Because we have become so used to the practice, we think nothing of politicians who promise good things to those they are trying to woo.
The word “change” has been dangled many times over before a public so hungry for it. The immediate goal, after all, is to be elected to their posts. All other issues will eventually take care of themselves.
Case in point: Candidate Rodrigo Duterte’s promise to give Social Security System pensioners the P2,000 increase in their monthly pensions. Last year, just a few months before the presidential elections, this was an emotional issue because President Benigno Aquino III had vetoed the congressional measure granting the increase.
Aquino, in the last days of his term, came under fire for the veto, which he said would not be healthy, long-term, for the fund. And then the public got wind of the excessive salaries and benefits of SSS executives, most of them appointed under the Aquino administration. Then came Duterte who said he would make the increase possible.
But now, at the beginning of his seventh month in office, Mr. Duterte says he may not be able to keep his promise after all.
“I will try to give you an honest explanation, maybe in the month of January,” he said. He gave a preview, however, of what he might say. “[The economic team] had a very bleak assessment of what’s in store for us in the days ahead.” Top economic managers include Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III, Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, and Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia.
The President, however, said the team would meet about the matter again and find an alternative.
This is hardly a consolation. After all, what if the administration is just saying this again to quiet the discontent over the fact that he did not make good on his promise. Besides, were we not cautioned against taking the President’s words at face value?
If the SSS were really in a bind, and there is no viable way to grant the increase, then the people must be told. If they trusted their officials, they would accept it even as they may not like it.
For a rational electorate that trusts the government it put into power, an “explanation” would suffice. There would be no need for the adjective “honest”—which presupposes that some explanations—excuses if you will—are truthful while others are not.