Thus, it should not, therefore, come as a surprise that exasperated critics of PGMA should break protocol and political inhibitions by seeking FVR’s audience, his calibrated opinions, and mature judgment, incidentally, upon visitors’ initiative, and seldom upon his own instigation, albeit he welcomes "visiting firemen," which came about when former President Fidel V. Ramos met with former President Corazon Aquino’s proxy, Senate President Franklin Drilon, and former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s stand-in former Sen. Tito Sotto, to discuss urgent national issues of common concerns to all three former Chief Executives.

As it turned out, including the meeting with unpredictable and mercurial former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, nothing substantive or decisive happened to "baby jane" as the cliché goes, except for the media hype.

To again paraphrase Disraeli, "No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition."

However, the most alarming and the most serious result of the tripartite dialogue was the seemingly degenerating political condition which threatens not only to negate the modest economic gains of the last quarter of 2005 but also tends to undermine the stability and tenure of PGMA’s presidency.

This is the bleak message that emerges from the meetings.

In short, unless something dramatic, or earthshaking, or fundamental reforms are immediately put in place, the political malaise may "metastasize" as in cancer, to the point where both the presidency and this decadent political system will become terminal cases that can only result in political catharsis.

First, it is inadvisable for administration propagandists and apologists to demean or degrade the three former Presidents for being critical of the Arroyo administration since the former leaders have nothing to lose while President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has so much to lose.

Second, despite the late 2005 boomlet and PGMA’s whirlwind peregrinations to the provinces, her approval ratings have remained low in view of her media organization’s dismal inability to explain and project the government’s projects and accomplishments. The credibility, creativity, probity, and articulateness of presidential spokesmen, of which there are confusingly many, spin managers, and image makers leave much to be desired.

Third, as former President Fidel V. Ramos had repeatedly urged, get the Constitutional amendments moving with initially three or four major reforms to start with, i.e. (a) shift to parliamentary form of government soonest, (b) electoral upgrading, (c) unicameralism, and (d) 2007 "parliamentary" elections, with the other reforms and amendments to follow.

Truth to tell, the "no-el" syndrome is not only unwelcome to the "masa" who look forward to election spending regardless of whichever political system is in place, but the nation also looks forward to the 2007 elections, provided it is not the same traditional, expensive, fraudulent, violent, and "dagdag-bawas" senatorial, congressional, and local elections of which this country has had enough.

We need to try something new, such as parliamentarism, which can never be worse off but could plausibly be an improvement.

Fourth, this is the raison d’etre of former President Fidel V. Ramos’ reform agenda which, believe it or not, is not premised on political comeback, personal agenda, or anti-PGMA sentiments, but wholly, if my own assessment bears me right, on the vision of a prosperous, peaceful, and united Philippines.

If the Filipino people are already disbelieving, and filled to the brim with skepticism and disenchantment with all our political leaders, whether she be President Corazon Aquino, or President Fidel V. Ramos, or President Joseph Estrada, or President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The Philippines should therefore heed the farewell speech and admonition of Maximilien Robespierre, who was eventually guillotined together with 28 of his cabal in July, 1794, that "If the reins of the Republic are relaxed even for a moment, military despotism will take possession of them, and we will perish for not having known how to make use of the destiny of mankind when liberty could have been firmly founded" which prediction inevitably ushered in the Napoleonic era.

You be the judge. (For comments and views, please e-mail: chaff@fromthegrain@yahoo.com.ph)