What is the difference between a politician and a statesman? Here are some answers: (1) A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generation. (2) A politician thinks of himself first, a statesman thinks of the country first. (3) Anyone elected to office is a politician; a statesman promotes the public good with integrity. Statespersonship conveys a quality of leadership that organically brings people together; and of eldership, a spirit of caring for others and for the whole. (4) A statesman is ever governed by the following principle: I must do what is best for the people as a whole. His job is political probity, even though he may face horrible conditions for carrying it out. (5) A politician makes the possible necessary, while a statesman makes the necessary possible. (6) And my favorite of all: A politician talks the talk; a statesman walks the walk.

No matter which answer is chosen, Mar Roxas belongs to the statesman group. His announcement early this week, withdrawing from the presidential race in favor of Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, has removed any lingering doubts about this. Rather than lose any chance of reform for the country by dividing not only his party but also the reform constituency, he chose to give up his own presidential plans and all the work and effort that had gone into it.

The pity of it all, though, is that statesmanship is not a label that can be claimed by most, if not all, of the present candidates for the country’s highest office. Yet, what the country needs as President is not just a politician, but a statesman.

There is no question that Mar was already a cut above the ordinary politician simply because he is clean and honest—traits which again, unfortunately, most of the so-called “presidentiables” cannot really lay claim to. That he has an excellent track record in both his executive and legislative positions made him an outstanding presidential candidate. In fact, he was second in my short list of two out of some 16 presidential aspirants.

What this all boils down to is that I am not so sure at all that his selfless, well-intentioned gesture, will turn out to be as good for the country as he thinks it will be. I hate to say it, but it might instead be an illustrative example of the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

What comes to mind in this regard is the example of Nobel Laureate Al Gore. The reader will remember that Gore was the Democratic Party candidate for president in the United States, whose defeat was not by the decision of the US voters, but by the decision of the US Supreme Court, which voted (yes ,Virginia, it happens in the US, too—in fact, it happened there first) along partisan political lines.

Gore chose not to pursue his claim—a motion for reconsideration—because he sincerely believed that it might damage his country—both domestically and internationally. That was the act of a statesman. But alas, the succeeding events showed that by not fighting for the presidency, he may instead have done a disservice to his country, if the performance of his opponent, George W. Bush, as president of his country, is any indication.

In a similar manner, Roxas’ withdrawal from the race in favor of Aquino, although with the best of intentions, may not turn out so well. Even assuming that Noynoy will win on the coattails of his parents, who, without a doubt put country above self (Ninoy I consider a hero, and Cory I consider a saint), there is the question of what his performance might be. This country needs a president with honesty, integrity, love of country and competence.

Was there some kind of evaluation and comparison of the track records of Mar and Noynoy before the decision was made on who would “carry the torch of leadership”? Alas, I don’t think so. Roxas himself, in his withdrawal speech, merely said: “Noy has made it clear to me that he wants to carry the torch of leadership.”

Sorry to ask, but is that really good enough for the country?

And since I am now rocking the boat, let me say that I am not comfortable with events subsequent to Roxas’ withdrawal. It was clear to everyone that Noynoy wanted to make the run for the presidency. So why the announcement that Aquino was to go on retreat to help him decide on whether he should make that run?

If the decision is already made—and it must have been—the retreat has to be for the purpose of asking God’s blessing on his candidacy—so why not just so state?

Is it because Noynoy’s handlers want to milk the Cory magic and show that Noynoy is doing the same thing that Cory did—and not only that—but also time his “decision” to be made on the 40th day after Cory’s death? If that is the case, shame on them all. Because that not only reflects the cynicism of the ultimate, exploitative “trapo,” it is also a disservice to Cory’s memory, and all that she stood for, as well. Cory was truly a reluctant candidate, and she agonized and prayed before finally accepting the mantle. What is more, there was not a single, insincere, manipulative bone in her body.

Anyone who wants to assume the mantle of leadership and selflessness similar to that of Ninoy and Cory better make sure that it is deserved, and earned. It is not something that can be claimed merely because the same blood runs in one’s veins. Rather, it is a matter of character.

Try for statesmanship, Noynoy. You won’t regret it.