The Game-Changer

I've always wondered what path Ninoy Aquino would have chosen had he been the one who succeeded Ferdinand Marcos and his authoritarian regime. He spoke admiringly of autocrats such as Kemal Ataturk, Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung Hee. He famously pitied whoever would have to succeed Marcos. Steeped as he had been in the hard-nosed game of politics, he probably would have concluded that it would take a Marcos to clean up after Marcos. A strong president unencumbered in having to do the dirty deeds by the restraints of law or the dissents of others.

In that context, the 1986 Freedom Constitution is worth a second look. This provisional charter, intended to legitimize Corazon Aquino's assumption into power, emanated from a mandate of arms and was ratified with the consent of only one person -- Cory Aquino. It did retain many of the features of Marcos's authoritarian regime -- legislation by decree most prominently, and its pre-determined lifespan (until the ratification of the new Constitution) was dangerously indeterminate. Again, these undemocratic features arguably necessary to clean up after Marcos. Yet what is also striking is the abject commitment of Mrs. Aquino through the Freedom Constitution to adhere to the Bill of Rights -- the core of a free and democratic lifestyle -- which the charter decreed as remaining in effect. The Bill of Rights are notoriously inconvenient for strong presidencies, even those which are strong only out of necessity. The post-EDSA milieu could have easily tempted Aquino to do unto others what had been done unto her. Jailing recalcitrant opponents and rebels upon presidential command, silencing the remnants who spoke against the restoration of freedom -- these were easy temptations that could have been justified in the name of democratic rule and good government. Mrs. Aquino desisted.

What may ultimately endure as the more satisfying legacy is not Mrs. Aquino's pro-activity in assuming leadership in the anti-Marcos fight, but her acts of desistance. Having restored the basic democratic institutions, she desisted from reverting, from changing this equitable paradigm of governance even in the face of dire emergencies -- seven coup attempts, massive natural disasters, a failing economy and a crippling power crisis. She had insistent faith in the solvency of the democratic institutions embedded in the 1987 Constitution in fighting adversities that threatened the survival of the State. Mrs. Aquino likewise deserves credit for desisting from running again or even engaging in striptease hints that maybe she would if she could. In the end, the peaceful and democratic transition in 1992 remains an all-too unheralded achievement.

Mrs. Aquino deserves her share of the blame in the failed promise of her Presidency, most achingly the failure to deliver justice for the past as a component of the return of democratic rule. By 1992, it was socially unacceptable to be anything less than faintly derisive about the Aquino presidency and its failure to deliver a higher quality of life to the people. Yet in many respects, Mrs. Aquino sacrificed the short-term success of her administration to accommodate the birthing pains of our renewed democratic institutions -- a restrained presidency, a representative Congress, an independent judiciary, and a people who inalienable rights were guaranteed by the rule of law. We may still be quibbling about the same socio-economic problems that persisted under Mrs. Aquino's rule, but we do so still in an environment able to sustain active deliberation and dissent as the means of building consensus for moving forward, where the terms are not suppressed by dictation from self-regarding geniuses.

Mrs. Aquino's democratic vision was rooted in her respect for the consent of the governed over the presumed wisdom of the governing. We may remain impatient at the intricacies of building a grassroots democracy for some generations to come, but should it survive, her failures which we find all too easy to point out will ultimately be trivial.