Urgent tasks (3)

The tone of his presidency is entirely up to Benigno Simeon Aquino III to set. That tone will be set on Day One, in his inaugural address.

There are a few elementary things to keep in mind when setting the tone for the next administration. The most obvious thing is that the incoming administration will preside over the nation’s affairs for six years, not six weeks.

I mention this obvious point because there will always be a tendency to remain trapped in the mindset and rhetoric of the last bruising campaign. If the incoming president remains trapped in that mindset, it will be speaking to a narrow constituency and will likely be looking at the past rather than at the future.

The second elementary thing to consider is that the inaugural address is not the culmination of an electoral battle where the victor crows and pours vinegar on the wounds of the vanquished. That speech will mark the commencement of a new episode in our political history. The speech must tell us why this is a starting point rather than just an indistinguishable moment in the cyclical movement of things.

The line of demarcation should be the high point of the inaugural. Joseph Estrada, in 1998, delivered what had to be a classic high point: “walang kamakamaganak, walang kumpakumpare …!” His was going to be a people’s presidency, acting on behalf of the downtrodden and no longer a government of the elite.

In the light of what happened subsequently, however, that fine piece of political rhetoric is now replayed mainly as a parody on the quality of rule he actually delivered. It is now a classic on the emptiness of promises politicians make. The well-crafted message of the speech clashes head-on with the reality of cronyism, corruption and collusion that resulted in that administration’s abrupt termination.

There is a lesson to be learned here: avoid being too soaring in what one says. The people remember. The speech will be fully documented. It could be replayed against the evidence at some later time.

The third elementary thing to note about the inaugural address is that is delivered by the leader of the nation, not by the chieftain of a faction. In which case, it should be inclusive and not exclusive. It should be above the fray and not party to the riot. It is usually magnanimous and conciliatory rather than vengeful and divisive.

By what it says, the inaugural address may either be an invitation to a season of political peace or a warrant for a season of partisan warfare. No ifs and buts about this. The incoming president either calls for cooperation or declares war.

There have been warlike inaugurals, to be sure. But they were delivered to rally a nation against an external foe, not to divide the community and make it vulnerable to those who seek to destroy it.

The fourth elementary thing about inaugural speeches is that they should be designed to manage expectations. Nothing is more disastrous for a statesman than to stoke expectations so that they set the stage for failure. That should not be an excuse, however, for the speech lacking ambitiousness. If the speech promises nothing, it will be a letdown. If it promises too much, it will not be believable — and the new administration will launch itself in the midst of a credibility crisis.

When Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed the presidency in abrupt circumstances, she promised to be a “good president” and not a “great president.” There was an overdose of humility here, I think. It was too careful about managing expectations that it sounded conservative. It set the tone for the people to be unimpressed with the leadership that was just assuming the reins of office. It contrasted too sharply with the dramatic events leading to that inaugural address.

I recall that when Fidel Ramos assumed office in 1992, he delivered a speech that pretty much sounded like a military memo. Testament to that is that I do not recall a single line from that speech — considering I observe political speeches more keenly than the average man on the street.

But, on hindsight, that was exactly the tone of his entire presidency. There were no high points, no moment of great drama, and no uncertainty. It was work, work, work, go, go, go!

The Ramos inaugural speech was a drone. So was his entire presidency. Those who recall the Ramos years with fondness (as I do) largely appreciate the fact that it was uneventful in a good way. There were no traumatic tragedies, no suspenseful turning points. After all the turbulence of the preceding years, and the years after that, this was a season of restfulness and recovery.

Ramos’ idea of the post of President of the Republic was that this was the office of the general manager of Philippines Inc. After all the mess we have gotten into, he was our Mr. Fix-it. That was what he was elected for: the man who will pull things together and put the nation back to work.

Cory, of course, took office in revolutionary circumstances. She was the heroine of a people’s heroic struggle against tyranny. On her shoulders we rested the task of restoring democracy. Never mind putting the nation to work. We mainly wanted our freedoms back.

Noynoy must take care not to mimic his mother. Cory assumed leadership in the most extraordinary conditions; Noynoy in the most ordinary ones. Cory inaugurated not merely a presidency but also a revolutionary government; Noynoy is inaugurating just a presidency. Cory, when she assumed power, had to defend the new regime against armed counter-revolutionaries; Noynoy is the choice of the Establishment.

Filipinos, more than any other people, play with words irreverently. They can turn tragic phrases into comic ones; the sublime into the most banal.

Noynoy, in setting the tone for his presidency, must choose his words well so that he minimizes the risk of being caricatured on his first day at work.