When asked what my initial impression of newly installed Philippine President Benigno Aquino III’s inaugural speech was, I answered that it is, quite admirably, straightforward and bereft of the rhetorical or oratorical flourish common in Philippine inaugural addresses especially those delivered in the pre-martial law years (see Malaya and Malaya 2004).
That it is straightforward does not however mean that the speech is lacking in metaphors. Like any piece of political discourse, President Aquino’s or P-Noy's inaugural speech is rich with expressions that on the one hand, facilitate the understanding of abstractions through more common domains of experience, and on the other, create speaker-audience identification, develop goodwill, and bolster political capital for the newly elected national leader.
To illustrate what I mean, I quote the following final statements in President Noynoy Aquino’s first important address to the nation:
‘Layunin ko na sa pagbaba ko sa katungkulan, masasabi ng lahat na malayo na ang narating natin sa pagtahak ng tuwid na landas at mas maganda na ang kinabukasang ipamamana natin sa susunod na henerasyon. Samahan ninyo ako sa pagtatapos ng laban na ito.’ (My hope is that when I leave office, everyone can say that we have traveled far on the right path, and that we are able to bequeath a better future to the next generation. Join me in continuing this fight for change.)
‘Traveling on the right path’ (‘pagtahak ng tuwid na landas’) is a core expression (the nub?) in his 20-minute address. It appears to be a common expression in Philippine political rhetoric and indicates what appears to me as an overarching metaphor of the speech—GOVERNANCE IS A JOURNEY.
The apparent overarching metaphor is not really different from how governance had been conceptualized in the past presidencies, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s presidency included. What of course distinguishes P-noy’s rhetoric from his predecessors—not the least of them Gloria Arroyo whose style of governance he deems to thwart—are the specifics that underlie or constitute the overarching metaphor. We can then ask: what kind of journey does he have in store for his people? How does he further conceptualize this journey and its participants/ travelers (the newly elected government and the people it is mandated to lead)? What road map has he prepared for his government and the people?
My goal in this attempt at analyzing the text more closely is to show a nuanced conceptualization of the journey through the metaphorical expressions, words, and phrases (lexico-grammatical features) found in the text (I use the original text delivered largely in Filipino as basis for my preliminary analysis) in the hope of giving us an idea of how the new Philippine president wishes to symbolically represent his new administration throughout his term. Also an analysis of the inaugural address, being the speech that sets the tone for the new government, shall serve useful in evaluating whether Mr. Aquino’s conceptualization of governance will have remained stable or will have experienced significant shifts by the end of his term.
What kind of journey does he envision for the country?
I believe the core expression mentioned above encapsulates P-noy’s idea of the kind of journey he envisions for the Philippines during his six-year term: ‘pagtahak sa tuwid na landas.’ ‘Tuwid’ (literally ‘straight’ but translated as ‘ethical’ in the English version of the inaugural address) is a recurring lexical choice in the speech. The pursuit of the straight/ethical path is realized in such expressions as ‘Ang unang hakbang ay ang pagkakaroon ng tuwid at tapat na hanay ng mga pinuno’ and ‘Ipagpatuloy natin ito tungo sa tuwid at tapat na pamamahala’ where the term ‘tuwid’ is linked or collocated with word-choices indicative of the journey metaphor: ‘unang hakbang’ and ‘tungo.’ It is also underscored through contrasting images, as in the following: ‘Ang mandato ninyo sa amin ay pagbabago—isang malinaw na utos para ayusin ang gobyerno at lipunan mula sa pamahalaang iilan lamang ang nakikinabang tungo sa isang pamahalaang kabutihan ng mamamayan ang pinangangalagaan’; ‘Sana ay magsilbi itong babala sa mga nag-iisip na ipagpatuloy ang baluktot na kalakarang nakasanayan na ng marami’ (re: the last example implicitly contrasts ‘tuwid’ with ‘baluktot’ or crooked).
Clearly, Aquino’s idea of governance is metaphorized as a journey towards the straight/ethical path characterized by ethical and honest leadership, suggesting through the repudiation of the way the previous government operated (‘pamahalaang iilan lamang ang nakikinabang’, ‘baluktot’) a trajectory from what had been to what should be, from a presumably sorry state of affairs to one that is almost ideal. This metaphorization re-articulates the message of hope that Aquino promised in his campaign. This, of course, raises high expectations for his presidency, but Aquino curiously deploys other metaphorical expressions in an attempt to strike a balance between the euphoria and the reality of having to lead at a critical juncture of Philippine history.
How does he further conceptualize this journey and its participants?
Perhaps, in an attempt to bring his audience back to the ground, he expressed his ascendance into power as ‘umpisa ng kalbaryo ko’ (translated in the English version as ‘the beginning of my burden’—which actually avoids the semantic tension suggested by the term ‘kalbaryo). The term ‘kalbaryo’ conjures an image of a man carrying a heavy cross, itself an Aquino metaphor for the national problems (‘kung marami tayong magpapasan ng krus ay kakayanan natin ito, gaano man kabigat').
On the one hand, the metaphorization functions to remind the president’s audience that while they should be hopeful and celebratory towards the ushering of a new leadership, the task of pursuing good governance or redirecting the nation towards the right path is rather daunting and not an easy one. On the other, it manifests how taken-for-granted it is to mesh Philippine politics with the Christian narrative. It reflects how religion has been inextricably interwoven into the current Philippine socio-political life.
Also, the metaphor curiously puts Aquino in unison with his mother whose presidency was seen as operating within a politico-spiritual plane (Mamot 1987). If Cory Aquino was Philippine democracy’s Joan of Arc and later the Mater Dolorosa of a nation almost divided, why can’t her son Noynoy be likened to Christ himself? As his speech tells us, his administration is ready to suffer the burden carried over from the previous administration, but promises redemption in the end. Seen within the framework of good versus evil employed in the young Aquino’s presidential campaign, the metaphor and the images it conjures appear to work.
Aquino was of course quick to say that the cross or burden is not his alone. It is going to be shared by all.
Indeed, Aquino conceptualizes the Filipino people as active participants in the journey: ‘Kung kasama ko kayo, maitataguyod natin ang isang bayan kung saan pantay-pantay ang pagkakataon, dahil pantay-pantay nating ginagampanan ang ating mga pananagutan.’ He then saw it fit to reaffirm conceptualizations his mother consistently expressed in her discourses throughout her presidency: ELECTIONS ARE CONCRETE ACTS OF DEMOCRACY; DEMOCRACY IS PEOPLE POWER. He said: ‘Pagkatapos ng bilangan, pinatunayan ninyo na ang tao ang tunay na lakas ng bayan. Ito ang kahalagahan ng demokrasya. Ito ang pundasyon ng ating pagkakaisa. Nangampanya tayo para sa pagbabago. Dahil dito, taas-noo muli ang Pilipino. Tayong lahat ay kabilang sa isang bansa kung saan maaari nang mangarap muli.’ And as if to emphasize the primacy of the people, he represented them as the president’s ‘boss’: ‘Kayo angboss ko, kaya’t hindi maaaring hindi ako makinig sa utos ninyo.’
What may perhaps be considered the most populist-oriented articulation of Aquino’s conceptualization of the people as active participants in the journey may be seen in these words: ‘Inaanyayahan ko kayo ngayon na manumpa sa ating mga sarili, sa sambayanan, WALANG MAIIWAN’ (Today I am inviting you to pledge to yourselves and to our people. No one shall be left behind). This is then followed by some of the most memorable lines in the speech: ‘Walang pangingibang-bayan at gastusan na walang wastong dahilan. Walang pagtatalikod sa mga salitang binitiwan noong kampanya, ngayon at hanggang sa susunod pang pagsubok na pagdadaanan sa loob ng anim na taon. Walang lamangan, walang padrino at walang pagnanakaw. Walang wang-wang, walang counter-flow, walang tong. Panahon na upang tayo ay muling magkawang-gawa.’ Here he employs the rhetorical strategies of repetition and negation—not really original, but nonetheless effective in wielding public approval and support at the early stage of his presidency.
What road map has he prepared for the people?
The road map that Aquino has laid for the people includes his specific plans, the challenges he expects to face, and also the means to realize the plans and respond to the challenge. His speech is not really wanting in specifics:
• review of ‘midnight appointments’;
• address the shortage in classroom and educational facilities;
• lessen the lack of infrastructure in transportation, tourism, and trade;
• revive the ‘emergency employment’ program; strengthen tax collection;
• fight corruption in the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Bureau of Customs to fund social services;
• strengthen and expand the armed forces and police for the protection of the ordinary folks;
• help farmers with irrigation, extension services, and marketing their products at the best possible price
• cut red tape dramatically and implement stable economic policies
• level the playing field for investors
• create jobs at home
• respond to the needs of the overseas Filipino workers
• strengthen processes of consultation and feedback
• uphold the constitutional right of citizens to information on matters of public concern
• provide true and complete justice for all
• form a Truth Commission headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide
• commit to a peaceful and just settlement of conflict in Mindanao
This is all good and pleasant to the ears, but a close reading of the text also reveals what is unstated and deemphasized.
While P-Noy talked of helping farmers with irrigation, extension services and marketing their products, he was silent about agrarian reform—supposedly the centerpiece of his mother’s administration (Aquino 1991), but something her presidency failed to fully implement what with the still contested and controversial Cojuangco family-owned Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac.
While P-Noy talked about his government’s commitment to a peaceful and just settlement of conflict in Mindanao, he hardly talked about addressing the long-standing communist insurgency in the country. He did talk about the imperative to ‘defeat the enemy by wielding the tools of justice, social reform, and equitable governance leading to a better life’. That he mentioned defeating the ‘enemy’ (without necessarily and specifically identifying which enemy) suggests an engagement in combat/war and appears to relegate to the sidelines the potential of negotiating and reconciling with an ideologically driven opponent. Meanwhile, the expression ‘wielding the tools of justice’ seems to be reminiscent of the conceptualization DEMOCRACY IS A WEAPON, which had been realized at varying degrees in the four administrations after the Marcos dictatorship.
And while P-Noy talked about cutting the red tape, implementing stable economic policies and leveling the playing field for investors, it might be necessary for us to consider that in Philippine political discourse, ‘red tape’ sometimes also refers to protectionist and nationalist policies that secure for us our national patrimony, that ‘stable economic policies’ are often only stable as far as foreign investors and the wealthy Filipino businessmen are concerned, and that ‘leveling the playing field’ sometimes means less protection from the government and more ‘privateering’ as the economy is increasingly liberalized.
Of course, P-Noy offers good, ethical governance as the means to achieve his set goals. But then it may also be wise to consider that while ethical leadership is necessary to steer the country towards national development goals, it is not, as his incorruptible mother’s example had shown, sufficient to be able to do so.
What specifically is the role of the Aquino government in this journey?
How does the Aquino government figure then in this journey? From what has been discussed so far, the role of the new government is not going to be a clear-cut, monolithic character that is less complex as the previous one or devoid of contradictions.
As President Aquino strives to become the ethical and honest leader that he sets as standard in his inauguration, his government will be juggling roles—often conflicting ones—in order to reach out and work with his various constituents in the next six years. While his government will attempt to be the ‘champion of the poor’, he will maintain to be an ‘enabler of (big) business.’ While he fulfills his vow to be a faithful servant to the people—his ‘boss’, he shall most certainly maintain his affiliation with his political party and political allies who helped out in his campaign.
At the very least we can expect a government that is conscious of its role as a transparent and accountable servant of the people. Perhaps, the challenge for those who dare participate actively in the journey is to use Aquino’s promise of transparency and consultative leadership as a means to negotiate what may be contentious terms in his future policies.
So what?
So what are the implications of understanding this nuanced conceptualization of governance in the inaugural address?
The inaugural address is of course not just a concatenation of words that we should dismiss because we easily subscribe to the notion that words are empty and that actions are what make the difference. Words, in fact, are actions. And this is especially true if they come from a powerful agent such as the president. The words of President Benigno Aquino emphasize and highlight what he deems important in his administration; it goes without saying that these same words hide or deemphasize what he considers least of his priorities. Moreover, his words will most likely find their way into laws or statutes or executive orders—what one discourse analyst calls ‘non-negotiable materialities’ or ‘more authoritative contexts’—and they will have a bearing on public policy and how we do politics from the here and now.
Well, there is also the idea that since the inaugural address is expectedly high in triumphal rhetoric and the rhetoric of promise, it would serve the purpose of showing whether, at the end of his term, the president is good on his promises. While that is undeniably important, I am not really very keen on following that for my future analysis. Socio-economic and political analysts can take care of that.
What interests me more is how the rhetoric in the inaugural is going to evolve in the future rhetorical acts of President Aquino. I suppose that will tell us more about what kind of man we have chosen to pursue the task at hand, and perhaps, what kind of people we have become.
-end-
