It is challenging being a leader. By your decisions as such, you must satisfy so many people across the whole spectrum of society. But different people have various backgrounds, opinions, and mindsets, which often lead to opposing points of view.
Similarly, their interests may conflict with one another. Often deeply and intractably, and it is up to the poor leader to resolve and balance the same. In doing so, one must consider all stakeholders’ interests and decide which is the best course of action for the public’s benefit.
Inevitably, the leader will face criticism, whether underserved or not. The recent episode involving the Maharlika Investment Fund overwhelmingly approved in the House of Representatives late last year is a prime example.
Critics, even before deliberations on the bill proposing its creation were finished, were quick to dub it a scam, comparing it to the controversial Coco Levy Fund of the past, which was originally meant to accelerate the growth of the coconut industry.
The authors of the Maharlika house bill quickly excised from it some sensitive provisions, such as the participation of the Government Service Insurance System and the Social Security System in putting up the fund.
Despite the absence of a debate or discussion about the bill, the critics were steadfast and wanted it to be abolished altogether. This is a manifestation that our brand of criticism or opposition to the actions of those in authority may be destructive rather than constructive. A bill that has not been completely deliberated and without understanding that there would have been safeguards in place was just outright labeled by the public as a means to corruption.
A more recent topic that has generated its own controversy involves that humble staple of Filipino cooking, the red onion. As the government began acting to bring down the price of onions, rumormongers went to work.
Stories and facts were swirled to involve some persons. This is extremely unfair to those being dragged or pulled into this gossip. When these critics choose not to name them, the victims are not allowed to properly defend themselves and set the record straight. Their names are just tarnished, and their reputations just blackened without basis.
What is bothersome is the speed with which these rumors spread. It seems that people no longer exercise discretion and just believe whatever they hear. This seems to validate the observation that Filipinos love to gossip and the titillating excitements it generates, rather than facts and the truth.
I have observed that in both the Maharlika Investment Fund and the case of onions, we display our ugly culture of opposing or gossiping, both of which eliminate the possibility of productive discussions and discourse.
Rumors are quickly labeled as truths. It is as if despite our intelligence as educated people, when others, especially those in government, are talked about as being involved in wrongdoing, they are already judged guilty of it.
Now, remember that one of the themes of the current President’s electoral campaign is national unity. But no matter how well-intentioned he may be, how can this dream of unity be achieved when we citizens are so divisive?
The Holy Book says that a house divided against itself cannot stand for long. And indeed, we cannot even attain anything significant by way of collective advancement when we criticize one another left and right, and without basis.
This is because collective advancement presupposes collective unity. This unity will be achieved by finding a common ground that begins only via an intelligent discussion and a respectful exchange of ideas.