Chief Justice Reynato Puno should resign his post first before leading the Moral Force Movement. So says Muntinlupa Rep. Rufino Biazon.

“While it is true that Philippine society needs moral recovery, there is also no denying that much of it is political reform and one must join the political fray to be an agent of change in that field,” Biazon said. “Being the Chief Justice, he must make a conscious effort not to be dragged into politics.”

Let’s see if this makes sense: Philippine society needs moral recovery. Moral recovery is largely a political exercise. Only politicians may engage in a political exercise. Politicians (as we know them) are what Philippine society needs to morally recover from. Only the people this society needs to morally recover from may mount a moral recovery program.

How’s that for Catch-22, Philippine style?

Why on earth does Puno have to resign to crusade for moral recovery? At the very least, there is a difference between politics and partisan politics. Partisan politics we may leave to politicians, politics we may not. Politics is too important to leave to politicians in the same way that economics is too important to leave to the economists and law is too important to leave to the lawyers. (Writing is the exception: It is far too important to leave to amateurs. But that’s another story.) It is not only our privilege to engage in politics, it is our duty to do so—as citizens of the republic.

At the very most, unlike politics and religion, which are oil and water, politics and morality are hand in glove. The two do not only mix well, the two may not be separated. Or else, well, look at what we have now: a total eclipse of the soul, to paraphrase Bonnie Tyler. Bishops need not resign as bishops when they bring morality back to politics, such as when Jaime Cardinal Sin drew up guidelines for the faithful for the 1998 elections—which did not help anyway; Joseph “Erap” Estrada got elected by a landslide. Bishops ought to resign from the human race, if not from the clergy, however, when they tolerate lack of morality in politics, such as when Davao Archbishop Fernando Capalla continued to foist President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the faithful despite “Hello, Garci.”

Puno does have the right, legal and moral, to launch a moral recovery or moral transformation movement. I wish him well and hope only that he pushes his project to larger goals.

Not least, as far as next year’s elections go, I hope his movement probes deeper into the meaning or significance of those elections. I myself do not see the problem as finding the transformative leader in those elections, I see the problem as producing one in our situation

It was Colin Powell who used the word “transformative” in referring to Barack Obama and in justifying his support for him rather than for his boss’ protégé, John McCain, in the elections. Powell might have had a horrible blindness about Iraq, but he had a good insight about America. He saw rightly that the elections last year were not just about comparing the relative virtues of the presidential bets, they were about comparing life and death. They were not just a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, which a choice between Republicans and Democrats invariably means, they were a choice between Good and Evil.

It was no ordinary time; it was the worst of times and the best of times. America demanded the opposite of George W. Bush last year in the same way that the Philippines demanded the opposite of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. That was not Hillary Clinton for them any more than it was Doy Laurel for us. And that was so even though Bush was not running for president, just as it is so for us even though Ms Arroyo is not running for president. The equation for Americans remained Bush vs. the opposite of Bush. The equation for us remains Ms Arroyo vs. the opposite of Ms Arroyo.

That was what made Obama transformative. He was the heroic choice—not least because he came from an oppressed race. He stood to heal a divided land, he stood to cure a sick land, he stood to bring democracy back on its feet. That transformative leader is not (yet) there among the “presidentiables.” He—or she—has yet to emerge from the smoke. He—or she—has yet to be produced.

More than that, I would hope that the Moral Force Movement extends its gaze beyond elections. What is the same for us and Bush’s America is that we are living, or dying, in the worst of times and the best of times. We do not just have a routine choice between the relative virtues of leaders, we have a desperate choice between life and death. But what’s different between us and Bush’s America is that the Americans could at least count with the inevitability of death and taxes on Bush’s rule being over after last year. Or that elections would push through come hell or high water. We cannot.

That is part of the evil any moral force should address. Elections next year remain an iffy proposition. Which makes it even more compelling to produce the transformative leader for our times, one who can lead us out of the wilderness of these times, whether there are elections or not. Someone who can be the opposite of Arroyo. Someone who, like Cory (Aquino) and Obama, can lead a struggle against tyranny. Someone who, past Cory and Obama, will act to root out the causes of tyranny in this country.

It is the articulation of our plight that produces that leader. It is making us see how utterly bereft we have become, how utterly stripped we have become, how utterly debased we have become that summons forth that leader like the sensation of drowning summons forth all our will to live. That is what a moral transformation movement ought to do, to make us shout “Never again!” which are the magic words that bring out the genie from the lamp.

That is what makes a moral transformation movement transformative.