In less than two weeks, we will know whether the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duerte will start at long last, or some senators will again find justifications to further unduly delay the process.
I try to study the legal issues, but since I am not a lawyer, I do not feel competent to publicly express opinions on the nuances of the matter at hand. I will instead approach the issue from a different angle.
Some of those who oppose impeachment argue that it does not contribute to our physical welfare. They say that Congress should rather focus on things more tangible like health care and food security. Many others mouth the same arguments and sanctimoniously ask, “Can we eat impeachment?” It is this spin, disguised as a rhetorical question, that I want to comment on.
First of all, the spin is based on a faulty either-or disjunction: Either impeachment or food on the table. Why should we choose between the two? We can have both. Secondly, we cannot nonchalantly dismiss the issues on how the confidential funds were spent. Come to think of it, more rice could have been placed on the table, more classrooms could have been built, more laptops could have been given to needy students, if only these confidential funds were not allocated to Mary Grace Piattos.
But there is another point that I want to focus on. The spin wants to say that what is tangible like food is almost always more important than abstract concepts like self-respect, accountability, and justice. It is the exact opposite of the often-quoted line from The Little Prince, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye.”
To discuss this issue further, I go the history of ideas with the proviso that simplification is inevitable because of space constraints. I refer to George W. Hegel and Karl Marx. Both perceive a triadic pattern of history in the form of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Both would have been against the postmodern trend which rejects the thought that history has a direction.
But behind this similarity lies a basic difference. For Marx, the motor that drives history is basically economic. He theorizes that the means of production, (like manual labor, windmill, or modern machines) would determine social relations. Changes in the mode of production would result into changes in social relations.
For Hegel, the driving force of history is not material but something more spiritual. It is pride or our quest for the recognition of our dignity. Economics may play a part but it is not the main motor.
On this question, I am more of a Hegelian than Marxist. If we follow Hegel, then the issue of land reform is not just about lands for economic use but lands as symbols of the peasants’ dignity. The French revolution was not just about the failure of the monarchy to provide food but a protest against the indifference of the rich to the hoi polloi which was marked by the statement, “Let them eat cake.” The American protest against British taxation, as manifested most especially in the Boston tea party, was not just about money but paying taxes without representation.
Examples can be multiplied. Even today, feminism and the fight of the LGBTQ may have an economic dimension but it is principally not about money. It is a question of asking society to recognize their rights. The same is true against the fight of lay people against clericalism. Lay people want their dignity as baptized persons recognized by the hierarchy. People in the pews feel that their role is simply to pay, pray and obey, when they cannot join in the deliberations.
It is more than just money. It is also about abstract concepts like accountability and public office as a public trust. Thus, I cringe whenever I hear comments like “Can we eat impeachment?” It is basically the same argument Americans during the colonial period would tell those espousing independence, “Don’t focus on abstract theories like self-governance, but on products like sugar, hemp and lumber.”
Money is important. The amount in the issue of Duterte’s impeachment would dwarf the money not reported by Renato Corona in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). But it is more than just P612 million. It is also our self-respect as citizens. Don’t we feel that our intelligence is insulted when the list of confidential fund recipients would include bizarre family names like Piattos, Oishi and Tempura? What feelings are engendered when a leader shows a strong belief in entitlement to hundreds of millions of pesos?
No, we cannot eat impeachment. But should we shallow our pride as citizens instead?