Moral wealth and politics

There are two continuing events happening that bring to mind the issue of morality and politics. The first is the staying power of PGMA, in spite of all the efforts to unseat her from the Presidency, and the other is the expending of political and moral wealth by ex-President Aquino without the desired result. In the past few months of the political crisis, the level of moral outrage from the people was never widespread and high enough to remove the President. The tipping point was never reached and I doubt if it will ever be reached.

Has morality changed so much since the EDSA I revolution against Marcos and the EDSA II revolution against Estrada? Have people become morally numbed and callous? Since as far back as I can remember, which is some 50 years ago, vote buying and some election cheating was practiced in all elections. So, a certain degree of buying and cheating are actually tolerated by the people. Marcos got away with it against Osmeña because he would have won even without the cheating. But Marcos could not get away with it against Aquino, because people knew Marcos could not have won without cheating. The pent up emotions against the abuses of martial law had turned the people against Marcos, so the tipping point was reached and EDSA I happened.

The case of Estrada was not about election cheating. It was about Estrada's flaunting for all to see of his immoral ways, his womanizing, gambling, drunkenness, and corruption. He not only exceeded acceptable immoral behavior but also was parading and bragging about it. So the tipping point was reached and EDSA II happened.

Politics attracts certain kinds of people, and while I have met honest and principled politicians, the majority of them are perceived to have lesser moral scruples and more flexible principles. I still remember what my extremely political uncle said publicly that, " politics is a game of the devils," and what I read in a psychology journal which said, "most men who are unhappily married eventually enter politics." Both these quotes are sweeping statements, but both are qualified to admit exceptions, so there is still hope for some of our politicians.

This brings us to the point or the deduction, that the moral boundaries or limits that politicians are measured against are broader than for that others. People are more tolerant or provide a wider moral leeway to politicians as they would to priests, ministers, or to businessmen and other professionals. PGMA behaved like a politician, and did not do anything the opposition politicians would not do. So there is no grave or massive moral outrage, and no tipping point. On the other hand, they expected Cory Aquino to be better than the ordinary politician, so she wasted moral and political wealth by engaging in partisan politics, and these are difficult to recover.

It is imperative for society to keep its moral values stable. Moral values do change, but it should change as gradual and as little as possible to maintain social order. While it is the primary role of religion and the churches to keep moral order, business, social and political leaders have as much responsibility to do so to keep society functioning and progressing. The coming change in the Constitution and the political structure could be a step in the right direction, especially if it would change the moral dimensions of politicians.