance from dawn to late at night — appealed to
the people and reinforced the people’s belief in his sincerity.
In short, Ramos had the qualities of a strong and sincere leader who
eventually gained the support of the people, which are qualities needed
by a country that had long been stunted by divisiveness, corruption,
overindulgence in politics, and weak leadership, not to mention natural
calamities.
The bullish attitude shown by foreign investors on the Philippines
throughout Ramos’ tenure showed that the international economic
community agreed with such an assessment. As a result, the Philippine
economy soared during Ramos’ six-year term and the Philippines neared
gaining the status of a newly industrialized country (NIC).
When President Joseph Estrada assumed the reins of government, the
Philippines again became one of the “sick economies of Asia” — the
economy ruined by cronyism, corruption, lack of direction and
indecisive action.
Did President Estrada fit into the Lee Kuan Yew model of an effective
leader for a developing country? In other words, was Estrada sincere,
strong, and enjoyed the support of the people?
The masses that voted for Estrada perceived him to be a sincere leader,
the man destined to lead them from centuries of poverty — the Moses of
the Filipino masses. But less than a year into his presidency, the
Filipino people realized that Estrada favored his wealthy cronies more
than the poor. Soon, the millions of workers, farmers, drivers and
other members of the toiling masses were marching against him, claiming
that Estrada’s slogan “Erap Para sa Mahirap” is no longer true.
Instead, the protesters wanted “Enap of Erap.”
Having failed the sincerity test, Estrada naturally lost the support of
the people. From an approval rating of more than 70% in the first few
days of his presidency, Estrada was once down to negative 32%.
Did Estrada meet the other barometer of good leadership — strength?
Having been ousted by People Power 2 on EDSA, Estrada obviously was not
as tough and as strong as he made it look.
As for Arroyo, she apparently was stronger than her fragile appearance
made many to believe. She has, in fact, gained total control of
virtually every sector of the government, from the military to the
House of Representatives and all the way to the Supreme Court. But she
has failed miserably in the two other measures of leadership –
sincerity and support of the people – as shown by her consistent
negative ratings in both popularity and performance.
A fourth measure has since been added to the three S’s of good
leadership, one that can be tied up to sincerity – being morally
upright. With corruption the biggest reason the Philippines is in its
present state, it is paramount that the people elect a leader who is
morally upright and one who is surrounded by advisers who are equally
morally upright.
Using these four barometers – sincerity, strength, support of the
people and being morally upright – we hope that the people would be
able to choose the right leader. Another wrong decision could further
ruin the country.