Virata’s political legacy

MY condolences to the family of former prime minister and finance minister Cesar Virata. In a change from my usual approach and orientation toward economic and financial issues, I will not discuss his economic legacy. Instead, and this reflects that outside of the major media outlets, there is a more robust discussion of his political legacy. This is something that both predates and postdates him, and continues to be an issue for many. By serving this or that administration (which their opponents hold in contempt, whether justified, which is sometimes the case, or where it is just a heated partisan parting of ways, which in the Philippines often means a personal or tribal divide), do you help the country or hurt it by serving it? Whether you agree or not, Carlos Romulo and Cesar Virata were seen as professional, prestigious and of high personal character. They were not power-hungry nor did they enrich themselves during their long stay in office. Their presence in the martial-law Cabinet of the first President Marcos was seen as a seal of approval, especially in the early days (some like former senator Raul Manglapus urged Romulo to resign rather than lend his prestige to the martial law administration). During our economic crisis from 1983 to 1986, some urged Virata to resign, as well, rather than lend his high standing with the international financial community to the embattled administration. Neither obliged, though Romulo did retire in January 1984, given the combination of his advanced age and his feeling distressed and heartsick (quoting his wife Beth Day Romulo) following Ninoy Aquino’s assassination. Critics called them the deodorants of the martial law regime, which is a backhanded compliment in itself. So, the debated question is, what is the right path, stay to help make things better or at least prevent greater harm, or quit? A very valid issue that I leave to others who have given their opinion as I have nothing unique to add to the reasons both sides have given. Ultimately, it is a personal decision that probably conflicted some of those facing it. The issue I will analyze is what is the legacy to the person of the decision to stay as Virata and others have done in various controversial administrations? I find many who served controversial administrations (or those that at least heavily divided the chattering classes) ably, honorably and ethically to not have suffered for it. Neither have those who left out of principle, like those who resigned from Arroyo’s administration in 2005, post the 2004 election “Hello, Garci” contretemps. Many of the latter went on to serve in the second Aquino administration or got prestigious board directorships. Same thing for directorships for those who honorably served other administrations some would consider controversial. Starting with Cesar Virata. The only distinction was over those in controversial administrations who were either corrupt or associated with what was considered their egregious excesses. Contrast the post first Marcos careers of General Ver with President Ramos and Secretary Enrile. The same could be argued over those who were in the Duterte administration. Some are held in the highest regard even by critics of the regime, like Secretary Dominguez, while others are facing charges or keeping a very low profile. That seems to be the real divide on how they are regarded by most. Why? I would be happy to hear the considered versus partisan and biased views of others. I have a theory. Given that our politics are mostly personal and tribal, versus policy or ideologically driven, one looks at personal behavior and demeanor rather than the consequences of policy and the moral and personal imperatives on the choice to join, stay or leave. The decision to do either seems to be driven not by what motivated one to decide either way, but how one acted in the position or how he left. I suppose the prevalence of that view can at least in my adult life be traced to the first Aquino administration where besides true believers, many who served (with personal honor and ethics) in the first Marcos administration (like Vicente Paterno) and nonpartisan types (like Secretary and later Justice Azcuna), were appointed. One did not have to be a partisan supporter to be in Cory Aquino’s administration, but could even have been an ethical member of the prior one, then I suppose it set the model for those that followed. Same thing happened when senior government officials dealt with some in the private sector who had senior positions or ties to the first Marcos administration. I remember the latter surprising the relatively young me during the Cory and Ramos administrations where I thought they would be shunned, but no, even the partisan anti-Marcos and pro-Cory high officials had no problem dealing with them. In my younger days, I was more judgmental as many of the younger commentators still are today. With age, I suppose one sometimes becomes humbler and more circumspect about judging others as one does not know all the circumstances and reasons behind the decision to join, stay or leave. Personally, I have gotten less judgmental in my older age and understand most important decisions are nuanced and complex. To repeat a quote from Google AI that I used in my column on sanctimoniousness and Ateneo, Buddhist principles perhaps give the most appropriate answer. “In Buddhism, judging others is discouraged because it arises from ego, pride and an incomplete understanding of another’s karma. Instead, the Buddha taught individuals to turn that discerning eye inward, using mindfulness to honestly evaluate and correct their own actions while maintaining deep compassion for everyone else’s struggles... Instead, practitioners are encouraged to cultivate compassion, empathy and wise discernment, recognizing that all beings are subject to the same cycle of existence.” I suppose if one lived an honorable life and meant well, even if one agrees or disagrees with their choice, it may be wisest and fairness to respect the person’s decision, and the process that led to it if he or she acted well and honorably while in that position. The author is an independent director of the state-run Maharlika Investment Corp.