Benefit-of-the-doubt politics seems to be all that is saving the current Senate leadership, enough at least to stop the Solid Bloc 11 from reclaiming the chamber leadership.
The new majority had barely been consolidated before it was hit with two of the nation’s most consequential crises: the impeachment proceedings and a probe into the years of flood control corruption.
Political pundits had a blunt message for Nosy Tarsee: the real question was never who holds power; it’s what they will do with it.
If the Senate majority uses its position to ensure a fair impeachment trial, that should be welcomed.
If the flood control subcommittee under Senator Rodante Marcoleta conducts a thorough, no-nonsense investigation into where the public funds went, that should be encouraged.
If mistakes are made, the minority should point them out. If abuses occur, the minority should expose them, but criticism is most effective when it is grounded in facts and results rather than assumptions about motives.
The swing votes wanted to listen to the public demand for the legislature to rise above the endless accusations and political drama. The public deserves a Senate that is allowed to work and be judged by what it delivers.
The new majority has only recently taken shape. Before declaring failure, before assigning sinister motives, and before dismissing every initiative as a political maneuver, perhaps the more reasonable approach is to let the Senate do its job, an insider quoted one of the majority members as saying.
Predictably, the political pundit immediately questioned motives. Political observers began reading hidden agendas into every move. But before assumptions harden into conclusions, it is worth looking at what the Senate has actually done.
