Tuesday, December 19, 2006

moral ascendancy

The present national leadership boasts of many grandiose plans, omnibus programs and supper projects. It often claims many big achievements and loudly proclaims itself as the best bet of the country for its progress and development. Never mind if such praise-releases are not only self-serving but also basically devoid of reality and merit. Never mind too if only its avid allies all say “Amen!” to such tired and tiring proclamations.

However, there still remains one reality that the incumbent national leadership would not even dare to be a claimant of. This is moral ascendancy. Precisely because it has made a habit of taking the low moral ground. It is progressively much more discredited and disrespected. In fact, it is going more and more down the drain in its approval rating. One wonders how much lower it can go to survive.

Integrity and honesty productive of moral ascendancy are definitely virtues MalacaƱang may arrogate to itself—notwithstanding all pretence and posturing to the contrary. At lease, deep within its consciousness, it knows its many serious socio-moral liabilities, the ultimate result of which is bad governance and ineffective leadership.

With semblance of nationalism, the administration lead figure all began with a big lie that it would not seek election to the presidential office. It alleged that such a sacrificial option was made in order to unite the country, to correct the election process, to work for a harmonious transition of government. But sooner than later, it said that no less than God himself spoke that run for election it must. It even subsequently added that no less than a pope—then already dead—endorsed it for the highest office of the land.

What was indeed very strange, instead of God’s providence working for its election, it seemed to have spared neither means nor cost simply to win the election. To date, this perception remains vivid and strong in the minds of not a few people. In effect, it is the conviction behind the trice blocked impeachment case. It is even probable that the same case would be revived the third time around.

The focal point in all these vile recollections is one and the same. The present national leadership started with invoking the name of the Lord in vain. Thereafter, everything else it did was tainted in initial profanity. And it is safe to assume that what it will still do in the days ahead—if still allowed to—cannot be also impacted with the virus of futility. It falls so short in moral ascendancy.

19 December 2006