[/caption]Before the fight there was a consensus among boxing analysts and ordinary boxing fans that the Pacquiao-de la Hoya fight was a mismatch. Manny Pacquiao’s speed and age would stand no match against Oscar de la Hoya’s apparent advantages—his height, reach, and experience.
As the events unfolded, however, Pacquiao dwarfed de la Hoya. There were many speculations on the “hows” and “whys” of Pacquiao’s victory. On one hand, there are those who said, rightly or wrongly, that it was scripted, with Pacquiao taking the role of the victor and de la Hoya, the vanquished. On the other hand, there are those who said it was a combination of Pacquiao’s determination, his brilliance in executing his game plan, and his unrelenting faith in God. Whatever, one thing is sure: His victory, then as now, brought yet another pride to the country.
And some benefits, too.
The day of the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match gave everyone a temporary respite from the discouraging political scene in the country. With the House of Representative poised to ram through changes in the Constitution for whatever ends the Representatives have in mind, one can’t help but be thankful for that boxing match. For it was as if the plans to pursue Cha-cha ground to a halt.
While the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match did breathe fresh air into the smothering atmosphere of politics, it did not dispense with politics altogether. Not that some of our Congressmen were there or Lito Atienza having failed to appear in the Senate hearing to defend his department’s (DENR) budget because he watched the fight in Las Vegas. It is that those boisterous exchange of punches; raucous cheers and jeers from the audience; and swollen eyes and bruises de la Hoya earned thereafter, are as much present in boxing as they are in politics.
The political game, as in boxing or any sports for that matter, can get exceedingly dirty and bruising, albeit figuratively. However athletes and politicians play their game, they still have to play by the rules. But with all its similarities, there is one thing that makes politics distinct from sports. In sports, you can’t take both roles; you can never be a player and at the same time a rule maker. In politics, however, you can be both; you can be a player and at the same time a rule maker. Even if, say, a boxer is very much eager to win, he can’t go beyond what is prescribed by the rules. His game plan must constantly be aligned vis-à-vis the rules that govern the game.
That is what makes the political player different from an athlete. If the rules go against them, should they follow? Not necessarily. At least not when they have the means at their disposal to change the rules so that the rules fit their game plan.
Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas’ House Resolution No. 550 is an example. Had it succeeded, it would have postponed the 2010 elections to 2011, thereby extending by one-year the terms of local officials, and by extension, PGMA's. Fortunately, though, it hadn’t.
However, it is only one of the strings of attempts to change the Constitution. It definitely won’t be the last. Expect more in the coming days as the players and rule makers are still out in the wild.
No comments:
Post a Comment