Firecrackers lasted fifteen minutes tonight, counting from the stroke of twelve. Happy new year everyone!
***
Also, my first SPOX article for the year (Businessmirror, 1 January 2016)
President Rizal
On Twitter, I was asked: “@jabjimenez if Jose Rizal were to run for President, would you vote for him? Why or why not?” A well-known wit quickly pounced with: “He (referring to Jose Rizal) would not be natural born, being a subject of Spain at birth,” thereby totally missing the point of the question.
The follow-up tweets wandered further afield: “also Aguinaldo. Bonifacio. And Ninoy Aquino if he stayed in exile 7 more years. No residence;” “a patriot who went abroad to campaign for a cleaner Philippines would be DQed if he stayed out too long;” and “robbing this country, running influence-peddling law firms, taking money from Janet—only for natural born turds.”
Clever. But still three bus lengths to the left of the question: If Jose Rizal were to run for President would I vote for him?
Compliance with all Constitutional and statutory requirements being taken for granted, I would have to say no.
There is no doubt that Rizal transcended the psycho-social baggage of being born a colonial subject of Spain. Freed from the typical mindset of a down-trodden colonial – fearful by default, submissive, and eager to curry favor – Rizal saw himself as an equal of the colonizers, distinct from them only for the color of his skin and the accident of his birthplace, and so was able to examine colonial society with the objectivity of a sociologist.
This objectivity was a good thing because, as his treatise on indolence exemplified, it allowed Rizal to point out the flaws of colonial ideology – the crucial first step in the awakening of Filipino nationhood. On the other hand, a similar sort of objectivity prevented Rizal from supporting the Revolution when the opportunity presented itself. Thus, on the 21st of June 1896, Rizal – for all his individual brilliance – showed that he was probably not the best politician, let alone President.
The President of a nation – in whatever era – needs to be more than just a brilliant polymath. Or a badass warhorse. Or a legal luminary.
Apart from being a competent administrator who can inspire cooperation within the ranks, a good President must also be a visionary who can see beyond what is, all the way to what is possible, even when the road forward appears to be littered with difficulty and loss. And perhaps more importantly, a good President needs to be a skilled political chess player, able to recognize necessary sacrifices and willing to make those sacrifices in the name of the greatest good.
Everything I’ve read so far about Jose Rizal gives me pause, when weighed against these criteria.
Rizal’s temper, for instance, might be a good indicator of his potential success as an administrator. Government isn’t made up of mice, after all, and a President has to deal with egos that can be larger than his. And when you consider the kind of politicians a President Rizal would have to deal with today, you can probably imagine quickly he’ll end up surrounded by sycophants, instead of independent minded women and men of true merit.
As for being a visionary, what little is known about Rizal’s rejection of the Revolution, just as an example, seems to show an almost pedestrian appreciation of the dynamics of an uprising. While it is true that an armed revolution would bring suffering to Filipinos, what war of liberation hasn’t? And who can argue with the necessity of being well-prepared long before the first shot is ever fired?
Being asked to consult at such a crucial point, Rizal had the perfect opportunity to shape the policies that would have governed the emergence of the full-blown Revolution. He could have used his tremendous influence, for instance, to strike a balance between caution and audacity. But apart from giving some self-evident advice, Rizal chose to sit the Revolution out.
In the same vein, Rizal could have used his charisma to rally even more people to the cause. Rizal pointed out that the masses were not ready, didn’t he? He could have addressed that problem quite handily, especially after having already whipped up the core of the Katipunan with his writings, to the point that they were, quite literally, ready to die for the motherland. And yet, at the crossroads of great undertakings, Rizal chose the path of timidity. Even Gandhi, for all his non-violence, was savvy enough to know when the time for constructive engagement with the colonial powers was no longer possible. Unlike Gandhi however, Rizal opted for a longer end-game rather than go for the decisive checkmate.
I cannot write finis to the argument of whether Rizal showed visionary leadership – or the lack thereof – in refusing to participate in the Revolution. Nor can I say with any conclusiveness that he couldn’t have been a competent administrator, able to tame to runaway bureaucracy of modern-day Philippines.
These concerns, however, weigh heavy on my mind every six years. In the end, I think we – as a people – can benefit tremendously if only we made sure that we don’t confuse how much we love a person with how fit he would be for the Presidency.
Oh and, Happy New Year.