Are we putting too much in the position of President and as a result, putting too much emphasis in our choice of one?
Theoretically, the president is the head of state tasked with implementing enacted laws, and is also the commander in chief tasked with protecting the country and its citizenry from interior and exterior forces, and bringing about peace, order, and prosperity.
As such he is one institution among many other institutions in the country, both in government and private sectors. Thus, we also have our legislative institution, judicial, the different institutions in the public and private sectors such as financial, agriculture, manufacturing, etc., all forming part of the economy.
If all or most of these other institutions are viewed as so weak as to be undependable and not worthy of trust, then we have a duty to elect a very strong and uniquely-qualified president as head of the state to help bring about stability and strength in all these other institutions.
Is this what we are asking from the current crop of presidential aspirants? To be that very strong and uniquely-qualified messiah to all our accumulated challenges?
Many of us may simply be looking for one to address and maybe ameliorate certain specific problems considered top priorities. Such as endemic corruption, unacceptable criminality and social chaos, an ineffectual government laden with both bureaucracy and corruption. Or maybe simply looking for one that could give the electorate the opportunity to “trust government”, given that very few people have faith in it.
Maybe for us here in Mindanao, one who can effectively address our challenges that have largely been neglected by what many of us view as imperial Manila. And maybe also we seek earnest resolution to the many challenges with our ethnic minorities.
Thus, our choice of president will depend largely on what we expect him/her to do in office.
Hopefully, six years is not an eternity for any error of choice made.
00000000000000
In theory and in principle, I do believe that human law has it right when it deals with separating church from state. But it is the human agencies on both sides that wittingly or unwittingly blur the lines and thus make the divide confusing or untenable. The devil is in the nuances needed to straddle the fine lines between the two.
Treading then in the at times difficult path of freedom, I say leave it to individual consciences to make that determination. But nothing by way of criticism and comment ought to be taken out of the table.
BTW, political ideology could be said to be a or part of a religion. And many do practice it as some kind of strict moral guide.
By way of example.
When then US Pres. Trump insisted on building a border wall, his detractors did not anymore think it expensive, useless, exclusionary, etc. It was regarded as immoral. Politicians now cross whatever lines to promote ideological agenda.
In the Philippines? What about members of the clergy taking political sides and promoting them as their moral equivalents?