With the national election standing at the doorstep, it is easy for our people to be swayed by the awesomeness of candidates’ rhetoric compounded by what seemed to be heartrending political slogans.

Before the election of Barack Obama as the first black US President, the Americans placed high hopes their new president would make a big difference in America. Tired of Bush presidency, the Americans opted for a new brand of leadership.

Obama’s campaign promise was indeed very attractive: the pullout of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The democrats’ propaganda was zeroed on the futility of war, blamed on America’s economic ills. So Obama’s team had succeeded in convincing the American voting public that a change of war policy would solve the country’s financial woes. Obama also promised to create new jobs for all citizens. For the time being, that promised had had an appearance of possible reality.

A year into Obama’s election, no significant pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq has been made (but more troops were sent to Afghanistan), and the economy still hangs in limbo, albeit experiencing occasional rebounds. The job creation promise remains an ideal dream but the statistics cannot lie: more than half million of Americans lose jobs every month.

Meanwhile, Obama’s popularity rating consistently plummets and there is no sign of improvement as of yet. This is because there is a huge difference between rhetoric and what is going on. There is no doubt that Obama is such an eloquent speaker. His charisma on stage had made him a symbol of hope for people who like to think that change is a business of one man. But it is not. Change is a fruit of collaborative efforts among all sectors of the society.

In the case of Obama, he could not just do things without the scrutiny of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Decisions that have far-reaching implications on the nation and its people need the approval of the other branch of government. Such is the price of democracy. It is a government by the people, not by one person.

At the very least, Obama, before he was elected, was very specific on what he would pursue once he is in the White House. The kind of platform that his party had introduced to the American public contained specific action plan, and not some sort of too vague, too generalized list of national agenda.

The Philippines has much to learn from the recent political development of America. With the national election standing at the doorstep, it is easy for our people to be swayed by the awesomeness of candidates’ rhetoric compounded by what seemed to be heartrending political slogans.

Again, we should be reminded that a president is merely a human. The country cannot pin down all its hopes on one person alone. Whatever is being said by any of the presidential candidates today is only good as it lasts. Whoever is elected as the next president of the Philippines, he will be confronted with many political, social and economic issues which cannot be solved with a mere review of their pre-election promises.

Perhaps millions in the country cannot wait to see Gloria Arroyo out of Malacaňang, in the same way as millions of Americans couldn’t wait for the end of Bush term. Gloria is neither a source of national course nor the one that comes after her a political messiah in the making.

Once a new leader sits in Malacaňang, the rules of the game will be different. It is important for our people to check whether a presidential candidate is talking of specific course of action which, once elected, he will execute faithfully, otherwise a list of generalized plataporma-de-gobyerno will just serve the old rules of the game.