Mischief

Trust the New York Times to be most precise in its choice of words. When it editorialized on President Aquino’s moves to amend the Constitution, the Times accused him of “political mischief.”

“Mischief” is such an apt word. It calls up images of infantile misdemeanor, of immature politicking and of inane pronouncement. These are correct characterizations of the strange behavior of Aquino and his LP henchmen the past few weeks.

The idea of extending Aquino’s stay in office was first broached by Mar Roxas. After that, it was repeated in pro-administration social media sites. Eventually, the proposition was articulated rather superficially by the LP’s convenient mouth, Rep. Edgar Erice.

Although repeated over and over again, the proposition was never really fleshed out. There is no official LP position in the matter. It remains unclear if what is being proposed is term extension or a full second term. Either way, this will be unconstitutional.

Asked about this hobgoblin of an idea, Aquino himself was gossamer as could be. On the one hand, he expressed disinterest in a second term, talking of pigging out with his friends as ordinary citizen. On the other hand, he maintains he has yet to consult his “bosses” on the matter, citing a few anecdotes of people who walk up to him asking him to stay on.

This is not a responsible adult’s way of exercising presidential leadership.

To compound things, Aquino raised the possibility of constitutional amendments in terms of clipping the powers of the judiciary. The core legacy of the post-Edsa Revolution Constitution is the expanded powers of judicial review. Remove those powers and the judiciary becomes the most pitiful branch of government.

Aquino’s disdain for the Court’s adverse ruling on the DAP warped his sense of institutional proportion. He could not be restrained from, as NYT put it, “butting heads” with the judicial branch. More bluntly, he could not stand a Court that could say no to him.

For that matter, he could not stand any one or any institution that could say no to his whims. He has been utterly spoiled by a Cabinet of pathetic yes-men and an inner circle recruited principally to flatter him.

The problem, it seems, is attitudinal. Aquino could not stand criticism or unsolicited advice. He is by no means a consensus-builder who thrives on diversity of thought. He seems most comfortable listening to echoes of his own voice.

The repercussions of what might appear to be a character flaw is, however, institutional. This is a presidency that does not relish intelligent debate. Because of that, it impoverishes civic discourse. Instead of conducting policy debate, Aquino’s speeches are almost inevitably about taking potshots at pet peeves.

Democracy cannot thrive in the shadow of intolerant leadership. The dynamics of institutional checks and balances cannot flourish when the executive branch is constantly trying to suborn the other branches.

If this presidency is behaving erratically and irresponsibly, the blame must be put squarely on the horse-whisperers who have managed to choke the Palace with the tightest cordon sanitaire in our political history. This stranglehold was made possible because Aquino takes ideas depending on who said them and not on the independent merits of certain propositions.

Because they nurture political interests separate from the objective political interests of the President, these gatekeepers threaten to reduce their leader to laughing stock. Read carefully, the NYT editorial mocks Aquino, admonishing him to remain within constitutional bounds.

Last week, the Palace gate-keepers tried something truly inane.

In a vain effort to offset the propaganda impact of a protest rally at the Luneta, personalities identified with the Balay faction (Mar Roxas and his LP chorus) tried to convene a conference of “people’s organizations” supporting the continuation of Aquino’s “reforms.” That badly attended conference was composed entirely of Aquino appointees — LP apparatchiks and assorted hangers-on who owe their power and their pelf to the beleaguered leader.

Palace spokesmen, meanwhile, responded to the damaging NYT editorial with characteristic small-minded arrogance. While their trolls attacked the editorial as some sort of foreign intervention in our domestic affairs, the Palace mouthpieces tried to talk down the commentary as the product of people who do not understand our politics.

What is there the NYT failed to understand the mouthpieces do not say.

The prestigious paper, with the ability to shape global appreciation of our president, is simply saying Aquino must abide by the rules — and perhaps start behaving like mature and responsible political leaders do.

Jerry

By the time I entered the UP as a freshman, Jerry Barican was already an iconic figure. He was a key leader of the student movement that culminated in the First Quarter Storm. He was chair of the UP Student Council during a time it required extraordinary intelligence and exceptional eloquence to rise in campus politics.

Because I looked up to him with such awe, it was with great pride I shared the editorial page with him at the Manila Standard during the nineties. I always listened intently to his brilliant discourses, as an apprentice would to a sage, when we both served at the DBP board. I was always honored whenever he yielded to my judgment.

I saw Jerry a few months ago in a small dinner with other veterans of the turbulent decades. The conversation was memorable, as is usual when Jerry is there. We agreed to get together soon to conspire once more.

The last notice I received said Jerry was on life support after a massive stroke. Mortality tames the most tireless minds.