(That’s the title of an insightful paper on why Sen. Benigno Aquino III leapt to the front of “presidentiables.” The author is social anthropologist Dr. Melba Padilla Maggay. She heads the Institute for Studies in Asian Church and Culture. Here’s an abridged version.-–JLM)

I felt that the signature campaign for Noynoy Aquino was a throwback to (trapo) diseases like: personalism. But seeing, on TV, the announcement of Noynoy’s candidacy, I was moved to tears.

It (wasn’t) resurfacing yellow ribbons and memories of Edsa’s barricades.

Sun.Star accepts donations for victims of Typhoon Ondoy

Rather, it was the sense that, high and low are closing ranks. In the face of this nation’s degradation to lowest levels of moral and institutional (decay), under the Arroyo regime.

What accounts for this resurgence of hope?

One is the growing language of “sacrifice.” (The second) is the almost quixotic persistence of hope.

Sen. Mar Roxas led the way, followed by Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio, then Kiko Pangilinan, withdrawing in favor of Aquino. (These) promise not only resurrection of party discipline, but also the rise of politicians able to set aside personal ambition.

The elite hijacked “People Power.” But its origins are an authentic expression of what our people are. Warmly emotional, we are moved, not so much by ideology or platforms, but by people, particularly by those who evoke solidarity and a shared sense of injustice.

Shared identity surfaces when we feel a collective injury, whether it be for Flor Contemplacion or Ninoy Aquino. The massive outpouring of grief on Cory’s death (expressed) hopes for a forlorn democracy she symbolized.

“Cory magic” is what sociologists call a “habitus” of a people’s longing for decent government. She was foil to a corrupt regime. In showing up for her funeral, the people made a statement on what this current administration is not.

Our people locate their hopes in a person they trust. This is sound. We have structures in place, from checks and balances to even prohibition of political dynasties. (But) without values, structures serve merely as apparatus to advance interests of those in power.

We are witnessing, not the politics of personalism but the power of the personal. People are not drawn to Noynoy because of personal charisma. Noynoy is not experienced or visually appealing.

But he has: a legacy that people trust. “Kahit pa’no, `yang mga Aquino, di yan nagnanakaw,” as a vendor puts it.

The man has simplicity, not the usual gravitas that catapults leaders to power. For this reason, he may connect with those whose major concern is not pizzazz but that the country will not be robbed blind again.

Social trust is an intangible that oils the machinery of governance. “Davos” businessmen do not invest in a country where unofficial saliva substitutes for straightforward contracts. Societies fail when the trust is so low that people can not even take the word of their leaders seriously.

Sociologists talk of “plausibility structures” for governance. Impersonal rationalities of governance make it implausible for people to put a premium on the personal. That is governance in the West.

It is necessarily superior, or even what we need. Our systems dysfunction precisely because there is no culture that is fit with how things actually work around here.

People’s instincts are right: power lends itself to most constructive use when in the hands of those who are most disinterested in its use.

There’s nothing wrong with our culture or our people’s expectations. What is wrong is that our leaders continually betray them and their hopes.