A politics of the personal

Dr. Melba Maggay

I must confess I am one of those who felt that the attempt at areprise of the People Power saga, this time a signature campaign for the designated heir of the Aquino legacy, Senator Noynoy Aquino,was a throwback to some old diseases of the traditional electoralsystem â

€

“ personalism and the predilection to fall back on tiredpolitical symbols.But seeing on television the announcement of Noynoy’scandidacy, I was unaccountably moved to tears. It could not beaccounted, I think, to the resurfacing of the color yellow and all thememories of what that meant for those of us who risked our lives atthe EDSA barricades more than two decades ago. It has more to do, Iguess, with the sense that once again, in the face of the degradationof this nation to its lowest levels of moral and institutional declensionunder the Arroyo regime, high and low alike are closing ranks andshowing that there is in our citizenry a deep wellspring of decency,honor and love of country that may yet bring us to a new phase in our quest for a governance that truly serves the people.What accounts for this resurgence of hope? Let me mention justtwo.One is the growing language of “sacrifice.” Senator Mar Roxasled the way, followed by Pampanga Governor Ed Panlilio, and nowKiko Pangilinan who has indicated willingness to bow out of the vicepresidential race if Roxas ends up as the Liberal Party candidate for the post. Roxasâ

€

™ withdrawal in favor of Aquino’s bid for thepresidency was, for once, a truly classy act for a member of one of the country’s longstanding political and social elites. This is apromising sign, not only for the future of the party, but for theresurrection of party discipline and the rise of a breed of politicianswho are able to set aside personal ambition for the sake of the

country.The other, more important element is the almost quixoticpersistence of hope among ordinary people that their small acts of political conviction will bear fruit. Once again, behind the star playersis the visibility of spontaneous popular support.“People power” had been hijacked by various elite interests and putto opportunistic uses since it emerged as a tool for expressingpolitical disfavor. But it needs to be recognized that its origins aregenuinely sourced from the depths of the culture, an authenticexpression of what our people are. Warmly emotional andempathetic, we are moved, not so much by ideology or ideas, but bypeople, particularly by those who evoke our sense of solidarity. Weare not roused by platforms nor by some abstract political principle,but by a shared sense of injustice and victimization. This is becauseat the core of the culture is this sense of shared identity, and itparticularly surfaces when we feel a collective injury, whether it be for the likes of Flor Contemplacion or Ninoy.It is not an accident that the people’s slogan for the murdered Ninoywas “Hindi Ka Nag-iisa.” Or that his frail, simple widow in yellowshould rise to become a symbol of a people’s long suppressedprotest against strongman rule. I suspect that the massive outpouringof grief on the occasion of her death bore a similar message: thepeople were mourning the loss, not just of a well-loved political saint,but of the hopes for a forlorn democracy that she helped establishand symbolized. What people call “Cory magic” is really the fact thatshe happens to have become what sociologists call a “habitus” of apeople’s longings for a decent government. Then as now, she was afoil to a corrupt regime; in showing up for her funeral, the people weremaking a statement on what this current administration is not.That our people locate their hopes, not so much in a system but in aperson they can trust, is sound. We have all the necessary“hardware” of structures in place -a system of checks and balances,

formal separation of powers, even a Constitution that prohibitspolitical dynasties. The trouble is without the subjective “software” of values and norms that will make these structures operative, they willcontinue to serve merely as apparatus for advancing the interests of those in power. You can not have a modern bureaucracy whereeveryone is treated fairly without the values that make strict rule-keeping possible.But strictly speaking, what we are witnessing is not the politicsof personalism but the power of the personal. People are not drawnto Noynoy because of personal charisma, as with the case of JosephEstrada. Like Cory who was seen as a mere housewife, he is not, atthis juncture, considered experienced nor competent enough. He isnot even visually appealing.But Noynoy has something that is of utmost importance: alegacy that people can trust. As a vendor puts it, “

Kahit paano, ‘yang mga Aquino, di yan nagnanakaw.”

The man himself seems to have asimplicity that the sophisticated among us may find lacking in theusual flair and

gravitas

that catapults leaders to power. But perhaps,for this very reason, he may yet connect with those whose major concern is not pizzazz but that the country will not be robbed blindagain.Social trust, like social capital, is one of those intangibles that oilthe machinery of governance and just about everything that requiresconfidence. Businessmen who belong to the Davos crowd do notinvest nor do business in a country where the rules are slippery andunofficial saliva substitutes for firm and straightforward contracts. Amajor task of leadership is the capacity to inspire faith in the integrityand efficacy of its institutions. Societies fail when the trust level is solow that people can not even take the word of their leaders seriously,much less begin to cooperate and build things together.Certainly, there are other, more complex requirements for governance. But this is where we begin, in our cultural and social