Is Aquino worthy heir to Edsa legacy?

President Benigno Aquino III timed the delivery of his major speech of his US state visit, at the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, on Sept. 21 to coincide with the 39th anniversary of the declaration of martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos in 1972.

International interest in President Aquino was heightened by the fact that it was his first state visit to the US, barely a year after he was elected with a commanding majority in a generally acknowledged free and honest election in May 2010. Statesmen and economic leaders of the world were anxious to know or take a measure of the new Filipino leader—whether or not he can live up to the mandate to give them an honest government after nine years of a discredited  corrupt administration, and to manage a prosperous economy under the ambience of a reinvigorated democracy.  These were the high expectations that filled the air at the assembly of the captains of industry of global capitalism.  The assembly of eminent persons was eager to know whether this new democratic leader was worthy of the huge expectations  placed on him by his own people, as well as other peoples  in transition  from autocratic regimes to popular, raw and rambunctious democracy driven by mobs demonstrating in the streets.

President Aquino introduced his speech in the context of “we gather today at a time of rapid change around the entire world”—referring to the Middle East and North Africa, where people “took to the streets in droves, risking their livelihoods and even their very lives to call for the removal of leaders who could no longer respond to their needs and aspirations.”

The theme of his speech was “people power” driving the winds of political change and social change.

Identifying himself with these revolutionary movements, President Aquino said, “My country is no stranger to this phenomenon,” adding: “In 1986, the Filipino people took to the streets to peacefully oust a corrupt dictator and re-establish a true democracy.” Not going above self-glorification, he reminded his audience.  “They chose my mother, Corazon Aquino, as their leader. I stand before you today as an inheritor  of that proud legacy, not just because I am Cory Aquino’s son but because like my mother, the  mantle of leadership was placed upon me. Like my mother, I could not ignore the will of my people.

“But while she was thrust into power by what we commonly call a revolution, I came into the presidency through a unique kind of revolution–one that was done through the ballot. The full force of a corrupted system had been mobilized to ensure my defeat. But it was my people whose cries of desperation provided the initial sparks of my campaign, stood by their convictions, flocked to their voting precincts, and zealously guarded the votes from the moment the first was cast to the moment the last was counted.”

The glorious saga of Philippine People Power Revolution of 1986 is probably one of the most widely celebrated events involving human liberty in the past three decades of the 20th century. It gives pride to Filipinos and served as an inspiration to other oppressed people to rise to overthrow peacefully tyrannical regimes.

Without doubt, Cory Aquino has become the icon of liberty of Filipinos, as well as of liberty aspiring peoples in many parts of the world, but President Aquino must be aware by now that he has inherited a heavy legacy to translate the Edsa tradition and his electoral mandate into an agent of reform and change for Filipinos expecting a better life than that endured under the old regimes. It is clear by now that President Aquino cannot   govern the new democracy his election has restored on the strength of the myth and nostalgia of Edsa and people power. He cannot rule under the spell of euphoria all the remaining years of his presidency. It is not hard to imagine that the audience of the president in Washington, could have asked themselves some awkward questions, such as, what has this promising leader of an Asian democracy to offer his people to reinvigorate the faltering economy of his country whose GDP growth has stalled to a mere 4 percent, after a stellar performance of more than 7 percent two years ago. Certainly, he cannot refuel economic growth with euphoria of people power—which is a political movement, which is not as powerful as economic approaches and competence in political administration in driving a robust economy.

It is almost certain that the hard-nosed economists and business leaders at the WB-IMF meeting in Washington did not expect from President Aquino a discourse full of economic insights and expert knowledge. He delivered a political speech to the wrong audience—composed of experts. At some point in the speech, the president seemed to have realized that there was a limit to the patience of the audience to be regaled with the tales of the political miracle spurned by people power revolutions.

Eventually, he came down to confront the economic and social reality of challenges to political leadership in transitional societies undergoing regime change. He posed this issue: “As in all instances when a people has taken back power and installed leaders that embody their aspirations there is, of course, elation and a sense of new found hope. But as euphoria fades, how does a government faced with such a gargantuan task as ours sustain the momentum?  How does it begin rebuilding its institutions from the ground up? How does it harness the energy of people power to provide jobs, food, education, health, and other vital services, given the situation it inherited?”

The answer—not by laziness!