Pragmatic roles for Bam and Kiko

Sen. Bam Aquino and Sen. Kiko Pangilinan have been at the receiving end of blistering criticisms for their reported plan to join the majority bloc in the Senate. The condemnations come from the ranks of yellow and pink supporters, who feel betrayed because of their expectations that the two would join Sen. Risa Hontiveros in forming the Senate minority bloc.

Aquino and Pangilinan impressively landed second and fifth, respectively, in the recent senatorial elections, despite having polled outside the winning circle, just days before the elections. The two were backed by opposition forces, but they also formed alliances with other local political forces that contributed to their victories.

Former vice president and now Naga City Mayor Leni Robredo supports the practical move of the two senators, arguing that political flexibility and openness to dissenting views should shape the opposition’s strategies. Robredo said “[W]e each have our own roles to play—some go on the offensive, some engage in diplomacy, some strategize—but we all work together.” For Robredo, the opposition ranks should overhaul their purist approach and adopt a more pluralistic one if they hope to repeat the success of Aquino and Pangilinan in 2028.

Also supportive of the plans of the two is former Senate president Franklin Drilon, who explained that by joining the majority bloc, Aquino will be able to pursue his advocacy on education, while Pangilinan can be a more effective advocate of food security, because they will have the chance to head the committees of their respective advocacies. Hontiveros has said she feels zero sense of betrayal if Aquino and Pangilinan join the majority bloc, and that she would accept whatever decision her colleagues make.

As correctly framed by Robredo, the debate between those in favor and those against the plans of the two senators is one between purists and pragmatists. For the purists, the two senators should not ally themselves with the majority bloc, which includes Duterte supporters and enablers. Those who support a pragmatic stance argue that the two can still espouse principled advocacies even when they join the majority bloc.

I join those who support pragmatic roles for the two senators, as long as they hold on to their core principles. They should join the majority bloc if that will spell their appointment as chairs of the education and food security committees. These committees will be useful platforms to influence policies on two very vital issues that are urgent in their importance to the masses. Imagine the alternative scenario if Aquino and Pangilinan do not get the education and food security committees. Some good-for-nothing senators will occupy these positions for the next six years, and for that long stretch of time, funds and opportunities to make a difference in the lives of our people will be wasted. Do we want all the Senate committees to be chaired by aimless senators, or do we want at least two committees to be led by well-meaning legislators?

The idealists may be of the impression that by joining the majority bloc, Aquino and Pangilinan will have to kowtow to any unprincipled advocacy of the other senators. Long gone are the days when politicians toed the party line. We have a Senate where every senator is a sovereign republic, and they can vote independently on issues they are passionate about. On the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte, for example, Aquino and Pangilinan can vote on the merits of the charges and not subscribe to the blind allegiance of the Duterte allies. If the purists are of the view that Aquino and Pangilinan should not be in the same bloc as the Duterte senators, only because of the disreputable characters of the latter, then the objection is merely in the optics, and not of any substantive wrongdoing committed by the two senators.

The time to judge the fidelity of Aquino and Pangilinan to the principles of good governance is when they vote on issues of fundamental national interest: the impeachment of VP Sara, the bloating of the budget, China’s violations of our sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea, legislative investigations on corruption and appalling crimes, and the like.

Idealists cannot take sole credit for the impressive wins obtained by the two senators because if that were true, then the purist candidates who ran in the elections should have also won. In the electoral victories of Aquino and Pangilinan, the people delivered a message that serves as a blueprint in future elections for the opposition: it’s not enough for well-meaning politicians to be preachers of ideals and values. They must come down from their puritanical pulpits and work with leaders across the political spectrum to find pragmatic solutions to the dire and pressing needs of the multitude.

—————-

Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com