Not for the weak-hearted

As the Philippine government moves closer to the moment of truth whether President GMA will support charter change in the next Congress, I am reminded of my favorite character in English literature, Joseph Conrad’s Lord Jim.

Jim is a British seaman aboard the Patna, with 800 pilgrims to Mecca. He and other officers abandon ship before it sinks, leaving the passengers to the mercy of the sea. But the ship is saved and towed to port and the officers, including Jim, are tried. At the trial, Jim meets Marlow (Conrad as narrator ) who tells the story. He says Jim told him that he would have wanted to refuse to leave the boat, or help those abandoning it, but he ‘tripped during a swell and stumbled into a departing lifeboat.’ It may appear that he too was a coward and by not revealing the truth before the ship was towed into port, he participated in their crime, but he pleaded that was not the whole truth.

This loss of nerve hounded him throughout his life. Happily he is luckier than most among those who dishonor themselves, he was given a second chance. You have to read the book to find out what happened later.

The point of using Jim’s character in this column is to highlight the thin line that divides courage and cowardice. It may not be recognizable to less sensitive consciences but Jim knew there was no excuse for leaving the ship and he suffered all his life for that moment of failure.

The same opportunity to be heroic is being presented to President GMA. She has been luckier than other presidents before her and I daresay FVR would have given his left and right arms to have been given the same opportunity to preside over the fate of our ship of state as long as she had. At the same time we are at a critical juncture of our nationhood. Some say, in a sinking state.

There is just no way to go but forward and upward. The problem being presented to us is crystal clear – we have to reform our constitution, shift to parliamentary federal government if we are to keep up with the times. But it will require heroic courage. Let me say at once that such an enterprise is not for the weak-hearted. It is strewn with formidable enemies. She will have to summon all the strength she can muster for this massive heave to push the country into the 21st century against all odds. May I add, that her biggest adversary is not the establishment or neo-colonials. It will be her conscience, which like Lord Jim, can be made pliant. But if this country fails, this loss of nerve will gnaw at her all her life.

I am afraid that nothing constitutional reform advocates will say or argue about can make her lead the country to make that difficult journey. The passage from conscience to action is entirely personal. She alone will have to wrestle with her conscience when she decides. She will have to look into herself, on just what she wants to be remembered for. Higher GNPs, improved peso rates, tax reforms – all this are ephemeral and meaningless – in the larger picture of history in which I would think she would want to be remembered by generations to come.

* * *

I am not surprised that some charter change advocates are losing heart and are now mouthing the very same excuses their critics use, albeit in ‘acceptable’ language. Two-step, three-step, make it five-step if you must, if the idea is to achieve perfect conditions for charter reform. That will or does not happen in life. It reminds me of early days in the founding of this nation when Filipinos were killed for resisting the notion that they were not ready for democracy. Of all the conditions being trotted out, before we should reform, the one that asks us to change our hearts and minds first, takes the cake. Our founding fathers taught us how to fight not just for freedom but also for self-determination. These two concepts are not the same and we can be misled into thinking that we are free and yet not determine our own fate.

Charter change puts us into a catch-22 situation. The original catch in catch 22 was an air force regulation that "a man is considered insane if he willingly continues to fly dangerous combat missions, but that if he makes the necessary formal request to be relieved of such missions, the very act of making the request proves that he is sane and therefore ineligible to be relieved." The term catch-22 became a term for "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem". There are other meanings including damn if you do and damn if you don’t. Again, in our supposedly democratic society there are a multitude of opinions and excuses to stop charter change even if the very problems we face are a result of a system that has been proven to have failed.

By the way, may I repeat, no one but no one advocating charter change does in any way allege that it is a panacea. It merely means taking up the tools of government used by a host of nations around the world to keep up with the challenge of the times. Are we ready to take up the challenge?

In parliamentary democracies such as Thailand, Japan and India, at least the country’s leader runs the country until the day his or her party or coalition loses its majority. Governments are judged not by their ability to outmaneuver an obstructive legislature, but by their policies and how they are implemented. That is a more efficient form of democracy than what we have in the Philippines. (even if Congress finally passed the VAT bill). With that in mind, Filipinos should not limit their focus on elections, even if it needs to be reformed. Just as importantly, if not more importantly, there is the question of how we make good governance possible. It isn’t just elections that are worrying although admittedly there are problems; the more dangerous and more relevant is what happens after elections.

LETTERS. From Rommel Arguelles of Lingkod Bayan radio program from Batangas City who has been following "the issue of charter change with interest not only as a citizen of the republic but as a radio commentator." Although he had doubts about the need for charter change he has now changed his mind. Reading your column, he said helps me clear my mind on the proposition. But more than that, my inclination to support cha-cha this time is due to the absence of credible arguments against it." His radio program (Lingkod-bayan over DWAW 999 kHz. 7:00-8:30 A.M. Mon. thru Fri.) has enlisted to be part of the Coalition for Charter Change Now.

Sonny Habacon wrote he fully agrees with the timeliness of charter change. "I hope that the lawmakers would put their act together to push through with this very important decision for our country. He agrees with a unicameral parliament, because ‘then there would be no third congress (bicameral conference committee), there would be less expenses in the campaign of the assemblymen (smaller CDF). ‘ He also believes that forming a constituent assembly would be the fastest and least expensive. He thinks lawmakers should present the possible changes in the constitution as soon as possible.

E-mail:[email protected] or [email protected]