The two inaugurals

There should not have been two. Not in the manner of the pomp and public display that both had been featured, matching one against the other, differentiating and compelling comparisons where there should have been none. The protocol is for one complete with pomp and pageantry while the other, purposely private and placid. 

The first is for the presidency. The presidential inaugural sets off a new day, presumably a change from the previous, or a stepping up. What substance beyond protocols should be contained in the first address of a new leader. It should inspire and set, not simply the tone, but directions, themes and profound philosophy.

The second, understandably understated substance-wise, is for the vice presidency. Inspiration, direction, theme and philosophy should follow, not precede. What it cannot contain are optional governance themes, whether these are full and frontally expressed as challenges, or subtly hidden as innuendo both in form and substance.

The second should reflect the first, and the substance of both, mirror images of leadership pursuing the same agenda. The time for political campaigning is passed, divisiveness, over with, and options, long exercised through the ballot. Unless, of course, in the undercurrents and behind closed doors, a plan is being hatched and the current vice presidency is actively subterfuge prepped as Plan B.

Across the vast and dividing Pacific, in the United States where democracy is practiced under a different set of values, an astute and greatly concerned observer thus had the following reactions.

From Duterte’s, there were moments of authenticity culled from the campaign. In their familiarity where they had more than once stirred, they now seemed real. Such is the eloquence of rhetorics that employ “rhyme without reason and alliteration without a whisper of wisdom.” For the observer, Duterte’s speech “sounded like a re-hash of the bytes and populist arguments he used in the election campaign.” Unfortunately, “he quoted Roosevelt and Lincoln, instead of Filipino greats and even martyrs like Jose Rizal or Ninoy Aquino.”

Worse, the ideal messages were not there. “In an inaugural address, you soar in poetry to inspire a nation’s heart to action. You offer a vision of hope and purpose that resonate with people’s hearts and minds. Especially when you know it. An uplifting of the Filipino soul or spirit is all a true president can do.”

The speech did not soar to these heights. It wallowed where Duterte stood. It was obvious that “realizing that he cannot solve all of the problems alone, he sought from everyone shoulder-to-shoulder cooperation whilst keeping to himself the pomp and glory of ordering the departments and agencies to speed up any or all processes.”

Before a leader can command, he must first unite.

“It is an illusion that a direct order would be carried out in unison by a team of newly assembled government departments and agencies, before truly becoming a team first. Unless he was playing to please the crowds that paid him with their votes, lip service could never had been cheaper. As if words were deeds or do the equivalent of work.”

The absence of inaugural eloquence founds sharp criticism. “Orders are executed in executive orders, not in the same breath of broad-belief statements of an inaugural address.”

The speech is characteristically “down-to-earth Duterte” and in that, it failed to express the most important expressions of gratitude. “Bereft of humility and magnanimity in victory, Duterte launched his presidency without acknowledging the unseen Hand of God that has formed this Catholic nation.”

Finally, for political practicality, Duterte “would have his honeymoon, starting without on his team the Vice President who elsewhere gave a more electrifying inaugural address in emotionally elegant Tagalog.”

There should not have been comparisons. From two separate inaugurals it is now embarrassingly obvious. “Here we go again, a divided constitutional leadership at the top of an eternally hopeful people.”