|
Who's
Satisfied Now?
By Michael Alan Hamlin
May 28, 2001
Late last year I wrote an opinion piece for The Asian
Wall Street Journal with the headline, "An Estrada Conviction
Won't Satisfy." It produced some pretty typical responses -
especially among those who didn't read it carefully - from representatives
of groups supporting the impeachment of the former president. Since
anything that doesn't strictly conform to these interest groups
interests is considered heresy, some of the comments that editors
received were pretty disparaging. Nothing new in that, though.
My argument was straightforward: You may get what your
wish, and then you'll have to live with it. Now, that's happened,
as a result of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's acceptance of
her predecessor's request to be held under what's been not-so-creatively
dubbed hospital arrest. Ms. Arroyo's religious and activist supporters
are particularly incensed at her waffling. This would be a good
place for me to suggest, "I told you so."
My petty satisfaction with these developments is actually
very unsatisfying. After all, a president who suddenly begins reversing
formerly firm policy decisions always suffers from the perception
of weak leadership and poor decision-making. Decisions that have
to be quickly reversed are naturally bad decisions, and betray lack
of foresight, poor understanding of public sentiment, and a weak
backbone. And these are not the attributes the Philippines needs
- or wants - to have associated with the new administration.
But an argument can be made, at least in this case,
that Ms. Arroyo is actually remedying the effects of poor decision
making with better decision making. Not many, for instance, would
care to argue that the arrest of former president Joseph Estrada
would have been difficult to handle any worse than it was, or that
it wasn't a dreadful tactical error which contributed in a mighty
way to the indignation that fueled the May 1 violence at Malacañang's
gates. What's revealing about that decision is that it was made
- at least this is the perception - as a result of pressure from
the same groups who are now crying bitter tears over Mr. Estrada's
proposed hospital arrest.
While many believe that this is the perfect time to
demonstrate that crime - specifically, plunder - no longer pays
big dividends even in the Philippines, the benefits of that objective
must be weighed against both short- and medium-term costs. For a
president who spent May 1 the way Ms. Arroyo did, clearly satisfying
a broader constituency is the priority.
What of the moral rightness, or unrightness, of that
decision? Should the cost of morality preclude its practice? To
answer that question, it's necessary to remind ourselves that Mr.
Estrada was a democratically elected president. The specter of an
unelected president - even if we are to accept the constitutionality
of her succession - throwing her elected predecessor into jail is
not pretty and is itself an issue of moral rightness or wrongness
and not just propriety. Ms. Arroyo is president not because she
earned her job, but because Mr. Estrada failed to understand the
limits to his power and prerogative.
Does this mean that the power wielded by a constitutional
successor to a democratically elected president should be restrained,
either formally or informally? It most assuredly does. Now, this
is not to suggest that some infirmity characterize the administration
and its capacity to follow through on its decisions. Rather, it's
to suggest that there are certain decisions that shouldn't be made
in the first place. Like a decision that is clearly motivated by
emotions that have little to do with the notions of transparency
and justice, but instead reek of coarse vindictiveness. Especially
when those decisions may not be in the nation's best interests.
And there lies the question of morality: the nation's
best interest. That interest transcends all others for the simple
reason that the nation's best interests are synonymous with the
people's best interests, which the nation is to serve. Not a segment
of the people, and most certainly not a slice, but all the people.
What of the rule of law? Is it to be subject to the
shifting winds of political imperative, instead of hard and fast
rules of conduct? Certainly not. But there are matters of degree.
While Mr. Estrada should be in jail, at least until the time he
is convicted - and given the Ombudsman's record so far that's far
from a certain outcome - clearly he has a right to expect to be
treated as the nation's former head of state.
Last week I was asked why South Korea could parade
disgraced former presidents dressed in prison garb before media,
humiliating them before the world, and not be subject to the backlash
that this administration was on the strength of a mug photo. Well,
the answer to that question is obvious. In South Korea's case, a
democratically elected government pursued the two men.
And it was elected to do so.
(Mr. Hamlin is managing director of the consultancy
TeamAsia and the author of two books on Asian economies and managing
in Asia. His latest book is The New Asian Corporation: Managing
for the Future in Post-Crisis Asia. His e-mail address is mahamlin@teamasia.com.ph.)
|
