Black and white

We’ve heard many times from wise people that ‘it is never black or white’ when there is a need to resolve a conflict or achieve a compromise. The virtue behind the wise saying is humility, the admission of man’s limitation to encompass the whole truth to justify absolute judgments. Indeed it is a dictum that has held human beings together. It is an acceptance that no one has the monopoly of either goodness or truth. In historical instances when men arrogated to themselves the monopoly of goodness or truth, we have had unspeakable crimes committed for their sake – the Inquisition in the medieval times and Ground Zero in Cambodia under Pol Pot in modern times. There are others.

Whoever was responsible for giving the name black and white for the movement has done it a disservice. Why "Black and White?" According to e-mail being circulated, it is because "cheating is a moral issue where there are no gray areas. There’s only black and white." To emphasize their cause, the advocates dress in black and white during their gatherings. They claim they are the middle forces who have adopted the name to demand the resignation, impeachment, or ouster of GMA.

To my mind, it reveals intolerance more than it strengthens the case for justice and truth. The group may not have intended it that way but adopting ‘black and white’ as a guiding principle, implies inflexibility that can dangerously lead to extremism. It is strange that educated individuals could have been unaware that intolerance is the bane of our times – with peoples and religions arrogantly claiming their truths should be imposed on everyone else. You can abstract acts from their context only in theory. But in the complexity of reality, acts are never just true or false in themselves. They always have a context. That is why rule of law is the arbiter in conflicting claims for truth and justice.

The underlying presumption of the black and white movement is it is enough to make accusations. Even if the accusations were true, justice demands it go through the mill of rules of evidence and formal litigation. I think that a lot of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of ‘impeachment’. It is not about seeking conviction of an impeachable official but his or her removal from office. If the vote of confidence is in President GMA’s favor, then she will not be removed from office. Legal conviction goes to another forum, a court of justice, not Congress.

I remember a long talk with the late Justice Francis Garchitorena about the cases against Marcoses and cronies. Why have there been no convictions when everyone knew they were guilty of the accusations? Because, he said, preserving the rule of law was more important. Unless the truth is established within the parameters of our justice system, we would invite chaos and in the end sacrifice justice itself. It may be paradoxical but the law is more concerned to protect the innocent than it is on convicting the guilty. The presumption of innocence is a time-honored principle. We could, he said convict the Marcoses given the facts but we would have to prove it legally (here he blamed the sloppy work of government prosecutors) or we destroy the foundation of democratic society.

Perhaps, the issue is better understood if we put it in a biblical parable – the story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It is said that St. Mary Magdalene whose feast day was celebrated last July 22 was a well known sinner, a prostitute when she first met Jesus. The story goes that she so regretted her evil life that when she met him she knelt and wept at his feet. She wiped his feet with her beautiful long hair and anointed them with expensive perfume. That disgusted other followers of Jesus that he should let such a sinner touch him. But rather than pander to their prejudices, Jesus said he could see into Mary’s heart and said "Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved very much." He then turned to Mary and said kindly, "Your faith has made you safe; go in peace." From then on she became a faithful apostle ever present to serve regardless of her own safety and wellbeing. She was rewarded for her faithfulness. When Jesus rose from the dead, the Bible says, he showed himself first to Mary Magdalene, the repentant sinner.

It is unfortunate that Ninoy’s widow, Cory Aquino should lend her name to resurrect her husband’s assassination as a symbol of the black and white movement. If I remember right Ninoy Aquino, despite all the death threats, came home to wish only reconciliation with the Marcoses as the hope of uniting the country. It was not in the spirit of black and white that he came. If it were he would not have taken that route. Black and white came later from partisans who could not even bring themselves to such sacrifice and bravery. It was they who would later use his martyrdom for their own ends. It cheapens his sacrifice to use it for those who claim moral superiority.

Neither will black and white calls unite the nation. People see through such hypocrisy. The demand for President GMA to resign or be ousted because she ‘cheated’ comes too late, almost an afterthought. If the black and white group were so morally incensed, then they should have launched their movement not on August 22, the death anniversary of Ninoy Aquino but as soon as she was proclaimed winner. The black and white movement could then have marshaled their evidence and brought it before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Nothing of the sort was done. Susan Roces and a motley of followers were by their lone selves while the rest of those who would now launch black and white were busy trying to get their share of the spoils from Malacañang. Then FPJ died and the Supreme Court closed any speculation: an electoral protest can only be made by the aggrieved party. It cannot be passed on as an inheritance.

In a democratic and pluralistic society it is a pipe dream to demand that people be united in the sense that they should not differ. If that is what black and white advocates want, then they are better off addressing a different audience perhaps somewhere in the middle ages. That is how totalitarian states are born. Only black and white. The essence of democracy is the protection of the right to differ. This is what we should avoid at all cost, to treat those who differ from us as morally inferior. What we most need at this time is how to live with each other no matter our differences. The saving grace of such a way of life is the rule of law, no matter how flawed, if we are to live in harmony in a pluralistic society.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]