(Following is my commentary on the column article of F.S. Tatad in MSTs issue of 2-26-14, appended to the main articles online edition) Mr. Tatad: I am one of those who believe that JP Enrile should not have turned over the power he and Ramos gained (as primary cause and instigators of EDSA 1), after the departure of Marcos in 1986. Cory was never a part of EDSA 1. The people followed Cardinal Sins call to protect Enrile and Ramos, NOT Cory. The act of Cory to have assumed the presidency without a mandate is the concrete illustration of the Tagalog saying Sila (Enrile and Ramos) ang nagluto; ngunit iba ang kumain. And voraciously she ate the fruits of someones else labor by taking an oath of office hurriedly. The way I see it, the supreme action of the people to risk their lives to protect Enrile and Ramos (who also risked their lives against Marcos; in contra-distinction with the act of Cory to hide so as not to risk her life) was a mandate for Enrile and Ramos, not Cory. Cory realized this, so she was always intimidated by Enrile. She had put one over Enrile and Ramos. Now, a nagging thought persists. If Enrile had not imprudently and unwisely given way, could we have had a better and a freer country? Could he have been a better president than the usurper, in restoring the country to its newly regained democratic space. Would he have been able to stem corruption and be the best leader this country ever had? A hindsight analysis would be useful on these questions. During those days, my classmates and I, in the graduate school, were convinced that the best leader for our country would be a benevolent dictator, considering the latent weakness of our people for corruption and considering the need to streamline our bureaucracy into a morally upright organization. Marcos was a dictator; but he was not benevolent. Then as now, perhaps this concept of leadership is not passe, until we can move on to an ideal form of government for us.
Posted on: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:56:21 +0000