My
open letter to Congressman-elect Atty. Leni Robredo and Aga Muhlach has gained
several reactions from the netizens. While there were many who agreed with me
on my personal thoughts, there were also those who were irate with some lines I
used on that letter.
Thus,
I write this rejoinder and I wish to be more direct with the thoughts I have.
Hermeneutics is indeed a difficult field as it is where the different horizons
of interpretations come to play and where the mens auctoris might not be essential to be retrieved. Nevertheless,
the German Philosopher Gadamer (following Heidegger, of course) said that in
interpretation, we lay open ourselves to the unfolding of the text that in the
end, the interpreter is the one that is interpreted.
The
term “apology” has two meanings. In the
Oxford Dictionary of English, this word is defined as:
“a regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure: we owe
you an apology | my apologies for the delay.
• (apologies) a formal expression of regret at being unable to
attend a meeting or social function: Robert can't come and sends his
apologies.”
An
interesting etymology is also worth highlighting, hence:
“ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (denoting a formal defence against an
accusation): from French apologie, or via late Latin from Greek apologia ‘a
speech in one's own defence’, from apo ‘away’+ -logia (see -logy) .”
It
is on these two senses that I shall use the term.
I
sincerely apologize to those whose feelings were offended by the letter that I
wrote. Perhaps, I was not clear enough with the message that I wanted to get
across and thus some critical comments were thrown against it. I also apologize
for the premature jubilations I had in favor of Aga Muhlach. My sincerest
apologies.
If I
were to put into simple terms the reasons why my family voted for these two, it
will be because of protest vote. Let
me explain it in the following.
As I
said on that letter, Nely Villafuerte has a sterling record to back her
credentials and this makes her very much qualified for the position. On this
premise, I conjectured that she could
even be more qualified than Robredo. Is there essentialy wrong with that?
Along
this line, I received a text message that says, “I forgot about the character
as an important factor in assessing one’s qualifications.” But again, why did
we choose Robredo? The letter was clear: because we chose to believe in her
platform for change. Is this not a concrete display of giving Robredo a chance
to prove such character?
Meanwhile,
that I am no fan of Robredos seemed to be received with unpleasant taste, too. The
letter was not meant to answer why I am not a fan although I have given some
reasons why. However, going back to the issue at hand, I do not think that by
not being a fan, our vote is of lesser meaning. In fact, I think it is
noteworthy that we voted for her because we wanted to give the idealism of change
a chance. That idealism is the reason; that idealism is the challenge to
Robredo politics.
Next
is regarding my premature celebration over Aga’s winning, which as of this
writing is/may no longer (be) true. Now
my question is: supposing Aga really lost the election (as no one is being
officially declared yet as of this time), were my reasons for choosing him
become invalid?
I am
afraid no. I still would say I voted for Aga because, and I quote directly from
the letter:
“we are willing to take a chance with you. We no longer want
the 100 years of Fuentebella dynasty to be perpetuated for another century.
This is not to discredit in any way any good thing that the Fuentebellas have
done to our district. We believe however that we need a breather. A century of
leadership should have given the Fuentebellas enough as much as we have enough
of them already. And this how we see you. Dear Aga: Give us something new!”
Aga
lost—let us assume this is already
official. But the hopes I had in voting for him remains true although this may
no longer be given a chance to be fulfilled in the coming three years.
So
how do I qualify protest vote? We voted to protest against the on-going dynasty
in our province. Again, Villafuertes and Fuentebellas have also done a lot for
our province, however, we believed others also can do something good, if not
better, to us. The protest is a clamor for change and that change begins in a
very concrete step: change the names of our leaders. The resounding victory of
Atty. Leni and Aga winning in most towns in Partido could also be because of this
protest vote.
In
rallying with Muhlach and Robredo, we gambled for change. I am using again the
term “gamble” although some have expressed distaste for that term as they are
so sure of their bets. Sure, be certain therefore. However, skepticism plays an
important role in politics, specifically in democracy. Skepticism makes us
always attentive against that which is presented as certain and indubitable. It
is that disposition wherein we become cautious of what we take as truth and in
this sense, Muhlach and Robredo are no exceptions. In beginning with
skepticism, we give more rooms for that which presents as truth to prove
itself. It is the reason why criticisms are so essential in an open society and
that silencing the critics makes us in danger of totalitarianism. Thus,
although we voted for these two, it is in taking chance—and in this sense, a
gambling—that we trust them. The protest vote is so powerful that it is the
same measure that could be used against any winning politician comes 2016.
New is
something that is difficult, even painful in many instances. Perhaps, Partido
electorate is not yet ready for it. Or the case may also be true: perhaps, Aga
Muhlach is not the change that the electors deemed to be worthy. Perhaps,
theirs is a protest vote and a skepticism too against Muhlach’s capability and
being a true son of Partido. Nevertheless, that Muhlach almost did it to
winning is a resounding message to the Fuentebellas: give us something new! The
becoming-ripe for change is on its way, and hopefully, we find the fittest to
embody this ideal of change soonest.
God
bless Camarines Sur!
No comments:
Post a Comment