So as not to rub salt into old wounds is, I think, what we are being told. It is time that this nation learns to forgive and forget, to move on in the spirit of reconciliation. Anyway, the courts have ruled on and have upheld the guilt of the principal accused in that political-cum-social-cum civil drama, while the President has exercised her prerogative of pardon. There may remain many differences between her and her pardoned predecessor but that is all to be expected.

In the meantime, from the Palace perspective, there is a country to run, an economy to keep afloat, naughty soldiers to keep at bay and the elections of 2010 to deal with.

So why provoke additional instability by "celebrating" EDSA 2?

I actually agree that marking EDSA 2 not only could but in fact would have been a source of instability, except that my reasons for feeling so are a bit different from those of Malacañang. Bluntly, the principal reason is this: the Administration would be damned if it celebrated EDSA 2 and caused the general public to remember all the events and circumstances that surrounded Estrada’s ouster. And while it would be damned just as well if it decided – as it did decide – to avoid celebrating EDSA 2 and appearing to reopen old wounds, the latter would be a far easier damning to bear than the former.

I say this because, had the Administration opted to celebrate the anniversary of EDSA 2 in a big way, it would be inevitable that the promises made by GMA during her oath-taking in 2001 would be raked up. And not only raked up but, to use a very forceful Filipino term, "isasam-pal sa kanya".

What were those promises? This is what GMA said on January 20, 2001:

"On many occasions I have given my views on what our program of government should be. This is not the time or place to repeat all of them. However, I can tell you that they converge on four core beliefs.

"1. We must be bold in our national ambitions, so that our challenge must be that within this decade, we will win the fight against poverty.

"2. We must improve moral standards in government and society, in order to provide a strong foundation for good governance.

"3. We must change the character of our politics, in order to create fertile ground for true reforms. Our politics of personality and patronage must give way to a new politics of party programs and process of dialogue with the people.

"4. Finally, I believe in leadership by example. We should promote solid traits such as work ethic and a dignified lifestyle, matching action to rhetoric performing, rather than grandstanding."

Given those promises, imagine what kind of emotions would have been provoked among the public had they been asked how they perceived the government to have lived up to the four?

Win the fight against poverty? On this score I believe the jury is out. There is a robustness to the economy that we haven’t seen in years, but there is debate whether this is due to excellent policies of the government or the continued outflow of Filipinos – about 2,000 daily – who in turn ship back billions of dollars which keep our economy afloat.

Improve the moral standards in government and society? A Pulse Asia survey ranks GMA’s administration as the most corruption laden in the eyes of her countrymen, not only in comparison with Estrada who was ousted on corruption charges but the previous "titleholder" as well, Ferdinand Marcos! In fact, I suspect that a more indepth Pulse Asia survey may very well reveal that more than any previous administration, this one will fare the worst if questions are asked around perceived involvement of presidential relatives in corrupt practices. Definitely something you would like to avoid.

Change the character of our politics, moving from politics of personality and patronage to one of party programs and dialogue with the people? I don’t think it is any worse than before, but neither is it any better. Or, if it is in fact somewhat better, that’s because the people themselves resisted attempts to "personalize" politics as evidenced by the fact that every major politician endorsed by Manny Pacquiao came crashing down to earth – including, by the way, Pacquiao himself. The only problem is, this promise was made so publicly at a time of a considerable amount of euphoria; to fail in fulfilling it therefore is doubly felt.

Leadership by example? Here partisanship takes over. The president’s loyalists love to tout how she is the most "hard-working" of presidents who never seems to run out of energy. On the other hand her staunchest critics would tell you that the example she has set as a leader is definitely something you wouldn’t want kids to emulate.

Given all of the above, it may indeed have been most prudent that the government did not spend to hold rallies and parades to commemorate EDSA 2. If not for the presence of General Esperon, those rallies and parades could have easily turned on the government itself.