In about eight months, the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will be part of history as she prepares to step down as president of the Philippines on June 30, 2010. After her visit to US President Barack Obama where he voiced America’s concern to see “the democratic process take place” by pushing through with the May 2010 elections, all indications point to the fact that Charter change is no longer viable at this time.
But there are a lot of speculations that GMA will continue to be a visible and active part of the political landscape after her term, judging from the frequent visits she has been making to Lubao, Pampanga (as of last count, 34 times since the start of this year), making people wonder if she will run as congresswoman for the province’s second district.
The latest Social Weather Stations survey still shows GMA receiving a negative satisfaction rating at -38 (lower than the -31 she received last June), echoing the results of an earlier Pulse Asia survey showing low trust and performance ratings for her.
It’s very difficult for any president to maintain high satisfaction and approval ratings if one has been in power for so long. And in the case of GMA, she has been the longest-staying president after Ferdinand Marcos. A lot of people admit, however, that she has done well compared to her predecessors as far as the economy is concerned. Her allies have come to her defense by pointing out that governance is not based on popularity but on a strong political will, and that GMA is doing what she thinks is best for the country regardless of public opinion.
It’s rather interesting to note the parallelisms shared by George W. Bush and GMA. They are children of former presidents, and both assumed the presidency under a cloud of suspicion regarding the legitimacy of their tenure. In the case of George Bush, he lost the popular vote to Al Gore but a US Supreme Court decision stopping the Florida recount effectively made him the winner in the 2000 US elections. Like Gloria Arroyo, Bush was also hounded by low approval and satisfaction ratings especially when he was nearing the end of his term. As a matter of fact, he was dubbed as the most unpopular president in America’s contemporary history.
GMA was swept to power through abnormal circumstances brought about by a confluence of events that resulted in EDSA 2. At the time, there was so much hope and high expectations from the people that “change” would immediately come, as if all the problems of this country would magically vanish the minute a new president stepped into Malacañang.
This was the same notion people had with EDSA I - that everything would come up roses, so to speak, because they were successful in getting rid of the previous occupant of Malacañang. Which is why when things didn’t turn out as they envisioned, and when the painful bite of reality started to sink in, disappointment and frustration followed.
This is probably the reason why many are hoping that when the euphoria and emotionalism over the passing away of Mrs. Cory Aquino subsides, people will begin to look at Noynoy Aquino for who he is as an individual, and lift the burden they have (some say, unfairly) placed on the young man’s shoulders by constantly putting him under the shadow of his parents and their legacy.
After all, Filipinos must vote for the next president because they believe in his vision for this country and are convinced that he has the capability, the experience and the political will to do what is needed without getting swayed by people who are motivated by an agenda other than genuine love and concern for this country and its people.
Which is why even the 1987 Constitution (which many criticize as a “knee-jerk reaction”) is becoming a source of dissatisfaction for many Filipinos. Some say the six-year single-term provision is too long for a bad president, but too short for a good one. This is precisely why there are now suggestions for us to go back to the previous system that gives the president a four-year term with an option for reelection.
Others go so far as to suggest changing the system altogether into a setup that would allow a popularly elected president to sit with “ceremonial” or limited powers, while a prime minister — who could be changed by a no-confidence vote from his peers in parliament — would be running the day-to-day affairs of government. Obviously, now is not the time to start pushing for Charter change but after the May 2010 elections. Hopefully, the next president will have a broader vision that will prioritize economic progress over political “vendetta.” After all, we should all be students of history and learn from past mistakes.
In any case, the recent calamity should tell us the most important things that have to be done to recover what was lost, and rebuild the lives and property that were destroyed in the process.
It would be fair to say that in spite of the challenges faced by this nation, and amid all the destruction that has been wrought on this country, GMA is doing what she can to keep the economy resilient and moving. When all is said and done, GMA’s ultimate act would be to exit peacefully and turn over the reins of government to the next president — and let history be the final judge on how she performed as president.
* * *
E-mail: babeseyeview@yahoo.com