In the last two weeks those who have declared and taken “Communal Action” on the ZTE Broadband scandal have also achieved a record for “communal vagueness”. In spite of all the Senate investigations, speeches and rallies, most people are quite unclear if not confused with what “Civil society and churches” really want and how to go about it.
Over the weekend I was asked to join a consultative meeting of Christian leaders in order to assess, pray, and determine what steps need to be taken for the country’s well being. I won’t be in the meeting but I did give the situation some thought. First and foremost I would dare say that the “situation” that many people refer to (which is the Jun Lozada exposé) is nowhere near or equivalent to the collective disappointment, distrust, or maybe even disgust felt by those against the Arroyo administration.
Any notion or belief that it would be sufficient as a catalyst for social and political change is unrealistic. This was clearly the perspective of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines which led to the vague guidance for Communal action. To force the issue would be like joining a race with no gas or going to war with no ammo. If it succeeds it would simply be another case of Mob rule.
Let us be clear that the Lozada case is about a man who confessed to working for and working with government officials and representatives of private corporations with full knowledge and collective intent to cheat, defraud and thereby plunder the Republic of the Philippines.
Subsequently the Lozada case is also a collective effort and a conspiracy to obstruct a lawful order of the Philippine Senate. In the process whether intentional or by circumstantial evidence Lozada found himself “forcibly abducted” and had serious reason to believe that those he counted on to protect him would seriously consider killing him. Lozada’s account and testimony was and still is an act of self-preservation and justified vengeance by betrayal. It is an eye for an eye!
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo may have betrayed the trust of the Filipino people. She may have even abandoned her allies and went back on her word and whatever honor she once displayed. She may have simply become just another “trapo”.
But what I realize in hindsight is that in terms of dealing with government or administrations, we often leave it to opinion makers, members of congress, or interest groups or media in general to castigate or condemn the people in power.
In spite of their various successes, civil society groups, various churches, and business groups don’t really “stay in the fight” and “in the process” involved in monitoring government, policies and conduct. These sectors give endorsements or funding during elections and then quietly stay in the sidelines only to reappear when they are directly affected in terms of profit losses or extrajudicial killings.
They allow the opportunists and the politicians to push them aside with claims that there should be a separation of Church and State. Businessmen lose interest and thereby lose representation. How can businessmen expect Congressmen and Senators and cabinet members to promote business? If they actually knew how to do it, these people would not be in politics!
When Bishop Lagdameo spoke on the need for a new kind of “People Power” he was not really far off the mark. Civil society groups cannot be “Rebellious mushrooms” that only come out in special seasons. At the moment we only have two kinds of political groups: the TRAPOS (traditional politicians) or the SAWA SA TRAPO who only come out when finally fed up!
Civil society groups have not been consistent in educating and creating consciousness on governance, these groups have not evolved from political interest to public interest. They have not matured from elitist to populist. As Jesus said those who would be masters must be servants first.
Even among churches there has been a failure to communicate the need for involvement and vigilance in government matters. Most church members only know about “politics” but have no understanding or appreciation of governance in relation to spiritual and moral teachings. Two or three Bible verses will never suffice to fill our moral abyss.
It is no surprise then that many religious or church going Filipinos have “tolerable limits for corruptions, standard or acceptable percentage of kickback and corruption”. Very few churches actually conduct meetings, seminars or conferences for real life appreciation and instruction on these matters. Given the size and impersonal nature of churches in general, there is a need to make this a regular need in terms of pastoral letters etc.
Former President Joseph Estrada once mentioned to me that when he was in Malacañang there was hardly anytime for prayer or spirituality. Only during his “imprisonment did he have all the time to read the Bible, hear mass, and attend Bible studies.
I have often wondered who exactly ministers to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo? I know she goes to mass and I am told that she is deeply religious. But the interesting question is to whom is she spiritually and morally accountable? Does she have someone who would not flinch, quiver or waiver and keep her confidence and still have the boldness and the compassion to tell her God’s truth?
This is a real and serious concern. Many if not all US presidents have written about the various occasions when they would turn to respected and wisdom filled spiritual leaders from different religions during times of great moral or political crisis. The question is: have the various respected religious leaders of this country made themselves available and have the political leaders conferred or worked at building these relations independent of what their advisers may say or think?
Lastly, businessmen all over the country have to stop treating or making their different clubs and associations as mere social or networking tools. They also have to stop certain individuals from using their memberships as leverage for influence or favor. One individual should never sell or use the club for personal or political interests. If the political interests of the Club and business is at stake then so be it. But never the opposite.