Character Change first, not Charter Change?

When Catholic Bishops of the Philippines president, Bishop Angel Lagdameo, called for character change first before charter change during that "thanksgiving" prayer rally at the Quirino Grandstand, he himself had to endure charges of grandstanding.

Many knew he was referring to the politicians who were pushing chacha, through either an allegedly "bogus" people’s initiative or a "self-serving" constituent assembly, pointedly accusing them of deep character flaws.

The objects of his opprobrium quickly replied that, indeed, everyone would benefit by character change . . . everyone, including bishops! Cassocks, they harrumphed, are not necessarily badges of impeccable character. Ouch!

The day after Christmas is a good time to reflect on how we might improve ourselves, and perhaps embark on character change. But do we all understand what character means? When we pretend to judge whether or not others have character, do we agree on the standards against which all of us must be measured?

To start with, in light of the context in which the call was made, I guess the good Bishop meant to ascribe the most egregious character defects to those who were brazen enough to force charter change down the throats of an unwilling populace.

These lowest of the low, he probably thought, were so fixated on hanging on to power that they were willing to despoil our democracy and foist a monstrous fraud upon the Filipino people. These devils incarnate must see the light, walk the earth in sackcloth and transform themselves into latter-day facsimiles of Mother Teresa and Lorenzo Ruiz.

The reaction to the Bishop’s admonition was mixed. Some thought it was an overdue and eminently correct rebuke of unscrupulous advocates of unwanted, unnecessary and untimely charter change.

Others did not appreciate the Bishop’s public demonizing of chacha advocates. The latter swear they acted selflessly, in utmost good faith, consistent with the dictates of conscience and with nothing but the public good as guiding star.

But, as we all know, the road to perdition is lined with good intentions. So, is there an objective test of character? Who decides if a person has indeed achieved a salutary change in character? How does one ascertain that he has "changed," that his character upgrades are not wholly imagined or the illegitimate issue of self-deception?

Clearly, a good character imposes very high standards of conduct. My trusty Synonym Finder, for instance, lists the following virtues in defining character: "integrity, honesty, honor, courage, strength, fortitude, backbone, respectability, rectitude, uprightness, morality, goodness, truthfulness, frankness, sincerity, conscientiousness, scrupulousness." Wow! Do such men exist in real life?

Still, my Synonym Finder forgot one trait, without which one cannot be said, even if possessed of all the foregoing sterling qualities, to be a person of character. That missing virtue is humility. Remember the injunction that pride goeth before the fall?

On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if one so abundantly blessed would flaunt his good fortune and miss no chance to arrogantly strut his stuff.

"Character" is seen not only in individuals but in nations as well. Theodore Roosevelt once famously said, "It is character that counts in a nation as in man…those solid qualities which we group together under the name of character – sobriety, steadfastness, the sense of obligation toward one’s neighbor and one’s God, hard common sense, and, combined with it, the lift of generous enthusiasm toward whatever is right These are the qualities which go to make up true national greatness."

Bishops can, of course, be excused their bully pulpits. It is, after all, their duty to speak out against moral deficiency and teach the correct path to truth. But in real life, elected representatives of the people are often presented with alternative political options in working towards ends which they honestly perceive to be in the public interest.

Often, the choice is not between the clear right and the obvious wrong but between two, more or less equal, goods. Sometimes, a public servant just tries to find the lesser evil. Other times, he has no choice but to test constitutional limits to suggest‘ guidelines for future action. Politics, in other words, is seldom catechism.

Specifically, is the debate over charter change, as well as the proper method to be utilized in achieving constitutional change, resolved by a simplistic formula which states that those who espouse chacha through people’s initiative or constituent assembly are demons while those who advocate it, utilizing a constitutional convention, are angels?

When Bishop Lagdameo spoke of character change, was he thinking only of the Great Satans, while the angels, i.e. those who espoused Con Con or opposed any chacha, could look forward to the Promised Land, free as they were of any character lapses?

Does he deny the possibility that pro-chacha, pro-PI or pro-Con Ass stalwarts, who act on the basis of an honest evaluation of where the long-term public interest lies and how constitutional prescriptions may be interpreted, may be blessed with similarly unassailable character?

In my book, not even misperception of where the real public interest lies, or outright error in choosing a particular mode of achieving charter change, indicates a flawed character, if neither is contaminated with fraudulent intent. In a democracy, we don’t always converge on the best way to achieve progress, both national and individual.

I can concede that priests are authoritative when it comes to matters of faith and morality. I will even grant that in certain instances, the clergy should speak out vigorously on political matters which impinge on religious belief.

But while I might respectfully listen to their remarks on primarily political or legal issues, with merely tangential or incidental religious import, I do not consider their views and admonitions to be the final word on the subject. Practically everything can be claimed to have religious import, even if such a claim is a bit of a stretch.

Such views, like a call for character change, must be tested in the marketplace of ideas. Those who feel they are referred to in that call are entitled to their right to reply. They might even be allowed to indulge in a bit of finger-pointing of their own.