Behind Arroyo's decision to resign from the political stage

Belinda A. Aquino, University of Hawaii Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

The abrupt announcement by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo not to run for election in 2004 stunned everyone, especially because we have assumed all along that she has been positioning herself for next year's elections, if only to reaffirm her mandate.

Not known to mince words, Macapagal alluded to "the poison in the air" that is so pervasive she thought, "If this would be the atmosphere under which I would rule, how would I chart the country toward a bright future?" Citing deep divisions in the nation, economic problems and the spate of political infighting that have plagued her administration, she now thinks her candidacy would only worsen the country's troubles. She intends to spend the remaining days of her presidency, she says, to help her successor achieve a "strong and modern society."

The presidency of any country is the most demanding, distressing, draining and debilitating job in the whole world. How's that for the presidency as the 4 Ds? Yes, and it's enough to kill you.

If it's any comfort to Macapagal, the American presidency, considered the most powerful job on earth, has operated for more than 200 years now within a political context that scholars have described as "permanent crisis." Worse, it has meant the assassination of two of the most famous U.S. presidents -- Lincoln and Kennedy -- and the disgraceful resignation of Nixon and the impeachment attempts of Clinton in more recent times.

As powerful as the job seems to be, it's close to an impossible one, and sitting presidents must often rely on their wits and powers of persuasion to achieve their goals. In the end, they are often lonely and isolated, fading into obscurity and forgotten by history.

When you come right down to it, much of this impossibility attending the job springs from the distrust or ambivalence that people have of any president. On the one hand, we want a strong leader with the authority and ability to make quick decisions. On the other hand, we are disdainful or cautious of vesting too much power in a president or head of state.

To recall a bit of American government, after which ours was patterned, a deep distrust of "executive power" shaped the philosophy of the Articles of Confederation of the original 13 colonies. The tyrannical rule of King George III convinced the Confederation framers to create a national mechanism that had a legislature, but not an "independent executive." Without such an executive leader, the emergence of an "American tyrant" would be precluded.

Consequently, first U.S. president George Washington stepped down after two terms, thus allaying fears of creating "executive tyranny." He could have become the first American dictator, but he set the tone for democratic governance as a model for future presidents.

Of course, dramatic changes have reshaped the institution over time. The powers of the presidency have grown, with internal factors giving presidents as much leeway as they wish. External factors have likewise grown, particularly the expectations of interest groups and various constituencies, which have constrained the presidency. Thus, the ultimate test for any president has been to set the balance between empowerment and the constraining forces on the institution. Any president must often face a "damned-if you-do and damned-if you-don't situation" in this delicate balancing act.

Dynamics of Democracy authors Squire and Lindsay et al. have analyzed various competing paradigms of presidential power. These range from William Taft's "restricted model," which constructs such power narrowly, to Theodore Roosevelt's more expansive "stewardship model," which argues that since presidents alone represent the nation, they have the duty to act as "stewards of the national interest."

But it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is credited with the "advent of the modern presidency" in the 1930s. When FDR was first elected in 1933, the Great Depression spawned much poverty and loss of faith in government. People were willing to accept not only a strong but also authoritarian leadership. And FDR rose to the occasion with a "take-charge" presidential style, and a bold and extensive legislative agenda to restore faith in government and revive the economy.

Thus, he established the presidency as the pre-eminent institution for "strong policy leadership." Squire and Lindsay et al. conclude that all of FDR's successors, from Truman to Clinton, either "have felt compelled to follow the example he set of active national leadership, or have known that they would be measured against it."

Of course, Clinton went overboard on a number of fronts, and the current president George W. Bush, with his obsessiveness, is bound to become a class unto himself.

Where and when and how do we begin to repair our perpetually impaired Philippine presidency? We aren't going to have another "people power" again, are we? Part of Macapagal's frustration is that the country is not or has not united, and that the post-2004 government will merely end up inheriting a deeply divided country.

This is true as we are indeed a very fractious society. And politics, our favorite national pastime, exacerbates this fractiousness and militates against unity. Whoever coined the term "crab mentality" as our basic approach to power was being mild. It's more of an "attack dog mentality." Politics often plays out in relentless ways.

The late novelist John Steinbeck once said that, "we give the President more work that a man can do... we abuse him often and rarely praise him. We wear him out, use him up, eat him up.... He is ours and we exercise the right to destroy him." Macapagal and other presidents can certainly appreciate this remark.

Also, we always tend to focus on the presidency because it's the most visible institution. And because of the persistent paradox cited earlier: On the one hand, it's always too powerful, if corrupt; on the other, it's always too weak. Presidents are seldom able to keep the promises they make.

What a sad commentary so early in the New Year. Sometimes you begin to wonder if the presidency anywhere in the world is tailored for someone who does not exist.