Divine right

You know things are getting pretty desperate when people turn to priests for political leadership.

The entire tradition of republicanism — the separation of clerical and temporal power — is turned inside out, upside down. Priests are accountable to God; statesmen are accountable to their publics.

All of modern political thought derives from Machiavelli’s keen insight about the separate logic that ought to guide statesmen. There is such a thing as political necessity: doing what must be done to use power effectively to serve the ends of political community.

There is no higher good than an effectively functioning public order because when that becomes unavailable all the other virtues that men expect from living in political communion are lost. The effective exercise of power and authority, therefore, cannot be constrained by the common rules of conduct that governs everyday transactions between men.

Machiavelli’s keen insight outraged the clerical authorities of his time. To this day his writings remain condemned by the guardians of doctrine, the same agency responsible for the Inquisition and all its horrors.

But it is that keen insight that forms the foundation of modern theories of democracy. If the keepers of dogma rule, there will be no freedom. If authority is imagined as divinely ordained, the ethic of rule by public consent becomes unimaginable.

Politics is always an uncertain course. Daily, every leader must deal with entirely unpredictable sets of circumstances. He cannot effectively function entirely on preconceived notions or inflexible doctrines.

Which is why I have always thought that the charge of “transactional politics” leveled by self-righteous critics of any and all administrations that governed us is conceptually suspect. All democratic politics is transactional. The leader must deal with diverse constituencies with contradictory demands. Every consensus can only be transitional. Political realism demands that we recognize that fact.

“Transactional politics” is a tautological phrase. It is a meaningless concept. As a weapon for political sniping, it is deceitful.

Every leader must build whatever consensus is possible to make governance possible. If the constituencies are principled, the consensus will be based on principle. If the constituencies are driven only by the most short-sighted self-interest, the consensus can only be based on what is most convenient for the moment.

Therefore, principled leadership can only be an outcome of a principled public. There cannot be effective principled leadership in the face of an unprincipled public. That is the essential dilemma our politics confronts.

By coincidence, I had just completed my final lecture on Machiavelli to my political philosophy class (on the concept of “necessity” and political realism) when news broke that Gov. Eddie “Among Ed” Panlilio of Pampanga declared he will run for President of the Republic as a matter of Divine calling. This is why I reflect on that decision in the manner I have done.

I had met with Among Ed once. This was as the votes in a tight gubernatorial race were still being counted in San Fernando. I had asked the DBP San Fernando branch to set up that meeting.

After the short pleasantries, we buckled down to business. I offered the incoming governor the Bank’s services. My initial idea was to front-load vital infrastructure needs of the province financed by securitizing the provincial government’s revenue flow from quarrying fees.

Pampanga, cursed by lahar, also benefits from this. The province could make millions daily by effectively managing quarrying activities and ensuring that the proper revenues flows to the proper authorities. With that money, roads and school buildings could be built. Investment could be attracted; jobs created.

I warned the priest-turned-politician, however, that securing the revenues from quarrying could put him on collision course with powerful mayors who wanted the revenues captured at their level. The provincial government could be at war with the municipal governments for control of a profitable resource. This was a political problem that needed to be properly managed.

After our brief meeting, I wondered to myself if I should have used the word “securitization.” The incoming governor did not seem to appreciate the dramatic possibilities that will be opened by borrowing money and repaying the debt with income from the centralization of quarrying revenue.

Perhaps it was the excitement of that moment that got in the way. The count was tight and contested. His supporters were running to and fro, preparing to hold vigil at the canvassing area.

At any rate, Among Ed did not get back to me since then. From afar, I watched as he tried to take control of quarrying revenues on behalf of the provincial government. As expected, that put him at war with his mayors. A recall petition has gained ground to unseat him.

I am not sure how the quarrying revenues were used in Pampanga. Deployed properly, these revenues could cure the province of poverty. It is always easier to squander revenues by indulging in the panacea of patronage.

Neither do I have a clear idea about how effective an economic manager of the province Among Ed has been. But his victory over the established political class in that province was surely inspiring to many. Now they have goaded him to seek the presidency, equating inspiring with effective political leadership.