Last week the international press had much to say about this President, the leader of a country which is a strong ally of the United States, and how he behaved towards that ally. This President won 39 percent of the vote. He is serving a single six-year term with no re-election as mandated by the Constitution. This country loves boxing and was an integral part of the galleon trade of Spain in the 1800s. Are we talking here of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte? Nope. We’re talking about Enrique Pena Nieto of Mexico.
Pena Nieto, one of the rock stars of last 2015’s APEC summit in Manila, received a large amount of criticism for taking a meeting with Donald Trump. Trump’s campaign and positioning as a US “Strongman” has called for deportation of illegal Mexicans (many of them criminal in his words) and to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He even boasts that he would “make the Mexicans pay for it.”
Despite this type of commentary, Mexico’s Finance Minister arranged a visit by Trump to Mexico City and a meeting with President Pena Nieto. Clearly Enrique Pena Nieto is no Rody Duterte. He stood silently as Trump repeated some of his policies. He did not curse, did not criticize. Instead of projecting the strong man image, he came across as weak. And, remember, Trump is not even the President yet. He’s just a candidate.
The aftermath: Pena Nieto’s approval rating, already at all-time lows of 21 percent, is headed to single digits. His Finance minister resigned. The Mexico press and public are all lambasting his performance.
So perhaps our own Rody D came across too strongly. But his 90 percent approval rating likely shows that we prefer leaders stronger than weak. Mexicans agree. Though for both countries something like what Goldilocks chose with the three bears – not too strong, not too weak, but “just right” – should be the norm as our President takes his place among his global peers.
It will be interesting down the road if Trump actually wins the US Presidency and what the dynamics will be between two colorful strongmen. It could be that they embrace as similar types – Trump is already complimenting Russia’s Putin after all. But if antagonism shows up early, it will be fun to watch the cage match between Rody D and the Donald. (Thank you, my brother Emmanuel “Manny”Maceda, for this contribution.)
FLIP-FLOPS. The flip-flop virus inhabits Congress, the House of the People, where loyalties are as firm as the desert’s shifting sands. The irrepressible Secretary Leonor Briones once lovingly referred to it as the House of butterflies. Of course, there was a time when the Supreme Court had to battle its own flip-flop epidemic with certain judicial decisions.
Malacanang is clearly not immune from this malaise. Last Thursday, Secretary Martin Andanar of the Presidential Communications Office, in the face of inconsistent statements from the President’s men, clarified that it is really only Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella that can speak for the Palace. The President himself has had a change of heart on several issues: from Constitutional Convention to Constituent Assembly; on Vice President Leni Robredo’s cabinet position; online gambling; his personal apology to Pope, among others. Even his decision to run for President was an about face. For now, it seems that his only firm position is to allow the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
For the President, an about face is never a loss of face. And it shouldn’t be. After all, in his case, it has always ever been a one time flip-flop only, never followed by a reflip-reflop afterward. Before his inauguration, he even gamely promised a metamorphosis. To the strong man, embracing change can also mean bravely training the magnifying glass on himself.
One of his latest changes of heart is the decision to postpone the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections. From coming out strongly against it: “when you end there, you end there,” he has now come out strongly in favor of the proposal.
The House of Representatives and the Senate have dutifully voted to postpone. For newly elected Congressmen and local government officials, this is an early Christmas gift. The official Comelec line, at least of the Comelec Chairman, was election fatigue. Euphemism for spending fatigue. Well, the postponement with its attendant hold-over provision, mercifully spares them the need to fund barangay candidacies. Plus, it gives them pogi points with barangay leaders rewarded with term extensions. Only the brave would dare stand up to oppose this and add his name to the hit list of every barangay official in his electoral district.
Practical arguments. Ostensibly, the postponement skirts the appointments and public works bans that accompany every election. This new government deserves an open road o “bukas na daan” to accelerate public spending and to position its own bureaucracy.
The prohibitive cost is also blamed though it will be an equal spend whether elections are held this year or next. It is, arguably, more expensive to postpone as the Comelec has already started printing the ballots.
The contra arguments rest on more substantive grounds. The postponement is really non-democratic because the hold over provision gives these elected officials a free pass. Public officials hold their positions at the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot. A postponement sacrifices the voters right to choose. For most Filipinos this is the election that means the most. Juan de la Cruz would be lucky to get to see or meet a President, Senator up close. But your barangay officials are an ever present reality. This is the most direct representative relation.
The spectre of drug money contributions, raised as another compelling reason to postpone, is actually an argument to proceed. If the drug menace has reached these big proportions then it could only have been possible through the explicit or implicit acquiescence of the barangay. To extend is to perpetuate.
We should never tire of elections. They rejuvenate democratic values. Practical savings can never match the cost of a postponement in terms of the loss of this most fundamental privilege of citizenship.