Online edition of Daily News

President Gloria Arroyo presides over her first cabinet meeting for the year at Malacanang presidential palace in Manila, 03 January 2003, after her shock announcement on 30 December 2002 that she would not seek a second term of office in the 2004 elections. Critics praised Arroyos announcement while many Filipinos rallied behind her. AFP

A decision by President Gloria Arroyo of the Philippines against running for a second term in 2004, while causing ripples among her countrymen leaves the rest of the world with some challenging posers.

Explaining her reasons for not opting to run for a second term, the Philippines President was quoted saying that the "deep political divisions" and the "excessive politicking" in the archipelago, now quite famous for its political storms, had acted as disincentives for a second go at the presidency.

While assessing the correctness of this decision in the context of the reasons given by Arroyo, could prove problematic, it is sufficiently clear that the President is not overly obsessed with the high office she is holding. On the face of it, she seems quite prepared to let go of the reins of power when it is time to do so, in her estimation.

Quite a change, the observer is likely to think, from the usual practice of rulers, even in what are considered democratic countries in particularly South Asia, to repeatedly run for office, blatantly disregarding, in most cases, their questionable performance sheets as holders of public office. At the time this announcement was made, news analyses indicated that Arroyo's popularity ratings were not as high as expected, besides quite a few of her associates are being accused of graft and corruption. While there was speculation that the President's decision could have been spurred by these disclosures, it is difficult to assess Arroyo's decision negatively, even if there was any truth in these popular suppositions.

If the President is proving sensitive to public opinion, that is more so why, her decision not to run for re-election should be seen in a positive light. She is bowing to the court of public opinion, particularly on issues such as clean governance - a rare gesture by the standards of those holding high public office in our part of the world. On the other hand, it is our dismal experience in South Asia, that the public are abysmally insensitive to the track records of those who run for high office.

Likewise, contenders for high office and their political parties seem to be caring tuppence for the image they have created for themselves locally and abroad. Very often, those accused of numerous abuses while in power, are given the ticket to have another grab at power. This problem could have its roots in the relative tolerance with which our publics treat these scandal-tainted parasites of the political arena.

A task for the future, for those concerned with the common good, is the creation of a public which is acutely sensitive to the public track records of their politicians. For, elements which have been thriving on a politico-social system couldn't be expected to be in too great a hurry to reform or change it. A perceptive and critical public, on the other hand, would render the survival of these elements difficult. Coming back to the Arroyo decision, while it could be interpreted as exemplary if seen in the above light, it could also be considered retrogressive if the point of view is adopted that those holding high office are also expected to bring a reform perspective to their duties.

While showing sensitivity to public opinion is praiseworthy, one would also expect one's democratically-elected Heads of State and Government to set in motion a process of change which would end corruption and other abuses in public life and so put an end to the parasitic existence of politicians and others holding the reins of power.