Among prominent Centrist Democrats are Konrad Adenauer, first chancellor of West Germany after World War II, and architect of the social market economy, Helmut Kohl, once chancellor of West Germany and unifier of Germany, Robert Schuman, French politician was a founder of the European Union and served both as head of government and foreign minister, Eduardo Frei Montalva, Chilean politician and also a former president and Patricio Aylwin, also of Chile who became president after the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
But it would be wrong to describe (as the hopelessly uninformed Senator Pangilinan did, when he described the council of state as just a cheering squad) the gathering as ‘a spur of the moment public relations.’ Only a few in the audience were aware of the hard work that went into it and Speaker JDV’s stubborn perseverance cracking the whip. Where others would recoil from such a grandiose backbreaking enterprise, Speaker JDV savored his hard-won triumph. An interfaith dialogue in Manila was his cherished wish, but how was it to be done?
A few months ago, when Speaker JDV and some Lakas-CMD congressmen visited CDI president and former Belgian PM Wilfred Martens in Brussels, the conference was just an idea and seemed an impossible dream. In many conversations he had with Lakas-CMD party members he insisted the Philippines was the right place for a dialogue of civilizations because our country is a melting pot of civilizations. As he tirelessly points out the party itself, with Christians and Muslims as partners, is a political showpiece. It can be done. So he put the two ideas together — the formal launch of the Centrist Democrats International in Asia-Pacific and an interfaith dialogue – in one occasion. He correctly calculated that if the aim of Centrist Democrats is to bring about a more peaceful world, it must begin with dialogue. Moreover, it cannot just be a dialogue among religions, it must be a dialogue of political parties. There were Shiites, Sunnis, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs in the group.
Religious peace is not a stand alone enterprise. If it is to succeed, all must work together for the economic advancement of the poor. That requires political will. On the political side, Speaker JDV has already secured commitments from Pakistan Muslim League, Indian National Congress, United Malaysian Nationalist Organization, Thai Rak Tai, URI Party of Korea and Funcinpec of Cambodia, to pool their political efforts together.
Yesterday’s dialogue has a history that began with the late Raul Manglapus. The Centrist (Christian) Democrats contacted him in the ’60s to seal fraternal ties with aspiring reformist Filipinos who then called their group the Christian Social Movement. It may be important to recall that even then a parliamentary federal government for the Philippines was already a vision. It was the young Helmut Kohl who came to Manila to bring reformist Filipinos into the CDI fold. Later Kohl would become arguably the most successful chancellor of Germany and the indefatigable promoter of the reunification between East and West Germany.
In a CDI election, Manglapus was elected vice-president. But by then he was ill and tired and looking for someone who could carry on his work with the group. That task fell to Jose de Venecia. I was still living in Europe when I, too, got involved with the Christian Democrats. At the time, CDI adopted presidential candidate Fidel V. Ramos as their model for Latin American military regimes shifting to democracies. They printed his speech which proclaimed civilian supremacy and sent it to every Christian democratic party in the world specially in Latin America with its failed military regimes. President GMA won her presidency under the aegis of Lakas. The so-called party triumvirate of GMA, FVR and JDV and their cause for charter change was long in the making and happened because of events beyond themselves. In a sense they are the heirs of a tradition of reform that began with Manglapus and Co.
I disagree we should have a Manny Pacquiao victory everyday to unite Filipinos. Nor is Manny Pacquiao as president desirable because his victory united Filipinos. We can rightfully be happy about his victory but that kind of unity cannot solve problems of nationhood. Those are two different things. The unity of the Filipino nation will need an infrastructure for unity, not the heroism of one man. It reminds me yet again of what one American writer said of EDSA. I’ve seen the poetry but where is the prose? By prose he referred to a true civil society when citizens interact everyday and grapple with common problems as the test of nationhood. This will not happen because of the arrival of a hero. The nation we desire and should build means a society with people talking and listening to each other, not blindly following a hero.
What we have is a deteriorating civic culture and no champion whether in sports or in politics can change that. We were spectators to one man’s battle and eventual victory. We may have been thrilled by his performance but that cannot move us to progress collectively. A character in one of German playwright Bertolt Brecht’s says, "Pity the nation that has no heroes," to which Galileo responds, "Pity the nation that needs them." All of us have to go out in the public square, not to cheer a hero but to assume our citizenship responsibilities. Citizens need to engage in a deliberative discussion about a common future. This will not happen if instead of working together to improve our collective situation, we fight with each other. Too often it is a contest for power masked as ‘moralism’. In media, words are used to polarize and destroy people. We must use our energy for building, not tearing down, the nation. For this task there is no glamor or euphoria, only a hard slug from day to day albeit with love of country in mind.