Thursday, July 24, 2008 Malig: Dialogue By Jun A. Malig Cognition
A DIALOGUE, according to Merriam-Webster, can be a mere conversation between two or more persons. It can be an exchange of ideas or opinions. It can be a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution.
The dialogue between Governor Eddie Panlilio and the Provincial Board at the Bren Z. Guiao Convention Center last Monday turned out to be more than that. It was a blend of conversation, exchange of opinions, discussion to resolve disagreements, and pitching of accusations.
What turned out to be really significant was the agreement between the two parties to hold special sessions for the approval by the legislative body of some of the budgetary requests of the executive department. There's no doubt that this is a positive development.
The hug given by Panlilio to the seemly surprised Vice Governor Yeng Guiao before the start of the dialogue was returned by the vice governor with a similar hug at the end of the dialogue, though we don't really know what was going on in their minds during their "hugging moments." There's always a very thin line between hypocrisy and sincerity.
But it was good to see our governor and vice governor hugging and talking. It doesn't really matter whether they meant it or not. What's important was their three to four-hour face-to-face talk's impact to their constituents who somehow felt that there's a glimpse of hope, however dim it is, for their elected provincial officials to set aside pride and prejudice and truly work hand-in-hand towards the common good.
The last minute decision to allow only Panlilio and Guiao to speak on behalf their respective parties turned out to be a sound idea. Minus the three other voices from each camp, the dialogue was clearer, more direct, and better understood by Kapampangans.
Unlike animals and barbarians, civilized human beings resolve their differences through dialogues. And although saying one thing while doing the other is part of politics, it's still necessary for politicians to show that they're always open to unity or reconciliation. After all, political leaders, who call themselves as public servants, serve as the role models of the people.
Of course, it would be imprudent for a political leader to ask his constituents to become peaceful and cooperative citizens if he himself is not civil enough to cooperate with other leaders for the sake of peace and progress. The art and science of public governance is not a matter of do-what-I-say-but-don't-do-what-I-do. It is about leadership by example. It's about fulfilling one's campaign promises. It is about loyalty to nobody else but the people.
If our own political leaders are proving themselves to be role models for divisiveness - instead of oneness - perhaps 2010 would be the right time to choose an entirely different set of provincial officials who are not hostage to patronage politics and who know the limits of hardheadedness.
