HOTSPOT
Tonyo Cruz
Former President Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III’s sudden passing on June 24 shocked a nation reeling from the pandemic and his successor’s response to it.
Statements of condolences from across the political spectrum immediately flooded mainstream media and social media, in a manner befitting a former president.
With his passing at a relatively young age of 61, Aquino forces us Filipinos to honestly and courageously evaluate and assess him as a Philippine president. This, even as we condole with his family for their loss and respect their knowledge of him as a brother, uncle, nephew and friend.
For me, Aquino earned praise for the Philippines’ landmark triumph over China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration which an analyst summarized this way: “A nearly across-the-board win for the Philippines, and a searing verdict on the lawfulness of China’s artificial island construction and other actions in the South China Sea.”
Online, Aquino’s most ardent defenders are repeating a select litany of his political victories and positive personal attributes, with some even going so far as to claim he has heroic virtues. They denounce those who level legitimate criticisms and critiques of Aquino’s presidency, as if citizens have no right or obligation to do so.
The attempts to paint a one-sided, positive view of the Aquino political record is not only being untruthful. It is also being unkind and unfair to him and the public he supposedly served as “boss.” In this case, the very people who Aquino called his “boss” should be given the widest latitude to remember, assess and evaluate his presidency.
We have also seen comparisons between Aquino and Duterte. But yet again, we also have to be fair and kind to ourselves. For ultimately, both presidents should be judged in the specific contexts of their administrations. For we can only have one president at a time, and in our country, the president is the highest and most powerful official with powers as Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief. With such awesome powers, come responsibility and accountability.
Our friends who adore Aquino should not be as onion-skinned and as allergic to criticism, or akin to loyalists of his successor. If they are confident that his achievements tower over his failures, lack of empathy for the masses, and displays of incompetence — they should let Aquino’s bosses speak.
The trouble about refusing, rejecting and demonizing criticism, including those against a departed leader and his administration, is that it normalizes the traditional political myth-making that is selective about facts and takes a point of view that excludes many or most of our people. Ultimately, this kind of political narrative gaslights and demonizes Filipinos who bear the costs of presidential policies and acts and for the people’s subsequent political choices informed by their political experience.
I believe we were most honest about the Aquino administration in run-up to the May 2016 elections. It was the time we were told that we had the opportunity to either continue or end “Daang Matuwid.” That was the question in most people’s minds. On election day that year, the people rendered their verdict: Aquino’s chosen successor could only get 23 percent of the vote.
The 2016 defeat of Aquino’s chosen successor and the triumph of the then-longtime mayor of Davao was dubbed “a critical rebuke of the country’s political establishment for failing to make democracy meaningful for ordinary Filipinos.”
Writing for a Canadian think-tank, political science professor Aries Arugay continued: “Philippine democracy has neither matured nor collapsed but instead become trapped in a grey zone where weak political institutions coexist with widespread economic disparities, governability deficits, and lingering internal conflicts. Duterte’s electoral mandate comes from the collective rage of Filipinos against the status quo…”
Progressive activists and other changemakers are therefore vindicated as they courageously speak out on the Aquino record, and measure it by their democratic demands at the time, as well as on our common aspirations for change. They are true democrats for pursuing accountability.
Aquino’s detractors from the camp of his successor (and from the ranks of the dictator’s loyalists) meanwhile should not rejoice though over his death and critical views of his presidency. There will be a separate reckoning for their principal and his regime, whether he delivered his own promises of bold reforms and made democracy meaningful.
That’s a separate eulogy or critical assessment altogether, and surely it will be coming.