Saturday, February 03, 2007 Editorials: The ‘Ebdane’ gambit
THE newly appointed defense secretary, in his initial acceptance speech, tried to make himself a man definitely suited for the job. His opening gambit indicated, of course, a touch of subterfuge designed to gain much needed opposition support in the trying days of his Cabinet post when he goes before the Commission on Appointment.
It is important that he gains the support of majority of the commission members before he can sigh with relief.
In his speech before assuming the defense post, the acting defense secretary said he would ensure the country’s armed forces would be insulated from partisan activities. Meaning Mr. Ebdane would never allow the AFP to be involved in the coming political exercise, particularly in helping candidates to cheat in the elections, as it was reputed to have been used in the 2004 polls, although the charges were never proven.
The vow, of course, would be a mere gambit designed to make his appointment palatable to the opposition, as well as to the well-organized militant groups. In styling himself as an independent-minded new member of President GMA’s official family, he is this early trying to carve an image of dependability on the part of his public, but he may be, at the same time generating this early unease on the part of his immediate superior.
For if we are to come down to the nitty-gritty regarding the present circumstances of the acting national defense chief, he is actually facing the challenge of two higher authorities, management-wise, a reality that hemmed him in, and may render him unable to stand by his vow, and make his gambit stand. Indeed, with the President as his immediate superior, Mr. Ebdane is manacled to the operational parameters GMA may set for her Cabinet.
Again, as defense secretary, his concern is largely the affairs of the military. And so, once again, he comes face to face with another higher authority clothed with supreme powers over the military, the commander-in-chief whose word is an incontrovertible command. Under this setup, and given the temporariness of Mr. Ebdane’s position itself, it is gravely difficult for him to keep his vow, unless his “two-in-one” superior would let him.
The point here is that while the Ebdane gambit is a sound one, and truly rooted in ideal public administration principles in relation to the role of the military in democratic governance, still the acting defense secretary is challenged by the variable of his superior’s political attitude and personal goal. Unless his superior shares his desire for what the AFP should be in May, he may not succeed, and may have a failed gambit.
