I am afraid that Sen. Aquilino Pimentel is off the mark by scoffing at the offer as mere ‘rumors’. "The offer was made" Sen. Angara said and his response has been positive. What he did deny was speculation on positions that would be on offer. He would like to help the country in the best way he can and cited his managerial experience would be helpful. In Germany he talked with leaders of the federal states (the equivalent of our governors) and he said the consensus was a very bad image of the Philippines. "We need to be credible as a country" Angara added. A government of unity would help boost that credibility.
In my opinion, the details of the offer are not as important as Angara’s willingness to consider a government of unity. He has proven his sincerity for cooperating with an administration in power during the Ramos administration when he shepherded the 13 bills for reform in the Senate and made possible the implementation of an economic program that moved the country forward. That is what Gov. Sally Perez-Zaldivar refers to as the FVR formula.
Pimentel is being less than candid by saying that Angara does not need to leave the opposition to be able to pass the necessary legislation to help the Arroyo administration. Given the political structure of the country and how politics has been conducted through the years, this alleged cooperation by ‘fiscalization’ is just not possible.
The Arroyo administration’s offer as well as Angara’s positive response bodes well for the country. It will be a departure from traditional politics and ought to be considered. Pimentel ought to know better that the Filipino electorate’s disappointment with politicians has less to do with fancy ‘fiscalizing’ that are often nothing more than personal vendetta. What Filipinos want is simply to get work done so the economy can move forward. That is the mandate for all politicians from whatever party.
The Angara response is not just about himself or his party or the opposition. The implications go far beyond that. It carries with it the weight of a new attitude that can change the political culture of this country. If it is true as Pimentel says that one does not have to be part of the government to help, it is also true that some pro-administration lawmakers have frustrated the government’s own program. I do not need to name names.
A government of unity, or the more formal ‘coalition’ is temporary combination of groups or individuals formed to pursue specific objectives through joint action. It is practice in other countries especially when squabbling political parties are hindering government action. The Philippine political context for coalition governments is something novel. It will evolve eventually according to our needs and objectives. But the concept of coalition governments is resorted to in multi-party countries, such as France or Italy and formed when no single party is strong enough to obtain an electoral majority. The coalition government then distributes political posts to representatives of all coalition members.
Such a coalition is especially timely when a country is in crisis. Angara’s positive move should not be an occasion for more ‘politicking’. It should be encouraged and dealt with positively.
It has indeed been an uncanny confluence of events and proves the adage that "truth is stranger than fiction." How the Palestinian problem will be worked out in the coming days is being watched keenly by the rest of the world. It will be a major challenge to the second Bush administration.
For the Philippines, what happens in the Middle East is of grave importance with millions of our kababayans living and working in that part of the world. Still our policy towards the region must be worked out in conjunction with the rest of Asia if it is to be meaningful. Once again it tells us that our future and fate is linked up with our neighbors and the great powers in the region who are now galloping to prosperity – China and India, and Japan which is an old hand.
It may be true that Yasser Arafat missed his chance as the architect of peace during his lifetime. But little is known on why he pulled back from the Oslo agreement. Some Middle East experts say he had agreed on everything else but when the issue of the return of Palestinians to their former abodes, the discussions hit a snag. Isn’t it ironic that Israelis should be so against the return of Palestinians when the very act of creating the state of Israel was motivated by the same desire to return home?
Watching Yasser Arafat’s tumultuous return to Ramallah reminded me of our own Ninoy Aquino’s funeral. It had the same collective passion of anger and grief. But that soon evaporated with the return to normalcy. Without a leader with the charisma and dedication of Arafat, it may be difficult to revive the passion that has accompanied the cause for the Palestinians. On the other hand, it offers an opportunity for a different kind of leadership to enable both Israelis and Palestinians to go back to the negotiating table.
The memory of Arafat addressing the United Nations General Assembly with a pistol strapped to his hip said it all. He was a contradiction but that is the way he responded to his people’s dilemma. It is not so strange when we consider Henry Kissinger’s own statement that diplomacy can only be won when it is backed with force.