But critics and foes quickly dismissed her design as a "political ploy," while the so-called civil society, composed of so many names and acronyms, continue to demand her resignation. Her mission is further challenged by the CBCP’s steadfast position on impeachment, a truth commission, and voluntary resignation as not contrary to Gospel.

Perhaps, critics, foes, and even the bishops, view the Great Reconciliation as rather limited. Prominently reported in media was the negotiation of sorts between deposed president and a sitting one. Mr. Estrada said that he forgave his persecutors but his supporters wanted his release as a sign of good faith. But Mrs. Arroyo’s executive secretary said that there are legal issues involved.

In sum, "plunder" cannot be part of the reconciliation process. The question of electoral fraud, in the eyes of Mrs. Arroyo’s foes, is not reconcilable either. This means that a reconciliation between a deposed president and a sitting one isn’t going to resolve the crisis of confidence.

The premise of reconciliation is that politicians will stop bickering and instead work together solving the country’s political and economic, problems. Nothing could be more desirable. But where does that leave "fiscalization," which is supposed to be the function of an opposition?

"Unity in diversity" is the bedrock of a pluralistic society, as suggested by the phrase, "We can agree to disagree." We can disagree without being disagreeable. That’s how we regard the politics of advanced democratic nations. Political differences are resolved through hotly contested but trustworthy elections.

Our crisis, on the other hand, is the result of contestable elections. But no one in power has said anything about establishing their integrity. Even if the impossible were possible — that politicians will stop sniping at one another — how will that reconcile government with the people?

That’s where the Great Reconciliation lies.