Unprincipled reconciliation

Who would not want peace? Who would not want reconciliation for the sake of the country’s unity, political stability, and economic survival? But who would believe Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and believe further that her proposal of principle reconciliation is aimed solely to what is idealistically proper and is not vitiated by any political motive?

Mrs. Arroyo lacks credibility. She had categorically declared her decision in December 2002 not to run in the 2004 elections, allegedly to focus on efforts to unite the nation and move the economy forward, only to back out on her word this year. It is thus apparent that Mrs. Arroyo’s declaration was merely a ploy to reduce the criticism from the opposition and prevent them from prematurely positioning themselves for the upcoming 2004 elections which may prejudice her own political ambitions. The retraction of her prior declaration disrobed her of any pretension of being a statesperson and reduced her to a wily 2004 presidential candidate. As to her recent statement on principled reconciliation therefore, political motive is presumed, and the onus probandi of what may be otherwise – if such is even possible – is hers.

Mrs. Arroyo’s proposal for a principled reconciliation is manifestly defective for it to even be feasible. She, on one hand – in Malacanang – proposed that there should be willingness by parties to reconcile as a condition precedent for such reconciliation to be realized, but on the other hand – in Luneta – urged people to pray to God to protect the country from plotters and rejectionists of her reconciliation plan. It requires no mental calisthenics to see that there is an obvious difference in consenting to reconciliation and in consenting to her plan of reconciliation – a basic premise in an argument that by itself would solicit discord. Reconciliation for reconciliation’s sake rammed into throats of oppositionists belies the lack of principles in attaining genuine reconciliation.

What Mrs. Arroyo proposes, further, is an impossible feat. It is easily discernible that consensus may not be had among such diverse parties, which by themselves belong into two distinct classes: those against the government as an institution, and those against Mrs. Arroyo’s administration itself. ^[1] It is naively simplistic to assume a comprehensive solution for both classes executable in a single effort or stroke. Moreover, the means to effect the proposal is also inutile. No amount of retreats, even a whole period enough for one to finish a course in Divinities, would persuade people, especially those who have declared animosity against each other but except those who are ideologically bankrupt, to reconcile their differences. It would take more than a call for reconciliation for people to abandon, else compromise their ideology or entrenched beliefs, prejudices or distrusts, and distinct socio-political experiences which are conflicting and adverse to another person, class, or party. It is a given that people believe different things, and people mean different things for the same word they say. A unified concept of nationalism cannot be an impetus for such proposed reconciliation, as the nationalism that is felt by some of our Moslem brothers is not inclined to the Philippine republic but to a Bangsa Moro one. On the other hand, the proposal by some, that each should exercise civility towards one another, may be rejected by some who believe that such is nothing more than, for the lack of a better word, “kaplastikan”. Further, the question of “who should lead this country” may also be dismissed as a euphemistic disguise for the real question as to “who should be in power.” One can only imagine the various answers one can generate from various factions for the last question.

Genuine reconciliation can only be effected gradually in unbroken chains of positive acts and dialogue, and cannot be made through a single event or mass congregation of pseudo-relevant personalities. The most that can result from such unnatural consensus is a hollow stance by willing and moderate participants, an uncomfortable truce based on the resolve that they have agreed that they civilly disagreed in most of the issues, such being the core of their supposed understanding.

Truly, the only positive effect of this futile exercise is that Mrs. Arroyo can claim a spot in the pedestal of righteousness; for people, who are uncooperative in the pursuit of common good by resisting her ideas, are to be relegated to the bins of evilness. This is another illustration that pure and unadulterated idealism is a rallying point, a marketing tool for the crafty, to effect a pragmatic solution for the benefit of one, claiming to be all. Indeed, this illustrates the perpetuation the brand of Philippine politics that Philippine politicians espouse that render idealistic belief synonymous to none more than gullibility.