"Pagbabago" is not change: What do we mean when we cry "Pagbabago"

Yesterday's presidential forum saw two out of the four presidentiables asking the front runner in the surveys, Noynoy Aquino, his record as a change agent. Manny Villar, Nacionalista party bet, asked Aquino his managerial experience while former SBMA and now lead "transformer"Richard Gordon, dared Aquino to show his record as a legislator. Gordon said that Aquino did not even experience managing a city.

These four candidates all promise change. But, what is change and how do Pinoys perceive it?

"Pagbabago", that is what Filipinos aspire for. Pagbabago comes from the Tagalog root word "bago" or transliterated into "new". This is different from the English word "change" which, in its etymological meaning means " change (v.) early 13c., from O.Fr. changier, from L.L. cambiare, from L. cambire "to exchange, barter," of Celtic origin, from PIE base *kamb- "to bend, crook."

In Western perspective, when you "change things", you actually "barter something or exchange something". For example, you barter "old" with another thing, which, if possessed by you, becomes "new". The bartered thing is not necessarily "new"--only when exchanged it becomes "new".

This is substantially different from our Filipino concept of "pagbabago" which the root word is "new". Our concept of change is more of metastasis which is "removal or transference" of something by another thing. We don't exchange something to make it new---we remove the old things and transplant a new one.

"Change" is not "pagbabago" in the transliterated Filipino. Change is nearer in meaning to "palitan" or "barter". For example, you don't transliterate this sentence " Uy, bago ang kotse mo." into " Uy, your car has been changed?". The proper transliteration is " Uy, you have a NEW car."So, when we say "pagbabago", we mean removing or transfering a thing and making it new. There is no exchange involved; when we cry "pagbabago", we transplant the old with the new.




When we say, we want "pagbabago sa ating kalagayan", we mean a total transformation or metastasis from a poor condition to an improved condition. When we say "pagbabagong pang espiritwal o moral", we mean essentially a total transformation, not renewal of our inner moral or ethical system.

"Bago" as a Filipino concept means "something new or fresh" according to the Sofronio Calderon Diccionario Ingles-Espanol-Tagalog published in 1915.

Okey, so now we understand.

Noynoy Aquino promises to change things, so do Gilbert Teodoro, Richard Gordon and Manny Villar. The question really--do they mean "change" as in the Western perspective, meaning "barter the old with something new but similar with the old"? or "Pagbabago", as what we really mean as "metastasis"?

Let's analyze.

Aquino intends to give different posts to the Hyatt 10 and former officials of the Cory Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos and even the Estrada administration when he wins the presidency. In the above definition of "pagbabago", is this plan consistent with what Filipinos desire?

No. It is not. Aquino conforms more on the Western instead of what the Filipino masses want.

The Filipino masses want new faces in governance. They are sick and tired of the old ideas of the present and past government officials. They want nothing of the old being repackaged as "new".

How about Villar? Is Villar's concept of "pagbabago" similar with ours? Behind Villar's and the Nacionalista party, we find old faces in Philippine politics. There is even nothing new with what he prescribes. Villar's platform offers the solutions which we already know and our leaders also know  but because they lack the political will to do it, these solutions are always put in the backburner.

Aquino and Villar do not offer "pagbabago"--they offer an "exchange" or only "palitan"---from an administration dominated by one elite group to another.

Worst, the two remaining presidentiables, namely Teodoro and Gordon offer the worst form of "pagbabago". Despite Gordon's "transformative politics", read his platform---there's no "transformative ideas" there--only motherhood statements. And nothing even of the "promise" of "change" or "palitan".

Gordon wants to barter and what's worst, he will be bartering our very futures when he becomes president.

Teodoro offers new leadership only, the kind which we have been accustomed to since nine years ago. Nothing about pagbabago as we want or aspire for---more of "transactional" change.

Who, then, holds the right interpretation of "pagbabago" ? Is Erap Estrada, who did not attend the forum, offers us the "pagbabago" which we so desperately seek?

No. Estrada just wants to continue what he failed to finish. He offers nothing new, except perhaps, a new face?

Who, then, holds the right interpretation of "pagbabago"?