Cardinal’s gambit
THERE can be absolutely no doubt Luis Cardinal Tagle had the best of intentions when he called Jojo Binay, Mar roxas and Grace poe to a prayer-meeting. But, after what transpired at that meeting, the question “what did Cardinal Tagle really want to accomplish with this gambit” remains vastly unanswered.
Because it was essentially a PPCRV (parish pastoral Council for responsible Voting) project, one would think it was meant to enhance voter responsibility in the exercise of the right of suffrage. If so, it is puzzling how admonishing three traditional politicians to conduct a “friendly and dignified” campaign can possibly help the electorate to vote responsibly.
Cardinal Tagle ought to know that Filipino politicians are pragmatic to the point of hypocrisy and will pounce on every opportunity to put on a good face just to get votes. Hence as expected, the three responded with ready “yeses” to the Cardinal’s call. How could they possibly say “No” when that would mean loss of face and, more importantly, votes?
Thus, from the event voters gained no new knowledge about how and who to choose responsibly by the Cardinal’s standards. They would have learned some if Cardinal Tagle used the occasion to candidly pose the right questions to the candidates, the questions a man of his stature thinks responsible voters should ask about candidates.
Like, if Cardinal Tagle really wanted more responsible votes, it would have made more sense if he had candidly advised Jojo Binay to face the Senate investigating comment mittee to prove to all and sundry that he has nothing to hide.
And why was Sen. Grace poe invited when she has not yet decided to run? If invited by mistake, why didn’t she have the decency to politely decline the invitation for that same reason?
No such questions were asked and answered. Instead, a simple appeal was made and responded to with an automatic yes. The affair turned out to be just one big epal moment for the three while voters did not become a bit more knowledgeable whom to vote for, not a bit more responsible in their method of choosing.
If anything, Cardinal Tagle’s gambit highlighted the Church’s generally compromising stance towards politicians. Like businessmen who support all candidates as a hedge against a possible loss by their secretly favored candidate, the Church also straddles the political fence so to keep their privileged position regardless of who wins.
Anyway, Cardinal Tagle’s gambit was an empty gesture to voters. Because there was only a simple, better still naïve, request to conduct a “friendly and dignified” campaign, the implied message was that any of the three will do, provided...I just wonder though if the Cardinal really thinks so.