Some Concom members (as published in The STAR yesterday) met with FVR earlier and knew the score. The former president was anxious that Concom (by a majority decision) recommended "no-el in 2007" as a transitory provision. He was concerned that charter change should not be derailed and alarm bells were ringing with the no-el provision. He was so alarmed he called it a ‘monumental blunder’. He was happy to meet with us so we could explain how the decision was reached about the recommendation. He wanted to be assured that the vote was not a Palace machination since he heard that the no-el provision was defeated on a first vote and passed only after a motion for reconsideration.
But there is more than meets the eye in former President FVR’s concern and it is not just about no-el. Sen. Drilon and Sen. Sotto may have got it all wrong if they thought this was the chink they were waiting for to bring the former president to break with the Arroyo administration. On one hand, he is concerned that President GMA should abide by her promises on charter change, on the other hand he would not risk a break with the Arroyo government. It is a tight maneuver but I know he will be up to the challenge.
If charter change is to happen, it will do so only with a strong, albeit uninterested (that is self-interest) party leadership behind the effort. It would be inconsistent for the former president to want political reforms through charter change and at the same time break with President GMA. That is also true with his relations with Speaker JDV. The three are tied to this together and all are aware, to use that phrase – together they stand, divided they fall. If Messrs. Drilon and Sotto met with FVR to break the alliance then they do not have a clue. The only real danger of a breakup in the party triumvirate will not come from any outside factor. It will come from within and it has more to do with character than it has with politics.
But what if former presidents FVR, Cory and Erap did coalesce? It would be formidable but I am afraid will not help us achieve much needed political reforms. On the contrary, such an alliance will set us back and return to square one and the politics of personalities which is what we are trying to get away from.
It would be bad for charter change for many reasons and certainly not through the offices of the Senate president who has fought charter change all the way. As for Cory, she has made her position clear from the start: she is against charter change. She considers the 1987 Constitution as her legacy and the accompanying text of the EDSA peaceful revolution. Erap did try to push charter change but was focused on the economic provisions. He is more concerned to return to power or at least help put people into power who would put him off the hook. For these reasons alone, any alliance between the three presidents, certainly not as far as FVR is concerned, is way off the mark.
Complementary to the Lakas-CMD meeting will be the Council of State on January 24 which I am told was on FVR’s initiative. The Council of State is the highest consultative and advisory body of the government. It was formed in 1987 by Cory. I don’t know if it is possible, but would think that this would be a good time to invite the more intelligent and responsible members of the Opposition since it serves as a forum "for the exchange of ideas, how to achieve national cooperation as well as propose meaningful reforms in government and advise the President on matters of public policy."
FVR may want to be a good party man but he has said often enough that, above all, he wants to unite the country. Is it possible to push and strengthen the Lakas CMD at the same time that he acts as a statesman able to reach out to the Opposition? It is. As it has already been suggested, his meeting with Messrs. Drilon and Sotto may have taken place with just that in mind. I hope it is taken in that light and no other. The former President has a role cut out for him as a unifying factor. Paradoxically, he can only be effective doing that when he has a strong party behind political reforms and able to see through charter change. To unify the country we need a responsible opposition on board if and when the shift to parliamentary government happens.
Instead of wasting time wishing for reconciliation, I wish the more intelligent members of opposition parties should begin to think about their own platform and devise better strategies as an alternative to the ruling party. That after all, is what a political party is for — to attain power in government. It is also not generally known that in parliamentary government, political parties have an elected leader who, if his or her party is elected, becomes head of government. So the real sparring will take place among party members and who they think would be best to lead them to victory. There are some very good men and women in the opposition who will have to buckle down to work and get their members on the ball instead of wishful thinking that they can break the Lakas CMD party triumvirate.