The Most Important Question

Towards the end of last school year, a student asked the most important question ever.

“Sir, is it true that as one grows old, he becomes more practical?” Somehow he looked guilty. ”I am just worried that when the time comes, I will lose my ideals.”

What ideals? I asked.

“That there are things I want to do for this country. That I want it to be better.”

I recall fumbling for an answer. Caught unprepared, I didn’t have anything coherent to say. Or more likely I wasn’t ready to say what I really wanted to.

At that time, I was at a crossroads. The economic downturn left so many in a bad place, myself included. I was about to send myself off to graduate school, but my savings were nearly wiped out (one month I spent more for gasoline than food) and the prospects of finding a new, more fulfilling job simply wasn’t there. I was also at a sore spot emotionally. Despite being given a position of authority and responsibility in the school, support wasn’t given to me by the higher ups when I needed it most. It was demoralizing. It felt futile to dream, taboo to hope.

It was so difficult to answer that student because I just wanted to give up. I just wanted to take the easy way out and quit. So the plans I’ve set for my batch wouldn’t push through? “I’m sorry. It was beyond me.” The stress wasn’t worth the pay check. And the call center seemed so attractive all of a sudden. I was ready to say, “Yes, it is true what they say about growing old.”

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

But there was something wrong with what I wanted to say. It wasn’t true. To the very end, I struggled with the question. Then I stood in front of my classes for the last time.

There is simply no way to describe the anticipation in their eyes knowing that they were listening to me speak for the last time. They all knew that what I’m about to say won’t be in their exam, and yet the room fell so deeply silent that it drowned out the steady creaking of rusty chairs. And I began. (The following speech is still so vivid in my mind.)

“We often divide time into three parts: past, present, and future. Thinking of the present isn’t as easy as the past and the future. The former are those events that have already happened, and the latter are those that have yet to. We can’t pin down the present with the word “now” for even when we speak it, it has already passed. In the time we spend thinking of how to make the most of the here and now, we are already history.

“Very much like that man in the Daoist tale I often share. Chased by a tiger, he fell down a cliff only to save himself by grasping on a vine. He couldn’t climb down though for another tiger awaited below; he couldn’t climb up for the first tiger wouldn’t give up the chase. While he held on, two mice began to chew on the vine. Desperate with nowhere else to go, he held on tighter until an image slowly formed in a corner of his eye. A berry portruded from the cliff wall. Knowing that he is doomed anyway, he reached out, plucked the berry, and ate it.

“Even Daoism sees the present as merely caught in between the past and the future. Yet what it cultivates is a sense of the moment, an awareness that we are finite and fragile so while we live, we make most of our time. Indeed, there is no time like the present.

“Historian John Lewis Gaddis views time differently. He writes that time is composed of two components — continuities and contingencies. The former are those events that form patterns over time. Observing continuities allow us to establish everything from simple causalities to grand theories of the universe. Think of your daily routine; imagine the rigor of the scientists running repetitive stress tests on the Large Hadron Collider. In sequencing events we establish continuities, allowing us to find refuge in the Marxian adage, “history repeats itself.”

“On the other hand, contingencies are those events with no precedent. Just entertain the very notion of an accident. The birth of a great leader. A natural disaster (which science can only predict up to a point). An anomaly in space and time. Contingencies are what rattle us from our false sense of security, introducing a sense of unpredictablitiy and danger. These events can disrupt whole continuities or even create new ones. In failing to prepare ourselves for these strange events, we can echo the words of George Bernard Shaw, ‘We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.’

“Hence, how do we view the past, present, and future in the terms set by Gaddis? Imagine a singularity or a black hole — even simpler: a funnel. The narrow tube represents the past. At that point, continuities and contingencies have fused and can no longer be undone. Hence history becomes the science of observing this amalgam of events, deriving an understanding of how man and nature affect the course of time. The wider cone represents the open space where continuities and contingencies shift, race and move around. That is the future; unformed, undetermined and inchoate is its very nature. But all these converge into a point — the void itself — which mercilessly and indescriminately fuses all aspect of time into a single stream. That is the present. This is now.

“Thus, the present is where history is made.

“The other day, one of you asked me the most important Question I’ve ever received. That’s a Question with a capital Q, the sort that can change your life.

“He asked, ‘Sir, is it true that as someone grows older, he comes more practical? Is it true that they lose their ideals?’

“This is an interesting question. Considering that we just talked about ‘Freedom from Fear’ by Aung San Suu Kyi, I would like to end by sharing my answer to this question.

“First of all, let nobody tell you that it is wrong to want the better life. There is nothing wrong with wanting a fast car, a big house, and a job that can earn you millions before you even hit thirty. Just remember what all the religions we discussed had to say about happiness and fulfillment. As long as you are honest, upright, and true, then by all means seize the life you deserve.

“My only request is that if at one point in your life you feel compelled to undertake a cause greater than yourself, take the time to listen. Think about it. Maybe the voice will go away. But what if it doesn’t?

“Sadly, it is difficult to stand up for what you believe in. It shouldn’t be, but it is. For those of you who choose to answer the call, know that it will be tough. There will be many who will say you can’t; these are the pessimists. There will be more who say ‘don’t bother, be realistic, play it safe.’ These are the cynics. What these two have in common is that they find virtue in their apathy and wisdom in their ignorance. These are the people who try to shut their ears — they know they can’t, but they do so anyway.

“But dealing with the naysayers is easy. The true difficulty in standing by your beliefs is the amount of sacrifice you will have to make. Our country, quite frankly, needs a lot of work. We need more teachers. More doctors. More scientists. More public servants. But we need them here. We need more honesty. More fairness. More integrity. More passion. And we need them now.

“What many people miss is that our country is full of hope; we just have to work for it.

“So much has happened in my life that if things went another way, I wouldn’t be here speaking to you. I was supposed to be a lawyer. My salary now would be four times what I’m earning. With all the bills these days, I am paying for that decision now. But even early on I knew that it wasn’t what I wanted to do. I wanted to be part of something larger than myself. I wanted to change the world. Call it being idealistic, but this was real to me. It’s a big deal. And when I graduated college at 21, I knew that it was through teaching that I could attain this goal best.

“It wasn’t an easy decision to make. My father did not speak to me for months, and he reminds me of this every now and then. Without a fancy car or a big house, I will never measure up to success the way society has defined it. But it’s only because they’ll never measure up to success the way I define it either — that in being happy you allow others to be happy, and in embracing your possibilities you make things happen for other people.

“So I decided to work for the change I sought. And I hope that after everything has been said and done — and perhaps your awed silence is a sign — I did something right. I am sure that in the future, this means of attaining that goal will change. I will find another way other than teaching, and I will be needed elsewhere. I continue to dream and hope. But right now, this is where I am. This is my present.

“If it is in the present that history is made, then what are we waiting for? Thank you.”

As it turned out, our plans for the Batch pushed through and it all turned out really, really well. But what brings me back down this road is not a sense of nostalgia.

Now, more than ever, our country is at a crossroads. Some call it good versus evil. Rich versus poor. Idealism versus realism. No matter how you cut it though, we all have to take a stand somewhere. Whatever position we take will be difficult but there is no other moment. The question is — Are we ready?

A sea change in Philippine politics?

Indeed, the announcement of the Aquino-Roxas is as anti-climatic as these pronouncements can be. Yet, don’t let that dampen the fact that we have one really, really formidable team here. I wish them well in their campaign. I am inclined to support them, but I’m not writing platitudes and treatises yet. In due time.

This story caught my attention though — Anti-graft exec resigns to support LP tandem. This is really something else. There is no doubt that there is so much at stake in this election, and seeing someone walk away from a relatively secure lot in life to gamble all tells me a lot about this team.

Vis-a-vis traditional politicians such as Manny Villar and Gilbert Teodoro who proclaim that they don’t need to be popular as long as they get the vote of “the people that matter” and the support of governors and congressmen. We’re the ones voting, they know that, but apparently they don’t need us.

Pardon this quick comment. Will write more soon.

Introduction to Asian Civilizations 2009

I am pleased to share this year’s edition of my Introduction to Civilization PowerPoints for my Social Science 2: Asian Studies course. These presentations are tweaked every school year but I am extraordinarily pleased with this year’s result. This school year’s calendar change from two quarters to one semester allowed me to deliver these lectures at the pace I’ve always wanted and so I was able to emphasize a lot more points than I traditionally would have been able to.

DOWNLOAD THE INTRODUCTION TO ASIAN CIVILIZATIONS 2009 COMPLETE SET

To readers of this blog outside the Philippines, note that this is delivered at the 2nd year high school level (Grade 9) in a science high school for the gifted. The scope is rather wide and the discussion can be very advanced.

DOWNLOAD THE COURSE OUTLINE AND READING LIST

Download Introduction to Civilization

Download History of India

Download History of China

Download History of Islam

The Lost Promise, a review of Dan Brown’s “The Lost Symbol”

Robert Langdon is the 21st century urban man’s Indiana Jones. Instead of raiding catacombs in a remote region of South Asia, his adventures often begin in a capital of high culture. His haunts range from museums to grand churches, haunted by anyone from a misguided antisocial zealot to a secret society rooted in the ancient arts.

Where he deviates farthest away from Jones is his methodology. Instead of a raw, kick-ass-first-ask-questions-later approach to archaeology, Robert Langdon is a symbologist. Brown’s readers have long been captivated by his intricate and suspenseful use of art works, sculptures and buildings as carriers of hidden histories and veiled messages.

The thrill in Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code largely revolved around Langdon piecing disparate clues together to avoid one crisis while a greater one loomed in the shadows. Though Brown is not known to be a deft and prolific writer, he can bring the thrills to a degree no more competent than a summer action movie bringing on special effects and entertainment.

This is not a backhanded compliment though. In Robert Langdon, Brown has a character which can be a franchise unto himself in the same way James Bond and Jason Bourne have branched out more novels and crossed over to other media. But it all depends on how Dan Brown carries his own creation and where he’s willing to take him.

With The Lost Symbol, it seems that Dan Brown is not ready to take Robert Langdon to new heights.

In my opinion, this book may even be a new low. In terms of the character, this novel is the weakest of the three and that is despite Langdon’s feeble attempts to develop character through ubiquitous (and annoying) flashback sequences. What is odd is that Langdon seems to have grown even more skeptical. Despite saving the Pope from the Illuminati and unveiling the oldest secret of the Catholic Church, he has grown more stubborn and unshakable this time. That may be who he is, but it no longer feels right considering all he has done.

This is a crucial point for me to make. This has implications for how believable and convincing Brown can write Langdon as he deals with a new mystery and unlocks layers upon layers of strange yet familiar puzzles. That being said, Langdon comes across as highly unmotivated and uninspired throughout the book. At the end when the Ancient Mysteries are revealed to simply be a Bible buried under the Washington monument, you can feel the disbelief and exasperation flooding through Langdon. All this for just that? The irony is that the book spoke about transformation and enlightenment but its lead character came out the least transformed and the least enlightened.

So is Robert Langdon ready to be the next Indiana Jones, Jason Bourne, or James Bond? No. He seems to be ready for retirement.

I decided to focus on character for my review since there isn’t much to say about the plot except that it fails to serve as either a good vehicle for Robert Langdon or for the big ideas that Brown ambitiously sets out to discuss. It’s essentially a retread of The Da Vinci Code, though the puzzles are even weaker, the solutions are more contrived, and the deus ex machina is even more conveniently used this time around. We concede that Langdon is no Stephen King but his writing style is now beginning to border on the insulting.

Moreover, all the Brown archetypes are present: Langdon still goes around with a female co-star, he ends up dealing with a secret society, and there is still a lone crazy person stalking them. Last time it was the albino Silas, this time it is the tatooed Mal’ak — same difference.

I did appreciate how the book touches on humanist ideas, and yet the novel is so poor that I cannot recommend it to anyone serious about fully understanding the oneness of all religions and notions of God. My recommendation for that will still be the Brethren trilogy by Robyn Young which softly touches on the idea which spinning a powerful and compelling yarn about the Crusades.

So do I recommend this book? If this will the first Dan Brown book you read, sure. At least you won’t be as jaded as I am. But move on quickly to Angels & Demons and the vastly underrated Deception Point to see the best this author has to offer, then move on.

P.S. Morality War or Class War

Just after I posted the entry below on the elections as one about good and evil, I read an Inquirer article about Manny Villar framing the elections as one between rich and poor. What a bunch of BS coming from him!

Framing the election that way is even more divisive and dangerous. Remember Estrada? Villar is playing the trapo populist playbook. I don’t expect much of him and yet what he’s doing can ruin things for all us. But good for him. That is the point.

Once he said that he doesn’t need anyone’s blessing to be President. I guess he means our votes don’t really matter too. He is so awash in cash that his gameplan is to literally buy off his way to the presidency.

Not now, Villar. Not this time. Akala ko trapo, nun pala &@#O.

Even want me to consider you in this election, Villar? Face the Senate hearings.

Now back to your regular, reasoned programming.

Going Beyond Good and Evil

I have long recognized that next year’s vote is essentially a moral one. However there is a danger in couching our elections as a battle between good and evil. It simplifies what is in reality a complex political activity, and reduces our elections to the usual politics of personality.

It was supposed to be so easy.

There couldn’t be a more straightforward scenario than an unpopular President and an election year. Candidates will scramble to cast themselves as the anti-Arroyo, and voters will elect who they perceive to be the farthest from her. All they while both votee and voter will speak of competence, achievement, and vision; change, reform, and progress. And with the ascension of the Aquino son, the choice has apparently become so clear — at least that is what the latest SWS surveys (Sep 5 to 6) have begun to show.

I have long expressed that the upcoming vote we cast in 2010 is a moral vote. I mean this in the sense of taking personal responsibility over our political destiny which, in my view, enhances our citizenship and thus completes our humanity (for man is political by nature). Pardon the philosophizing, but the key concept here is citizenship, a process of participation in affairs that affect our lives and those of other people. This exercise requires discernment, debate, and engagement: we need to ascertain our position and feelings on issues, test how our views stand against other views and in the process enrich it, and allow ourselves the opportunity to bring our vision to reality. Casting a vote thus requires all three to be truly a fulfilling human — and not just political — act.

I have been cautiously optimistic about the rise of Noynoy Aqunio. While Randy David seems adamant that demagoguery has no place in modern politics, I can see why a lot perceive the moral vote to be one between good and evil. Nonetheless, I agree with him and see how it can be dangerous.

Firstly, I understand why next year’s vote seems to be so easy for some. Using my own categories for citizenship, what citizens can consider as politically evil are those forces that suppress discernment, debate, and engagement. The current regime of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo seemingly violates or suppresses all the three.

Their habit of concealing their activities (ie. executive privilege) does not allow for much discernment; moreover, they don’t take lightly to critics and have actually curtailed press freedoms; finally, majority of the population feel alienated by this administration: the tense aftermath of the 2004 elections and the ensuing turmoil and mistrust have severely violated our political rights. The inability to engage the system then becomes the root of both apathy and rage. Therefore the upcoming elections is an opportunity to expel this political evil and reallow the kind of citizenship we all look for.

In this sense, there is no surprise that the fight is perceived in Manichean terms. What else could it be then a contest between good and evil?

This leads me to my second point. Prof. David is also right to be concerned that we seem to be framing the elections as such a simple contest. At one point he even expresses his own frustration at our modern politicians who he feels should know better. He writes,

I don’t know what prompted Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, perhaps the most modern of those who have aspired for the presidency, to say in a recent Inquirer interview: “You know, this is good versus evil. This is tuwid versus baluktot. This is tama versus mali.” The interviewer, who had merely asked how he felt after his momentous withdrawal from the presidential race, wondered if she got it right: “As simple as that?” And Mar replied: “Yes. That’s why I was very willing to engage in this; it’s because it boils down to that. All the frustrations, all the anger, all the hopes of our people—it’s not anymore in the policy this or policy that. It’s just good versus evil. You know, that’s the campaign the reformists are going to wage.” Wow! I hope Mar uttered this more out of a sense of frustration than as a matter of conviction.

The problem with all this is that politics is never this simple. The words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are in themselves ambiguous and, at some distance, relative. In our own lives we discern what is good and evil based on many different categories: religion, education, economic class, interests, and so on. But politics is not an individual act. It is decision making at the collective level, and in critical moments when something has to be decided upon — our next President for instance — then people of different persuasions, backgrounds, and inclinations interact with each other to build consensus. For a democracy, the election is the primary mechanism for reaching this. It should be, by nature, free and fair.

There is no doubt that there are many forces that assault this sacred democratic institution. Traditional Philippine politics decided the votes not by number but by guns, goons, and gold. The shift to automation is done with so much skepticism and prudence to ensure that it does not tilt towards any single interest, group, or party. However, attitudes also matter. Casting our elections as one between good and evil endangers it by stifling discernment, quelling debate, and limiting engagement. Thus it is also anathema to real citizenship.

Observe what Mar Roxas said — All the frustrations, all the anger, all the hopes of our people—it’s not anymore in the policy this or policy that. It’s just good versus evil.

In essence he is saying that it doesn’t matter what we think. The choice is clear. Roxas is reducing the debate in a manner that any fundamentalist would. Like Osama bin Laden did. Like Bush did. “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”

Instead, what I would like to hear from any presidential candidate is not just an argument that defines them as the opposite of an unpopular incumbent, but as who they are. Presenting their platforms is the bare minimum. They should also argue for transparency, accountability, and openness — the counterpart virtues that a government must have towards its citizens.

Moreover, the candidates must show themselves capable of forming a coalition that will not just get them elected, but will also help them govern. This is done by defining an agenda and rallying the support of groups, policy makers, and citizens that care for the issues. Forming them behind the banner of good will not be enough. That good will have to be defined. Otherwise, we will have a repeat of 1986 where good was simply as the overthrow of Marcos. When the people achieved it, Cory Aquino was left to work miracles and fend off the wolves.

I trust that we have gone a long way since then. If the latest survey is to believed, there are a lot of forces coalescing around Noynoy Aquino. Nonetheless, for him to run on a platform of honesty and integrity is the least he could do. To earn my vote he — or any other candidate for that matter — must articulate his stand on issues and open direct channels with us citizens. That may not mean much in Philippine politics, but here’s hoping that it would. After all, a vote is cast with as much reason as there is faith.

My initial thoughts on the candidacy of Noynoy Aquino

Just one: My thoughts in this post remain unchanged.

I am waiting to see the shape the race eventually takes. There are so many variables, so many unknowns, that any commentary at this moment can only be quite self-indulgent. So much more can happen. Noynoy Aquino will not be the President of the Philippines yet.

Ninoy Aquino’s letter to his son, Noynoy

Now that you’ve thrown your hat into the ring, Sen. Aquino, it would help to remember the face of your father.

LIHAM NI NINOY KAY NOYNOY

August 25, 1973

Fort Bonifacio

11:30pm

Mr. Benigno S. Aquino III

P E R S O N A L

My dearest Son:

One of these days, when you have completed your studies I am sure you will have the opportunity to visit many countries. And in your travels you will witness a bullfight.

In Spanish bullfighting as you know, a man – the matador – is pitted against an angry bull.

The man goads the bull to extreme anger and madness. Then a moment comes when the bull, maddened, bleeding and covered with darts, feeling his last moment has come, stops rushing about and grimly turns his face on the man with the scarlet “muleta” and sword. The Spaniards call this “the moment of truth.” This is the climax of the bullfight.

This afternoon, I have arrived at my own moment of truth. After a lengthy conference with my lawyers, Senators Jovito R. Salonga and Lorenzo M. Tanada I made a very crucial and vital decision that will surely affect all our lives: mommie’s, your sisters’, yours and all our loved ones as well as mine.

I have decided not to participate in the proceedings of the Military Commission assigned to try the charges filed against me by the army prosecution staff. As you know, I’ve been charged with illegal possession of firearms, violation of RA 1700 otherwise known as the “Anti-Subversion Act” and murder.

You are still too young to grasp the full impact of my decision. Briefly: by not participating in the proceedings, I will not be represented by counsel, the prosecution will present its witnesses without any cross examinations, I will not put up any defense, I will remain passive and quiet through the entire trial and I will merely await the verdict. Inasmuch as it will be a completely one-sided affair, I suppose it is reasonable to expect the maximum penalty will be given to me. I expect to be sentenced to imprisonment the rest of my natural life, or possibly be sent to stand before a firing squad. By adopting the course of action I decided upon this afternoon, I have literally decided to walk into the very jaws of death.

You may ask: why did you do it?

Son, my decision is an act of conscience. It is an act of protest against the structures of injustice that have been imposed upon our hapless countrymen. Futile and puny, as it will surely appear to many, it is my last act of defiance against tyranny and dictatorship.

You are my only son. You carry my name and the name of my father. I have no material wealth to leave you. I never had time to make money while I was in the hire of our people.

For this I am very sorry. I had hopes of building a little nest egg for you. I bought a ranch in Masbate in the hope that after ten or fifteen years, the coconut trees I planted there would be yielding enough to assure you a modest but comfortable existence.

Unfortunately, I had to sell all our properties as I fought battle after political battle as a beleaguered member of the opposition. And after the last battle, I had more obligations than assets.

The only valuable asset I can bequeath to you now is the name you carry. I have tried my best during my years of public service to keep that name untarnished and respected, unmarked by sorry compromises for expediency. I now pass it on to you, as good, I pray, as when my father, your grandfather passed it on to me.

I prepared a statement which I intend to read before the military commission on Monday at the opening of my trial. I hope the commission members will be understanding and kind enough to allow me to read my statement into the record. This may well be my first and only participation in the entire proceedings.

In this statement, I said: Some people suggested that I beg for mercy from the present powers that be. Son, this I cannot do in conscience. I would rather die on my feet with honor, than live on bended knees in shame.

Your great grandfather, Gen. Servilliano Aquino was twice condemned to death by both the Spaniards and the American colonizers. Fortunately, he survived both by a twist of fate.

Your grandfather, my father was also imprisoned by the Americans because he loved his people more than the Americans who colonized us. He was finally vindicated. Our ancestors have shared the pains, the sorrows and the anguish of Mother Filipinas when she was in bondage.

It is a rare privilege for me to join the Motherland in the dark dungeon where she was led back by one of her own sons whom she lavished with love and glory.

I ended my statement thus: I have chosen to follow my conscience and accept the tyrant’s revenge.

It takes little effort to stop a tyrant. I have no doubt in the ultimate victory of right over wrong, of evil over good, in the awakening of the Filipino.

Forgive me for passing unto your young shoulders the great responsibility for our family. I trust you will love your mother and your sisters and lavish them with the care and protection I would have given them.

I was barely fifteen years old when my father died. His death was my most traumatic experience. I loved and hero-worshipped him so much, I wanted to join him in his grave when he passed away. But as in all sorrows, eventually they are washed away by the rains of time.

In the coming years, I hope you will study very hard so that you will have a solid foundation on which to build your future. I may no longer be around to give you my fatherly advice. I have asked many of your uncles to help you along should the need arise and I pray you will have the humility to drink from their fountain of experiences.

Look after your two younger sisters with understanding and affection. Viel and Krissy will need your umbrella of protection for a long time. Krissy is still very young and fate has been most unkind to both of us. Our parting came too soon. Please make up for me. Take care of her as I would have taken care of her with patience and warm affection.

Finally, stand by your mother as she stood beside me through the buffeting winds of crisis and uncertainties firm and resolute and uncowed. I pray to God, you inherit her indomitable spirit and her rare brand of silent courage.

I had hopes of introducing you to my friends, showing you the world and guide you through the maze of survival. I am afraid, you will now have to go it alone without your guide.

The only advice I can give you: Live with honor and follow your conscience.

There is no greater nation on earth than our Motherland. No greater people than our own. Serve them with all your heart, with all your might and with all your strength.

Son, the ball is now in your hands.

Lovingly,

Dad

The only valuable asset I can bequeath to you now is the name you carry. Live with honor and follow your conscience.

Just following the lead of JuanCountry. Thank you for that.

Noynoy Aquino, The Last Emperor

The Aquino Dynasty is about to enter its final phase. Will Noynoy Aquino earn his place in history or squander his parents’ legacy?

Something interesting is happening around Noynoy Aquino. The upswell of support for him and his family in the wake of Cory’s demise is combining with the long-boiling dissatisfaction towards traditional politicians epitomized by Arroyo to form a political perfect storm that can quite literally catapult him from relative obscurity to the highest office in the land.

People seem to be willing to put aside their cynicism in the face of something — someone — more hopeful. After all, since Erap we have vowed to steer away from the politics of personality. And despite the shortcomings of Arroyo, we assert that we still need a leader of competence to lead our country into the 21st century. Yet, with an election year in the horizon, we seem too ready to forget new commitments and cling onto warm and familiar categories. In our want to move away from an era of political dynasties, we find refuge in the most popular one of all.

Columnists and pundits are describing next year’s vote as one between good and evil. Comparisons to the twilight era of Martial Law are rife. And the rise of the reluctant Aquino son is said to draw parallels with that of his mother’s. However, isn’t it that by equating our situation this 2009 to 1986, there is a real danger of throwing the development of our politics twenty three years back? There is some mischievous irony here: that in wanting to move ahead, we resort to how we used to do it. Could a vote for Noynoy Aquino be a vote for the past?

Our people demand a lot from our politicians. Nonetheless I find it odd that when pushed to a corner, we easily settle for the next best thing. For too long we have been lulled into a false choice: Either we have a candidate of virtue and principle, or one of political talent and technical ability. Why not both? Is that too much to ask?

Let’s take a look at those currently leading the presidential surveys.

Manny Villar is shaping up to be truly formidable. With a clear track record in the House and Senate, and a compelling personal history as an entrepreneur, he seems to have it made. His electoral war chest runs deep and he has been aggressively campaigning for the past two years. His image among the masses is excellent and if the elections were to be held now, he will win. However, he falls apart under closer scrutiny. He hasn’t been as forthcoming about his businesses. Despite his mass appeal, he elicits a lot of cynicism and caution from the more educated classes. A lot foresee a Thaksin Shinawatra in the making — with all he spends now, he will undoubtedly seek a return on his investment. There is still the possibility that deep within Villar is an altruist, yet everything he has done and shown so far suggests nothing but the oligarch of old, the traditional politician we so desparately want to move away from.

Francis Escudero is a deft, young politico with so much to prove. He is intelligent, incisive, but despite his oratorical ability and everything he has said so far, we still do not know him. I liken him to that honor student in class who works his way to the top by dutifully performing everything expected of him, but without any effort to be original and unique. In his many ‘brilliant’ tirades against the Arroyo government, he doesn’t come from a position of principle but of pandering. He plays into the crowd, winning you over despite his thin track record, disguising his pretentiousness as competence. This is unfortunate, for there really is potential in him. He needs to engage himself more in policy debates — his disdain for high school mathematics is really pure ignorance — and prove that behind his smooth stinging oratory is actual accomplishment. He needs to deserve the words he says.

And finally, Joseph Estrada. Most historical analyses would brand EDSA Dos as a mistake. It didn’t have the same grassroots ground swell that really defined People Power 1986, and was largely an elitist uprising. It left the Presidency open to the highest bidder, forcing Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to compromise with the dregs of the political right if only to hold on to power and build a working majority in the House. Erap Estrada deserves his vindication — but at what cost? During his short term our institutions were not corrupt, but they were ineffectual. He practiced a highly personalized form of leadership that has been the norm since pre-colonial times. I feel that his style is anti-thetical to the more nuanced and balanced posture the Presidency requires. But then again my opinion may not matter due to his sheer mass appeal.

If elections were to be held today, these three would receive majority of the votes with Villar claiming the top spot. Yet, unease remains. For despite their overwhelming popularity, they are all still deemend unworthy, particularly by the upper and middle classes who have long sought for a higher standard of leadership.

Hence we run to Noynoy Aquino. He is a man who has neither the resources nor track record of Villar. In yesterday’s press conference, we saw him a world apart from Escudero. And will the Aquino name be enough to shift the masses away from Estrada? What does he really have going for him?

Noynoy Aquino is a virtual unknown in the national stage. To many he is the anti-thesis of the traditional Filipino politician, primarily because of his reluctance and seeming refusal to grab on to power. He is a blank slate upon which people can easily project whatever it is they want to see. All he has to his name is his name. The legacies of Ninoy and Cory Aquino are too powerful for him to simply squander and put to waste, or so many would like to believe. But if indeed, as his sisters attest, Noy maintains clean and incorruptible, will he be able to rally the people to his cause? Will he be able to inspire us to sacrifice for the country because it is the least we can do? That power to summon is part of the Aquino legacy too.

After all, the success of Noynoy Aquino will not rely on him alone. At this point, he cannot win through a traditional campaign. Moreover, he knows that he cannot usher in change and reform by governing alone. In last night’s press conference, he expressed reluctance that his victory may only lull us into falling back into old ways — we implore the President to work miracles, and usher them out when they fail to do so. Thus, a vote for him should not be a return to the past. It must be our opportunity as a people to set things right the second time around.

In declaring a weekend retreat to discern his final choice, he is actually inviting us to discern too — are we ready to help usher in the change we seek?

In guarding against corruption and fighting against those who break the law, are we ready to be honest in all our affairs and follow the rules?

In wanting to lift our country out of poverty, will we find the time to volunteer, reach out, and engage in a profession that may not pay well but is sorely needed?

In protecting our freedom of speech, will we be responsible for the things we say? In guaranteeing our right to assemble, will we work together for the right things?

In believing that our country will see a better day, will we stand by it, work in it, and give more of ourselves not because we must but because it is the right thing to do?

For this is where democracy is headed. It doesn’t end with the ballot. It merely starts there. In May 2010, we will be twenty four years away from People Power 1986. It might be the year where we show the world how little we’ve changed, or it might be the year that we show the world how it is done once again.

It is only if we work together to make our country a better place will Aquino’s intergrity really amount to something. He knows this. When he stepped behind the podium last night, mulling over the words he had to say, he already knew it. There is a reason why the Aquino Dynasty endures. Because their lives — and this election — is not about them.

It’s about us.

Noynoy Aquino’s Momentous Non-announcement

That was it?

After the surprising grace from Mar Roxas last night, Noynoy responds in what I could only describe as a buzzkill. And this evening revealed the fundamental weakness of Noynoy Aquino — his lack of charisma. But first let’s define some terms.

Charisma is an internal quality. It is an abstract combination of character, conviction, and confidence. Charisma is what allows you to believe another person because of the qualities and values he possesses; moreover, he is able to clearly and convincingly convey them to you. On the other hand, popularity is an external quality. It relies largely on the validation of others, and whether you do enough to earn that validation. While charisma is often innate, popularity is something that is subject to more revision and change. It goes with the temper of the times.

A successful politician requires both. However, to receive what Noynoy asks of us, he will need tons of charisma. Right now, he is merely (and dangerously) popular. Let me explain.

There is nothing wrong with what he said. As a matter of fact, he said all the right things. The problem was, he didn’t come across as convincing. I understand the need for more spiritual discernment, but that could work both ways. It can either show Noynoy as the devout son and a thinking anti-politico, or it can show Aquino as weak, indecisive, and unconfident. His performance titlted to the latter.

Take the following simple sentence from a recent campaign speech.

“This election is not about me. It’s about you.”

Very simple. Possibly cliche. Yet delivered by Barack Obama, it was powerful. Crushing, even.

The problem with Noynoy is that he’s taking a page out of the Obama playbook. He answered one press question brilliantly — with hardly any funds, how can you wage a traditional campaign?

His answered impressed me. It even had shades of the new politics we saw last night. Aquino said that the solution is simple: we don’t resort to a traditional campaign. He then cited the random acts of volunterism that inspired him to play a larger role — the tarpaulins, the uncommissioned surveys, the yellow shirt drives, and so on.

What he is after is a grassroots campaign built on the backs of ordinary people. I agree. That is precisely what we need. But a campaign such as this needs to be built. Yet seeing Noynoy fumble, stutter, and even squint at the page during his speech didn’t exactly inspire confidence. So am I to give my time, resources, and hopes to that person?

It is by no means an insurmountable weakness. During the campaign, his sister Kris alone can make up for his charisma deficit. But people will be voting for him. It is he who will be possibly governing. We need to vote Noynoy for who he is and not who we want him to be, because once he is in power we will rely on him to discern and decide for the good of the country. And to be able to do that, he will have to talk to us. He will need to explain his decisions, converse with us about policy, and keep our trust. I agree, results matter. But if Aquino really expects us to be with him as he works for change, then he will have to deliver more than just results. He will have to keep us believing and hoping, and this is something only a person of great charisma can deliver.

I am not looking for someone who has just charisma either. If I were I’d be voting for Estrada.

Some may suggest that his lack of charisma is actually a plus for Aquino. I cannot see how it is. We are a people who are easily dissatisfied with our rulers. We set an impossible standard for Noynoy Aquino and when he fails to meet those (as all our Presidents eventually will), then there will be forces that will hunger for his overthrow. True, that can always be avoided. For that he will need the people to stand by him, but I believe I’ve already made my point.

P.S.

Pardon if I have such high standards, but one problem of Philippine society is that we tend to settle for the mediocre. Puwede na raw ang puwede na. But no. Just enough should never be enough.

Truth is, I am inclined to vote for an Aquino-Roxas ticket, and it is for this reason that I expect more from them. If I come across as too scrutinizing and picky, it is only because I too am discerning my choice.

I recognize that I will never find everything that I am looking for in a candidate. I am looking for someone who can instigate reform from above — someone principled, honest, and firm — while inspiring a transformation from below through leadership by example. This is a high standard which no human can possibly match, so the least I should have when I cast my vote is some peace of mind. Of a slew of possibilities, I want to choose one I can live with. Sadly, voting for abstain does not appeal to me despite this. I want to have a legitimate say in how government is run.

I really am concerned for Noynoy’s lack of charisma. My greatest fear is that he, despite doing everything to the best of his abilities, will frustrate. Or maybe, I am just not giving our people enough credit. Perhaps the political culture has changed. Perhaps people will participate more in government. I really hope so.

I know that there is something I can do to help Noynoy in his campaign and even beyond. I just have to see him for what he is, and not just rely on my own aspirations of what he should be. If I will devote my time, resources, and talents to a candidate, it has to be someone I believe in personally. Trust takes time. And since I can’t meet Noynoy personally (yet), then I will have to filter and study everything that comes through the media.

Anyway, the campaign period for the Liberal Party has effectively begun. I will be watching very, very closely. I am one with everyone in our desire for change.