Beyond ‘weather-weather’, climate change

Politics, Philippine style, has always been a ‘weather, weather’ affair. There are no ideological divisions, no distinct choices of platforms: just a revolving door through which rulers pass, serve and leave office. Those in power in one administration are voted --- or booted --- out of power; those in the opposition take their turn at the helm. But the winds of change are blowing.

Writing on the two recent surveys of the Social Weather Stations that have established Sen. Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III as a clear frontrunner with still more than two months before the final cast of presidential candidates is known, SWS President Mahar Mangahas talks of climate change in the 2010 elections.

When I first read the headline of his recent newspaper column, my impression was he was citing climate change as one of the possible leading issues that will be decisive in next year’s elections, especially in the aftermath of two destructive typhoons that, scientists say, are part the phenomenon of global warming. But that is not what he meant.

He noted that despite Noynoy Aquino’s “substantial lead in the presidential race…the race is still long…(and) Ramon Magsaysay’s 69-31 point win over Elpidio Quirino in 1953, the most lopsided race in postwar history is still a safe record.” The key point, he emphasized, is this” “once one sees that a ‘climate change’ can happen in an election race, then one should realize that it can happen again.”

Climate change is a powerful metaphor; it is more emphatic than “game changer”. It’s not just the game of politics-as-usual that has changed. It’s the socio-political climate that is undergoing deep, profound change.

In a TV panel discussion earlier this week, former UP President Jose Abueva said that the choice of the next President goes beyond the stated or known qualifications and credentials of the candidates. He pointed out that the next President’s role “is defined by the expectation of our people” and “shaped by the circumstances of our time.”

He observed that there is a systemic failure: our highly centralized and concentrated form of government has failed to solve the poverty problem and respond to the Filipino masses’ basic needs. He said that there is “a collective failure of political leadership and institutions”, and that, as a result, our people have become aware and conscious that --- contrary to what the constitution declares --- sovereignty does not truly reside in them.

In view of this, what the country needs today, Mr. Abueva said, is a transforming, not a transactional President in the mold of the incumbent, that is, “somebody who can inspire followers and fellow leaders to raise their sights on the real problems (which are truly) institutional problems.” He said that the new President must be one who “can lead people in changing (and) redesigning the system”.

TV host Manolo Quezon echoes Mr. Mangahas’ reference to Ramon Magsaysay’s victory over Elpidio Quirino as a watershed event in terms of “climate change”. Dean Bocobo, a long-time friend of this writer from the First Quarter Storm days and a co-panelist of Mr. Abueva in Mr. Quezon’s TV program, also referred to President Magsaysay as a “game changer.”

So, finally, the crucial question emerges: Is Noynoy Aquino truly a harbinger of climate change in Philippine politics?

I was only four years old when Ramon Magsaysay died in a plane crash in Mt. Manunggal in Cebu. I recall faintly that there was sadness among the elders in my family and community upon hearing the sad news. This is how Wikipedia characterizes the Quirino administration:

“His six years as president were marked by notable postwar reconstruction, general economic gains, and increased economic aid from the United States. Basic social problems, however, particularly in the rural areas, remained unsolved, and his administration was tainted by widespread graft and corruption.”

If we’re looking to parallels in circumstances between the Quirino and Arroyo administrations, then, there is at least one: the reference to “widespread graft and corruption.” But our next President cannot simply ride on a tide of discontent; such leader must be perceived as a carrier of hope and a harbinger of real progress.

In my view, the climate change that people see in Noynoy Aquino is that he is a person who is honest and trustworthy. After a long season of corruption and decadence, we want to usher in a new era of good governance where leaders, starting from the President, will truly serve the best interests of the people --- and bring out the best in them.

I was appalled when a group of students in my corporate communication elective course at AIM quoted one of the presidential spokespersons as having said: “It’s not that government response (to the Typhoon Ondoy crisis) was slow. It’s just that the flood waters were too high.” It sounded almost like: “It’s not true that this government is corrupt. It’s just that (our critics’) standards are too high.”

Is it enough for the next President to be honest and trustworthy? Must he not be capable and articulate, too? Yes, to both questions, but honesty and trustworthiness are, far and away, the most essential qualities needed at this time. Having served in government under two Presidents with contrasting styles (namely, Corazon Aquino and Joseph Ejercito Estrada), I have experienced first-hand that, indeed, the leader’s character is of paramount significance.

Erap Estrada had charisma but, in the end, it was his character, not his lack of managerial ability that did him in. Cory Aquino stepped up and performed beyond her perceived level of competence. What shone through for her was her impeccable integrity, that she was honest and that she always kept faith with public trust.

In my view, the surge in public support for Noynoy is rooted in a belief that, like his well-loved mother, he, too, has the moral fitness and integrity for the position. Those that continue to disparage this phenomenon as being part of Cory magic or euphoria are in a state of denial. As pointed out by Mr. Mangahas, about two-thirds of his 60% rating came from supporters of other candidates. Many people had other candidates in mind --- but they have realized that Noynoy offers them a clear-cut, high-definition choice for President.

Now it is up to Noynoy to offer a concrete platform of government that will translate popular support to votes that will elect him as the country’s next President.

An end to cheating

“A lot of people can cheat. They cheat by just a little bit. When we remind people about their morality, they cheat less. When we get bigger distance from cheating, from the object of money, for example, people cheat more. And when we see cheating around us, particularly if it’s part of our own in-group, cheating goes up.”

Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at Duke University, came up worth the foregoing conclusions after conducting several experiments to validate certain intuitive assumptions about the way people behave.

In the aftermath of the deluge brought about by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng, there’s been a lot of reflective thinking on what went wrong. Particularly instructive was a statement made by a friend, Felino (Jun) Palafox, an architect and urban planner, that the massive destruction was “not an act of God”, but an offshoot of an accumulation of human sins of omission and commission, especially those against the environment.

Indeed, a lot of people cheated. They cheated on the environment by constructing houses in areas already known to be danger or threat zones on account of being a water basin, as in the Marikina disaster. They cheated by cutting trees indiscriminately dumping their garbage mindlessly.

So what made them behave that way? Prof. Ariely’s experiments tell us a lot. (Readers may see the website: http://www.TED.com)

For example, when offered money in return for being able to recall the Ten Commandments from memory, they were more honest than when they were asked to declare how many questions in an economics quiz did they get right. Hence, Prof. Ariely concludes that people cheat less when they are reminded about morality.

When an actor was planted in a group that was being tested for honesty, the group readily followed the cheating initiated by the actor when he was wearing the sweatshirt of their own school. But, in another experiment, they did not follow a planted actor who was wearing the sweatshirt of their archrival school. They were more honest because they did not want to act in a way that was associated with an organization that they did not want to be identified with.

This latter experiment is what prompts him to hypothesize that “when we see cheating around us, particularly with our own in-group, cheating goes up.”

Being a behavioral economist, his focus was on trying to explain what went wrong with Wall Street. So he reflects: “What happens in a situation when you pay people lots of money to see reality in a slightly distorted way? What if, instead of money, you offered them stocks, stock options, derivatives and mortgage-backed securities? Could it be that with these more distant things, it’s something many steps removed from money for a much longer time, could it be that people would cheat even more?”

With these series of rhetorical questions, he offers an explanation for the reign of greed that brought Wall Street down late last year. Then he asks, “What happens to the social environment when people see other people behave around them in certain ways?” That’s a question we need to ask ourselves in our efforts to discern what it will take to bring about meaningful change in our country.

What do these findings imply for us Filipinos?

First, we need to be reminded about morality. Who can remind us in a way that will influence us to act morally, ethically or honestly? Only a credible leader who walks the talk; one who is perceived to be clearly good, ethical and moral. President Corazon Aquino was such a sterling role model. Hence, her legacy is that of faithful stewardship and good governance. Almost two decades after she stepped down from power, the Filipino people expressed their affection for her by braving rain and fatigue during her funeral procession.

Second, when a culture of cheating predominates, people tend to look the other way and would even be in denial of the reality, until they are jolted out of their indifference or complacency. This is what happened during all these years of the Arroyo presidency, particularly after the ‘Hello Garci’ scandal.

Many people lapsed into a state of denial, allowing themselves to be deluded into adopting a defeatist mindset expressed in the query, “Eh, sino ba ang ipapalit ninyo” (“So whom you will tap to replace her?). This was after they realized that the constitutional successor, Vice President Noli de Castro did not really offer the prospect of being a significantly better President.

This seeming lack of a sense of outrage among our citizenry prompted administration lackeys to run roughshod and throw out impeachment resolutions filed against the President. Using their superior numbers to steamroller the opposition, they have also mounted an attempt to change the constitution through the constituent assembly route after the Supreme Court previously ruled against the people’s initiative mode of charter change.

And then came the fateful events of August. A sea of yellow emerged and brought forth a fresh wave of optimism that yes, the spirit of Edsa Uno is still alive. And just as the final cast of characters for the 2010 presidential derby was shaping up came the deluge. The floods could not wash all the sins of the past away.

As an old song goes, “The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind.” The winds of change are upon us.

We want honest government. We want a leader who will remind us that we can be good when we want to be good, that goodness is what will make our lives better. We need a leader we can believe in, a leader who can make us believe in our capacity for change.

Comments may be sent to sonnycoloma@gmail.com

Understanding vox populi

What is the significance of the most recent SWS survey in the Lingayen-Lucena corridor that showed Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino getting the support of 50 per cent of among 1,200 respondents, 90 per cent of whom were from the D and E classes? What accounts for the phenomenal popularity of Noynoy despite his late entry into the presidential contest for 2010?

Predictably, the interpretation of the survey results has thus far gone along partisan lines: from outright disbelief and rejection to enthusiastic affirmation. Detractors were quick to point out that: a) the survey was limited in scope, not having been conducted nationwide; b) it’s still a good eight months away from election day on May 10, 2010 and many developments and changes will take place between now and then; and c) the results are biased and not credible.

Senators Aquino and Mar Roxas said that the Liberal Party was aware of eight other surveys covering other parts of the country (meaning, including Visayas and Mindanao) and which showed Noynoy winning by a similarly huge margin.

According to marketing guru Philip Kotler, any brand or product that has a market share of at least 40 per cent is regarded as a “dominant market leader.” Prof. Eduardo Roberto, a co-author of Prof. Kotler, notes that Fidel Ramos eked out a slim victory over several rivals in 1992 by winning 23 per cent of the vote. This underlines the enormity of the challenge now facing Noynoy’s rivals, considering that they polled only from 12 to 14 per cent each.

So only one serious doubt needs to be addressed: will these results last until election day in May 2010? ‘Euphoria’ or ‘Cory magic’ is being cited as the main factor that caused this ‘Noynoy bubble’ that may eventually burst in the heat of a frenzied campaign.

Let’s review once more the fateful events of August 2009, especially the funeral of President Corazon Aquino last August 5. It was a special public holiday: no work and no schools. What made tens of thousands of people (totaling in the millions by some estimates) go out into the streets, stand and wait in the rain for hours, and express their affection for a former President who stepped down from office 17 years ago? They were certainly not trucked and bussed (‘hakot’ in the vernacular); nor were they paid or coerced to do what they did.

What else can we say except that perhaps, they were moved by genuine affection for President Cory and they wanted to express their sympathy with the bereaved family? Is such affection and sympathy a fleeting feeling or emotion? But wait, didn’t we see and hear many of those who joined the procession say that they wanted to let their children witness this historic event so they can understand what their parents and elders fought for many years ago?

Didn’t President Cory’s detractors declare and claim --- time and time again, whenever they scoffed at what they claimed were very small numbers of protesters on Ayala Avenue --- that her ‘magic’ was gone and her influence was a spent force?

The events of August and September 2009 are part of a historical continuum: the ebb and flow of events in the life of our nation from Ninoy Aquino’s assassination to Cory Aquino’s death. Through four post-Marcos regimes --- Aquino, Ramos, Estrada and Macapagal-Arroyo --- Filipinos have realized the primordial importance of good governance. They have, realized, too, that good governance depends significantly on the integrity and purity of the heart of the leader.

The emergence of Noynoy Aquino as the leading presidential candidate for 2010 is an expression of the people’s sentiments, an echo of the people’s voice, or simply vox populi. These sentiments found concrete expression when two major historical events that occurred 26 years apart converged into a single defining moment during President Cory’s funeral last August 5.

Is vox populi also vox Dei?

Sen. Mar Roxas has framed this contest as one between good and evil. Some analysts deplore this formulation, characterizing it as being both naïve and simplistic. I agree with Sen. Roxas. Our people are weary and tired of corruption and decadence. They want somebody who will keep faith with their trust. And yes, they want a leader who is God-fearing and prayerful.

For any one of the other presidential contenders to chip away at Noynoy Aquino’s huge head start, such candidate must be able to define himself in a clear-cut way as a distinctive alternative. He, too, must be capable of connecting with the electorate in a way that generates genuine affection and empathy. In an era of high-definition technology, people want clear and bright images, not shades of grey. Those who aspire to claim the higher ground of political ascendancy must project themselves as being truly honest, sincere and trustworthy.

What can happen between now and May 10, 2010 that will erode Noynoy’s seemingly enormous advantage? Let’s consider possible scenarios.

Scenario A: Noynoy’s credibility is seriously eroded by scandals, or he is shown to be grossly incompetent or inferior to other candidates who are decidedly more eloquent and charismatic.

Scenario B: Another candidate is able to capture the imagination of the electorate through sleek advertising, skillful use of social networking in the Internet, and massive campaign logistics.

Scenario C: A major calamity or catastrophe happens, shifting the focus of the citizenry’s attention to the administration, gathering sympathy and support for outgoing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her anointed candidate.

What do the foregoing alternative scenarios have in common? The probability that any of these will, in fact, happen does not seem high or realistic.

Instead of peremptorily scoffing at the latest survey results, the other presidential candidates may do well to reexamine --- and redefine --- what is, in the language of marketing, their unique selling or value proposition. But first they must pay attention and listen to the voice of the people. Then, perhaps, they will understand better why our people are raising anew the Laban sign and singing Bayan Ko as the anthem of social change.

Searching for common ground

‘Sobra na, tama na, palitan na!’ was Cory Aquino’s battlecry. Millions of Filipinos responded to her call in sufficient numbers to bring about a People Power revolt. “Oust the dictator, restore democracy” was the common ground upon which a rainbow coalition was cobbled. A just cause and a credible leader --- these were the two salient factors that spelled the success of the yellow revolution.

What is the just cause and who is the credible leader that could unify our country today?

Today’s “just cause” is good governance. Nine years of a regime that flaunted its misuse of power and authority is more than enough. Graft and corruption have seeped through the entire bureaucracy. Our country’s competitiveness continues to slip further. Even without a global financial crisis, our economy is unable to grow at a pace that would meaningfully alleviate widespread poverty. The Philippines has one of the worst income distribution patterns in these regions. Decades of collusion between traditional elites and bureaucrat-capitalists who dominate our economic and political life have marginalized the lives of the teeming millions who populate the bottom of the pyramid.

But there are many presidential aspirants and an even more dizzying array of political parties that are wooing popular support behind candidacies and advocacies. Who among them is the most credible, the most competent and the most deserving?

That was the same dilemma facing Cory Aquino as she pondered on how to bring about a peaceful transition in 1992. Eventually, she chose General Fidel Ramos, her trusted ally through seven (he claims there were nine) coup attempts over other allies like Ramon Mitra, Jovito Salonga and (erstwhile Cabinet member) Miriam Defensor Santiago. Ranged against them were two opposition stalwarts, namely, Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Imelda Marcos. Allowing Imelda to return home proved to be a brilliant move as she neutralized Danding Cojuangco’s vaunted vote-getting prowess. Somehow, Mr. Ramos succeeded in winning over the most number among the Edsa and Cory faithful to pull off a squeaker over Madam Miriam.

Take your pick among the announced presidential wannabees (in alphabetical order): Joseph Estrada, Bayani Fernando, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, Fr. Ed Panlilio, Mar Roxas, Gilbert Teodoro and Manny Villar. Bring in Noli de Castro, Francis Escudero and Dick Gordon. And, of course, Noynoy Aquino’s name surfaced after his mother’s death and funeral.

In three months (by end-November), we will know for sure who among them will eventually pursue their avowed or imagined dreams for the presidency. Meantime, we should start a process of discernment that would enable us to make an informed decision.

I recall that in 2004, I chose Raul Roco over the two leading aspirants, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Fernando Poe, Jr. I chose Mr. Roco because I believed he was the best qualified I chose him despite the widespread belief that he could not win because I refused to choose “between the lesser of two evils” which was the way the choice that year was framed by conventional wisdom.

In 2010, I believe the choice must be based on who is the leader who can build on common ground and unify our nation behind an agenda of good governance for economic prosperity and global competitiveness. To be credible and acceptable, such a candidate must have both competence and character. Two competencies are essential: leadership ability and managerial expertise. Leadership ability means the ability to rally and unify our people.

Managerial expertise includes the administrative ability to manage the complexity of our political structures and processes. Cory Aquino had superior leadership ability and an acceptable level of managerial expertise. What she lacked in the latter she more than made up by choosing her people well, despite the challenges posed by the diversity of the rainbow coalition that supported her.

Using Cory Aquino as the standard, it may be difficult to find another candidate that could pass the character criterion. Integrity is used alternatively to denote the quality of wholeness, congruence, or consistency in thought, word, and deed. What made Mrs. Aquino stand out was that she was pure of heart --- a trait that may be nearly impossible to find among the present crop of aspirants. I believe our people want a leader they can trust and believe in.

But we must also recognize that these are different times and that the national mood --- while being similar in some respects to Edsa Uno --- is not exactly the same as the sentiments that prevailed in 1986. Yes, there is an outpouring of affection for President Cory and there is a growing outrage over the malpractices of her present-day successor. But there is a multiplicity of possible choices --- not just one clear choice. And the time of reckoning is near. Realpolitik will soon set in and pave the way for the emergence of the eventual contenders.

Do we want the return of a previous President who sees the election as a path to personal vindication? Do we want young --- even if inexperienced --- leaders who are offering themselves as fresh alternatives? Do we want to consider the standard-bearers of two traditional parties --- Liberal and Nacionalista --- who are projecting themselves as reformists of our age? While the case for change is all too evident and palpable, the jury is still out on who will lead the change. Let the spirit of President Cory guide us in our process of discernment.