|
Thomas
Jefferson discontinued the practice of personally
delivering the president’s report to Congress that was
inaugurated by George Washington, the first president,
on January 8, 1790, in New York, the capital of the new
nation until 1801. But since the US Constitution
required a president to report to Congress, Jefferson
wrote his message and had it read by a clerk.
Jefferson held that the constitutional requirement had
the foul scent of the monarchy that the Americans
deposed in the War for
Independence,
known since as the American Revolution, for it derived
from the “Speech from the Throne” that the English
monarch delivered to Parliament. However, His Majesty’s
speech was apparently what His Majesty wanted Parliament
to do for him, whereas a president’s message was
something else besides. The US president’s
constitutional duty was like that, and that’s why
Jefferson fulfilled his by writing his report to be read by a clerk
instead of standing magisterially behind the podium to
deliver it.
It was
Woodrow Wilson who reestablished the practice in 1913,
continued by Calvin Coolidge and followed by presidents
until 1923. Until then, the report was known by its
original name, the President’s Annual Message to
Congress. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who addressed the
joint sessions of Congress on January 1, 1934, for the
first time since Coolidge, used the term State of the
Union message, abbreviated Sotu. From then on other
national leaders called their reports State of the
Nation speeches, which we, in keeping step with world
progress, converted to State of the Nation Address, or
Sona, notwithstanding that it sounds like “zona.”
Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, because our
presidents habitually try to “zone” the state of the
nation within the boundaries of their perceptions.
So there
you have it: From the British monarchical SFTT come the
presidential Sotu and Sona. They are all delivered from
“the commanding heights,” and whether they are
democratic or despotic, national leaders are compelled
to tell the people through their representatives how
their countries are doing insofar as they see it. No one
else, as the tradition goes, can see things as well as
leaders, having all the information that they want or
need to make their perceptions and judgments conform
with realities. Inevitably, there are always
disagreements on the actual state of nations, but this
is what makes democracy a fun political system, even if
there are tears amid the laughter.
Sotus
and Sonas are taken seriously not only because they
afford presidents the opportunity of defending their
performance against the assaults of critics and
detractors even if, throughout the year, the media
afford both sides a regular, frequently a daily, venue
for their perorations. Presidents’ complaints about the
one-sidedness or bias of the media are belied by the
facts since every little thing that presidents say and
do is faithfully reported. It’s true, of course, that
the media are critical, but presidents have their own
information apparatuses. Except for habitual cynics who
know the price of everything and the value of nothing,
presidential statements, especially their Sotus and
Sonas, can always count on attentive listeners from
political friends and foes. It’s because the Sona or
Sotu consolidates an administration’s response to issues
of national concern.
Symbolism
The Sona
(let’s call it Sona from hereon) is taken seriously
because of its symbolism.
Firstly,
it symbolizes accountability. As an account, fanciful or
not, of an administration’s performance, it recognizes
that in a democracy the president is accountable by
being obliged to report on the state of the nation.
Frequently called by the media as the president’s
“report card,” it suggests a willingness to be graded,
although in the view of the reporter, the card merits a
grade of 99, if not 100, a 1 if not minus 1. No
president will submit a report card that will invite a
failing grade, even if it’s the pleasure of the
grader—the people and the media—to tend to be miserly.
But as the report is presented to Congress, the grading
depends on whether it’s the majority or the minority who
gives the grade. This has become the norm in recent
years.
Secondly, the ceremony of the Sona symbolizes the
principle of the separation of powers. Although that’s
no longer the practice, the ritual requires an
invitation from Congress for the president to render his
report. As the US constitutionalists conceived it, the
executive may not enter the legislative chamber without
an invitation. In our case, the president apparently
decides when he or she will deliver the Sona, although
in usual practice, it’s at the opening session of
Congress.
The
ritual also requires that a standing ovation should
greet the president when she enters the hall and when
she stands to deliver her speech, in homage to the
position. Her speech may merit applause from the usual
sectors, at the end of which a standing ovation is also
permitted, if not required. Supreme Court justices
rarely applaud, and only when the Sona refers to the
administration of justice. The Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the military leadership, if present, do not stand in
ovation except in relation to pronouncements on foreign
policy, never on domestic policy. This is not our
practice.
Standing
ovations mean only that the office merits them, not
because the person who occupies it is the darling of the
nation. That applauses from the audience are duly
counted by the media is an exercise in arithmetic: they
can be taken any way one pleases.
All the
same, the Sona focuses the nation on what is important
and relevant. When well done, it rallies the nation and
focuses its attention on what is important and relevant.
It is most significant in times of crisis. Presidents
who have achieved greatness have proved equal to the
ceremony of uniting a nation.
FDR’s
speech
A
memorable example is Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s State
of the Union speech before the 73rd Congress of the
United States in 1934.
He began
by saying that he did not appear before Congress to make
requests for a special and detailed item of legislation
but “to seek counsel” in building from the ruins of the
past “a new structure.”
“Civilization,” he went on, “cannot go back;
civilization must not stand still. We have undertaken
new methods. It is our task to perfect, to improve, to
alter when necessary, but in all cases to go forward. To
consolidate what we are doing, to make social and
economic structure capable of dealing with modern life
is the joint task of the legislative, the judicial and
the executive branches of the national government.”
As the
world knows, FDR’s “New Deal” saved American capitalism,
leaving a legacy that continued with “Fair Deal” and
“New Frontier,” making the US as near as could be to a
welfare state, but later washed away by the Ronald
Reagan “revolution,” the Reagan who survived the
Depression through FDR’s “big government.” Anyway,
that’s water under the bridge, that’s up to the
Democrats and the American people to decide.
He also
presented a vision that’s worth remembering in the era
of globalization and privatization, which amount, in the
extreme case, to a doctrine of greed: “Without regard to
party, the overwhelming majority of our people seek a
greater opportunity for humanity to prosper and to find
happiness. They recognize that human welfare has not
increased through mere materialism and luxury, but does
progress through integrity, unselfishness,
responsibility and justice.”
Now,
with the perspective of 73 years, how do these words
resonate in the heart of America and the world at large,
not to mention in our hearts?
Roosevelt also railed against “crimes of organized
banditry, cold-blooded shootings, lynching and
kidnapping [which] have threatened our security....
Their violations of ethics and their violations of law
call on the strong arm of government for immediate
suppression, they also call on the country for an
aroused public opinion.”
He
wasn’t referring to noncomformists, dissidents,
subversives or terrorists, but criminals of whatever
guise, for note his outrage at the violators of
“ethics.” In referring to “malefactors of great wealth”
(a phrase that won him the honorific title of “traitor
to his class”), he also encouraged consumers’ for “fair
prices and honest sales.”
In
keeping with the spirit of the State of the Union
Address, that of rallying the nation, he said: “The
letter of the Constitution wisely declared a separation
[of powers], but the impulse of common purpose declares
a union. In this spirit we join once more in serving the
American people.”
The Sona
we want to hear
One is
tempted to say that something like FDR’s speech is the
Sona the people deserve to get instead of what a UP
sociology student called a “medieval speech like a
monarch’s.” This judgment recalls the Speech from the
Throne which Jefferson wouldn’t have anything to do
with. But you know how UP students are; they want
something like Pericles’ speech on Greek democracy or
Lincoln’s
Gettysburg Address. And yet, it’s not altogether
unrealistic to wish for a “report to the nation” that
echoes the spirit of FDR’s speech (Filipinos have a
fondness for Roosevelt). As a matter of fact,
paraphrasing or even plagiarizing it would have sounded
the right note to the temper of the times.
If the
nation is at war, as some very smart people in
government fervidly hold, it’s not so much against
terrorists as defined by them as against poverty,
corruption, injustice, inequality and that old standby,
hypocrisy. While there’s no call for complacency about
terrorism, honesty demands that it be recognized for who
the perpetrators are. For starters, the Summit on
Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances
should have been given extended treatment rather than
calling for stronger laws. If the Sona is a report card,
it should have included all the subjects, not just the
ones selected for good effect by the reporter.
This is
not to say that the Sona contains nothing that deserves
at least a passing grade. It has incontestable
statistics of economic improvement, proof of which is
the contentment of the business community. Who can, for
example, take exception with the growth of call centers
in the country? Who can deny the proliferation of
shopping malls? Who can quarrel about the remittances of
overseas workers? Employment has, indeed, gone up from
time to time.
The one
promising note in the Sona is the call for electoral
reform after an election that once again raised more
questions than it resolved issues. It was as if the need
for electoral reforms only became apparent now when they
have always been the basic problem since national
independence and earlier. Automation is not the answer;
it’s just the new gimmick. The answer lies in the people
who get appointed to the Commission on Elections.
The
convenient excuse is that poverty breeds corruption
rather than the corruption of power, which is rooted—you
guessed it—in the conduct of our elections. It’s not
because running for office is expensive; it’s because
those who spend want to recoup their investment tenfold,
a vastly high ROI that makes politics a sunshine
industry.
We can
ask for stronger laws against all forms of wrongdoing—as
if there aren’t enough of them—but what’s really needed
is the enforcement of these laws “without fear or
favor,” for otherwise, only the less favored will have
reason to fear, often from injustice.
“Laws,”
as Balzac observed, “are spider webs through which the
big flies pass and the little ones get caught.”
FDR
spoke not only for the American people during and after
the Great Depression, but also for Filipinos when he
said that “they recognize that human welfare has not
increased through materialism and luxury, but it does
through integrity, unselfishness, responsibility and
justice.”
A tall
order?
But this
is the war of all wars: the campaign for fidelity to our
dreams and aspirations as a people living under a
constitutional democracy. |