Nandy
My first meeting with Nandy Pacheco was at a dinner with friends in one of the Valle Verde villages. It was shortly after Edsa I, and at that time, the idea of a gunless society was the farthest thing from my mind. Too many people were moving around with guns or with bodyguards whose waistlines were bulging with all kinds of hardware. My impression of Nandy was that of a well-intentioned individual completely out of touch with reality.
For some time, I lost track of Nandy. But somehow his talk about a “gunless society” stuck in my mind. Each time a shooting occurred in the community that resulted in death, I would be jolted by the thought that without the guns, there would be fewer killings and less mayhem in our lives. I was reminded of Nandy telling me that we had too many licensed gun owners and possibly even more unlicensed holders. He pointed out the relationship between guns and violent crime; the more guns, the higher the crime rate. He attributed the situation to our colonial past, saying “We got it from the Americans. We learned many good things from them but we also picked up an addiction to violence, to guns.” And seeing these days how so many Americans, often schoolchildren, are being killed by fellow Americans due to a proliferation of guns and lenient controls, it appears that Nandy was right.
A few years later, just before leaving for the United States, I got a call from Nandy. My feeling was that he was busy setting up the platform for an organization that would provide citizens with an alternative to the political merry-go-round that passes for Philippine-style democracy. I was grateful for the opportunity to exchange ideas with him and to provide some inputs for a few of his advocacies. He invited me to join the general assembly meeting of his organization, Ang Kapatiran, scheduled for November. With much regret, I said that I would be away for a few weeks and would be unable to join him.
Some of the items that we discussed concerned the use of active military and police officers as aides and security personnel for politicians and government officials. We were in full agreement that there was too much abuse of this privilege, and valuable manpower was being diverted from more important business. We also agreed that a fixed term of three years for the Armed Forces of the Philippines chief of staff regardless of the statutory age of retirement was good for the military organization. This was before the revolving door arrangement was in full swing. There were also a number of issues on which we disagreed. But somehow I felt that with Nandy, there was always room for clarification, understanding, compromise, and possible resolution of differences.
When I got back, Nandy called again. Somehow, my instincts told me that Nandy had other things in mind, aside from a discussion of principles and programs for good governance. Sure enough, our breakfast meeting proved me right. Among other things, Nandy was lining up individuals for a Kapatiran senatorial slate. He proposed a campaign similar to that put up by nonpoliticians of Quezon City who banded together, wresting control of City Hall in the 1960s. Men like former UP president Vidal Tan, and retired Navy captain Charlie Albert, were part of the group, known as the Quezon City Council for Good Government. Running as underdogs, they beat the local politicians without having to resort to any of the hanky-panky that seems to be acceptable these days as part of our political exercises. Unfortunately, after winning the group slowly broke up, to the disappointment of Quezon City residents. Nandy accounts the failure of this group to a lack of shared principles and a party platform that would have kept the organization intact through the ups and downs of city administration.
I thanked Nandy for keeping me in mind but with all my health problems, running in a nationwide race would be unfair to all concerned. I suggested younger people who shared the same aspirations and yearnings for the country. As usual, Nandy had all the answers. He said, “The youth are too busy making a living and raising families. We the senior citizens of this country must take up the burden of setting things right for future generations. After all, we have been responsible for all that has happened and our job now is to try to correct the errors and abuses of the past.”
Nandy and I were not close friends. But I saw him as a good and decent individual with whom I shared some simple beliefs about a better, nonviolent, and more peaceful society. We lose our best just when we need them most.
