When Has A Leader Become A Lame Duck?

Written on Monday, July 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm | by Ding G. Gagelonia

The open encyclopedia Wikipedia defines the political term lame duck as it applying to a politician, particularly to a sitting, elected leader, or legislative body whose term in office is running out with no option or prospect of the political entity staying in power after the legally mandated term, or cannot be ‘returned’ to the same post for another term. There is also a game where the operative aspect is the certainty that the player will lose.

Perhaps this is even akin to the Filipino game phrase ‘perdigana’ where the player who gets all of his chess or checker-board chips ‘eaten up’ up first actually wins, as in winning the game by losing it.

We note this because of the scenario now playing out in the tug of war between the government and the never-lose oil companies, basking in the unregulated, free-market-forces-driven oil industry.

Over the weekend, diesel prices were rolled back by P1.50 per liter, thanks supposedly to the power of presidential persuasion. In fact, even administration critics grudgingly gave a thumbs up sign to Malacanang.

But wait, now the news is that on Saturday, diesel prices will go up by a full three pesos per liter, fully erasing the earlier price cut and putting P1.50 on top!

That’s showing us who’s boss, right?

Another disturbing manifestation of the increasing ‘lame duck-ness’ of the government of the day is the supposed “breakthrough” in the Mindanao peace talks.

We only need to closely read the not-too-fine print too realize the emergence of the term ‘Bangsamoro juridical entity’ in the equation with the sleight-of-hand expansion of the Autonomous Area of Muslim Mindanao to include Palawan and the oil-deposit-rich areas of North Cotabato and the famed Liguasan marsh.

We hope someone will immediately correct us if we are wrong, but Palawan being put within the ARMM means the natural gas field of Malampaya coming under control of that Bangsa Moto juridical entity, along with the Liguasan area which is also believed to hold massive natural gas reserves within its bowels.

Also ask anyone familiar with Cotabato and you’ll be told how diesel-like substances actually seep out of the ground in some areas.

So are we seeing here the actual price that is being paid for peace in that area of Mindanao?

Is the government of the day displaying political will, bending backwards, or breaking its back?

When a duck quacks, walks, and limps, like a lame duck, then maybe it is!

Tags: ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: Ding G. Gagelonia is a journalist of some 30 years, having worked in both radio and TV news and public affairs since his teens. Ding Gagelonia now writes independently and does corporate communications consulting. He has two kids, Felice and Luis. His journalist blog is at midfield.wordpress.com

Filed Under National News, Politics

Related Entries:

Comments

12 Responses to “When Has A Leader Become A Lame Duck?”

  1. Bencard on July 21st, 2008 9:05 pm

    again, you are missing the point. a president, even a “lame duck president” has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil. domestically, he/she may, temporarily, influence it through subsidies or tax credits but those are band-aid solutions - a drop in the bucket. market forces are determined, not by politics, but by the immutable law of supply and demand. there is movement downward in the global price of oil because of that law - a lessening of demand due to its prohibitive cost.

    as to so-called bangsamoro juridical entity, i believe its creation is a violation of the present constitution, and would require the consent of entire filipino nation to ever materialize. a president - lameduck or no lameduck - is not the sole authority to make that possible.

    btw, every philippine president, by your definition, is a lameduck from day one. it’s just a matter of time.

  2. Ding G. Gagelonia on July 21st, 2008 10:02 pm

    Any leader indeed can be a lame duck from day one. But is a leader’s ability to propel his nation, his society to a measure of progress and stability measured by his term limit?

    Real vision should come in, coupled with integrity, honesty and a high moral purpose that can inspire the citizenry rather than disinherit them.

    Do we install, do we elect our leaders only for them to mark time, to present us with band-aid solutions, and in the process bring the nation to disrepute and near penury?

  3. Bencard on July 21st, 2008 11:01 pm

    ding, now you are reformatting your post, through your response, to show your true message.
    so it’s not about being a lame duck, rather it’s the ability of a president to make everybody “happy”. you can wait for that till hell gets cold. presidents are not alchemists that can turn stones to gold. they are human, too. and they are not “the government”. for every action they take, they are applauded and cursed at the same time - sometimes damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    abe lincoln was not “great” before he died. andrew jackson was loved and popular with the “masses” but not considered a great president.

  4. splice on July 22nd, 2008 12:10 am

    so it’s not about being a lame duck, rather it’s the ability of a president to make everybody “happy”.

    And everybody would have to be the Congress and the priests at the receiving end of Gloria’s goodie bags (literally), I suppose?

  5. Bencard on July 22nd, 2008 12:32 am

    no, splice, everybody means everybody, including you, the squatters in manila, the oust-gloria club, the milf in mindanao, the npa/cpp, the corporate executives in makati, the military activists, the media, the church and other sectarian groups, the militant students, among others. a goodie bag is not enough. it has to be inexhaustible.

  6. Ding G. Gagelonia on July 22nd, 2008 4:56 am

    Bencard, not reformatting but nuancing what I meant… that a leader can, and should choose not to be a lame duck and rise above the temptations of high office. FDR was time-bound and was at America’s helm during the most difficult of times but he left a stamp of greatness. We are in ‘war-time, aren’t we, in more ways than we can imagine.

    The Philippines is the only country we have, is it too much to expect from our leaders that they inspire, and lead, us?

    Simplifying it, I do not want to be ‘made happy’, as much as I do not want our leaders to make public office their own playground.

  7. Bencard on July 22nd, 2008 7:08 am

    contrary to your belief, fdr had been a controversial president whose official acts in office are still the subject of dispute among scholars. his successor, truman, was so unpopular at the end of his full term, he decided not to run for re-election. yet he is hailed as one of the greats.

    the american experience is replete with unpopular presidents who were considered great, and popular and beloved ones who were rated mediocre by historians.

    good for you that you don’t want to be made “happy”. but i have come to the conclusion that the filipino is a people that is not easy to inspire beyond the immediate need of the individual or his family. the general wellbeing of the nation always takes the backseat.

  8. cocoy on July 22nd, 2008 8:01 am

    We note this because of the scenario now playing out in the tug of war between the government and the never-lose oil companies, basking in the unregulated, free-market-forces-driven oil industry.

    heh. everyone is free not to use oil. same as to buy as little of it as possible or as much of it as they can afford. people can also try walking for a change. i did yesterday when normally i would have driven a car or get the driver to drive me to the destination.

    my point being, no one owes us a thing. we can choose to buy or not goods and services, given our means.

    free market also allows people to try actively to pick other means for getting energy. would solar work? would wind work? if there is one thing within Government’s power that it can do— is to allow for these alternatives to prosper on their own merit.

    see, instead of focusing on bring the price of oil down— which hardly is in anybody’s power, we should be focusing on alternatives.

    is Arroyo a lame duck because she can’t get what “the popular thinking wants”? i wouldn’t call someone who basically had martial law way back during that Trillianes farce, a lame duck. Now, that /was/ excessive force! i didn’t see any rioting in the streets because /our civil liberties/ were basically spat upon.

    And no, i don’t think Arroyo is “awesome”. contrary, I think she’s being a politician because she is putting too much emphasis on “quick and popular” solutions instead of doing the right thing: thinking ahead.

    Do i wish, Arroyo would apply the same ingenuity she displays when quelling “rebellions” to solving the problem of the Filipino? most certainly. Am I 99% certain she wouldn’t? yep— Arroyo’s a good politician that’s what she is.

  9. Ding G. Gagelonia on July 22nd, 2008 8:20 am

    Indeed all leaders are in ‘Catch 22′ predicaments. But it is a conscious choice they make when they assume high office, legitimately or otherwise. Truman may perhaps be recorded as “one of the greats” but his decision to drop the bomb not once but twice, for good measure, will be debated forever.

    But wasn’t the carnage in Nagasakia terror bombing given that the Hiroshima drop already sent the message?

  10. Bencard on July 22nd, 2008 10:07 am

    ding, maybe you can say that the americans had a very high respect for the japanese’s much-ballyhoed intransigence and fanaticism that they thought one a-bomb wasn’t enough. it took nagasaki (after hiroshima) for the japs to bend down on their knees in complete and unconditional surrender thereby, perhaps, saving more lives than what were lost in the bombing.

  11. Jon Limjap on July 22nd, 2008 11:04 am

    Ding,

    It was noted that, after Hiroshima, the war cabinet of the emperor debated that the US only had one “super bomb” and therefore did not merit reaction. They were determined to fight the war to the finish, e.g., allow the US to wage a protracted battle to invade the Japanese mainland where the citizenry will be armed with bamboo sticks to fight them off as long as possible. This strategy was termed “katsugo”.

    Based on the prevalent samurai culture of the Japanese at the time, the protracted invasion scenario wasn’t very far from likely.

    Also, the US plan of invasion involved producing seven more atomic bombs which will be dropped in key positions prior to the planned November 1945 invasion. If you think 1 extra nuclear bomb was excessive, think about 7.

    =====

    It’s funny when people question immensely successful solutions (e.g., the atomic bomb, the Y2K hoopla) as excessive simply because they succeeded, it seems, too easily. Right after Y2K many people questioned whether the Y2K bug was real and all the attention it had was merited. The irony is that if people didn’t pay that much attention to it, then it would be likely that doomsday really would’ve happened on Jan 1, 2000.

  12. Ding G. Gagelonia on July 22nd, 2008 1:35 pm

    Well, put that way, the Americans might as well have dropped the other A-bombs, right? Anyway what would several hundred thousand more civilian Japanese lives meant between enemies?

    But drawing a parallel between that A-bombs being used and the Y2K bug is a bit much, I think.

    To each his own perspectives which I think are not exclusive of the other. Cheers.

Leave a Reply