 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| What Is to Be Done? By Antonio C. Abaya November 7, 2002 The title is borrowed from Lenin, but it is the only thing I have borrowed from the old goat. A US-based Filipina Internet reader of this space, reacting to my column titled �Where We Are Headed� and to similar pieces by other writers, has complained that all these articles �cite what is wrong with the country. None has offered solutions. I am interested to hear WHAT needs to be done and HOW the solutions are to be implemented�.� Good point. But the subject is so broad and the problems of the country are so numerous and seemingly so intractable that it boggles the mind even to contemplate how to go about coming up with solutions. But we have to try and keep on trying because this is the only country we have, unless we have made the decision to emigrate, as so many have done. However, some caveats. It is not possible to come up with solutions that will please everyone. The problem has to be broken down into its many components: economic, political, judicial, electoral, social, cultural etc�and so must be the proffered solutions. And the solutions must further be broken down into short-term, medium-term and long term. So this discourse will not fit into one or even a series of articles. ***** We have to start with the two most immediate concerns, the economy and the politics. Although the economy is muddling along at a moderate speed (3 to 4.5% GDP per quarter, annualized), better than many other economies in the region and the world right now, it clearly is not enough to generate the number of jobs needed to lift millions of destitute Filipinos from poverty, especially since we are burdened with a population growth rate of 2.32%. The tiger economies of East Asia got to where they are now because they enjoyed GDP growth rates of 8 to 12% per annum for at least 20 years or 80 quarters, largely from the export of manufactured goods, which created the added bonus of spawning secondary and tertiary industries that catered to their domestic markets. The Philippines had it backwards: we had an inward-looking economy that produced goods only for the domestic market and exported mostly commodities, plus some low-end manufactures like garments, handicraft and furniture. We did not start exporting manufactured goods in earnest until the 1990s, ten to twenty years AFTER our neighbors did, by which time the global marketplace had become overcrowded, especially with the entry of the People�s Republic of China. It is no longer possible to duplicate the export-based success stories of our neighbors. Unless we discover substantial new oil and gas deposits � aside from Malampaya � we have no choice but to look for those GDP growth numbers in the domestic market, without, of course, abandoning our modest toehold in the global marketplace, which earns for us about $36 billion a year (compared to South Korea�s $144b, Taiwan�s 122b, Singapore�s $114b, Malaysia�s $83.5b, and Thailand�s $58.5b). ***** So we have to look for those GDP growth numbers in the domestic market. But how? The medium-term development plan of the Arroyo Government identified three areas where it has chosen to concentrate its efforts to create jobs and therefore alleviate poverty: agriculture, information and communications technology (ICT), and tourism. Unfortunately, the ICT bubble burst all over the world even before September 11, and tourism bombed out, also all over the world, after. After the October 12, 2002 Bali bombing, tourism in this part of the world has all but died out. That left agriculture as the only viable focus left for the Arroyo Government, and in this it has been moderately successful: much of the modest growth in our GDP has been scored in agriculture, together with the remittances of OFWs, but it clearly has not been enough to make a dent in the war against poverty. In my article dated October 3, 2001 titled GMA � The Best There Is But Her Best May Not Be Good Enough, written after meeting with President Arroyo for 90 minutes in Malacanang, I mentioned asking GMA, as I had asked NEDA Secretary Dante Canlas earlier, why their development plan made no mention at all of manufacturing. I tried to reason out � one does not really argue with a President � that one hectare of agricultural land, planted to rice or corn, cannot sustain even one family. That same hectare of land, if converted to a manufacturing center, can sustain hundreds of families. I detected in her a bias against manufacturing, a bias which probably stemmed from her ideological commitment to free trade and globalization, under which the Philippines has apparently been crossed out as a manufacturing country and must fend for itself as an exporter of labor. In the 1992 presidential elections, Candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago asked me (I did not volunteer) to draw up her party platform and program of government, which I did, including a flagship project which would have been implemented from Day One if she had won. (Many believe she actually won in the voting but was cheated in the counting). That flagship project is so simple but is so potentially efficacious that I am surprised that no politicians or their bright boys have even thought of it. But there is no point in detailing it in this space if the incumbent president is not interested. Perhaps, the next president��. ***** I also believe, however, that having the correct economic strategy is not enough for successful nation-building. There has to be continuity in the implementation of that strategy. The six-year presidential term mandated by our Constitution is too short for a developing country trying to pull itself together. All the successful countries in this part of the world, without exception, had modernizing leaders who were in power for from 13 to 30 years. Lee Kwan Yew could not have built up Singapore to where it became if he were its leader for only six years, instead of 30. That is why a shift to the parliamentary system is essential. Under this system, a non-performing prime minister (like Erap, for example) can be removed from power by a simple vote of no-confidence in parliament, without any need for a People Power �revolution.� On the other hand, a good leader can remain prime minister, legally and constitutionally, almost indefinitely, as long as his/her party retains majority control of parliament. In the Philippine context, with its debased personalistic politics, a shift to the parliamentary system has to be accompanied with drastic measures to prevent or penalize political turn-coatism, to dismantle political dynasties, and to require political parties to have program-specific platforms and to enforce party discipline among their members. At the same time, the electoral system has to be drastically revamped to free it from the clutches of Big Money, to clean up the voters lists (through an electronic national ID card), and to strictly enforce electoral laws with a Comelec that has teeth. For example, the posting of illegal campaign posters, easily the most blatant violation of electoral rules in any Philippine election, can be neutralized by a simple measure that no one has thought of, but it would require a Comelec that is not a toothless, spineless, brainless wonder. All these drastic new measures and more would be fiercely resisted by most of the trapos in power. For that reason, they should not be the ones to rewrite the rules. And this is the sticky part: by consensus among key sectors of society, if possible; or by decree by a government of national salvation, if necessary, this country needs to go through a transition period of at least five years during which we must redefine how we want to be governed, because the present order is simply not capable of cleansing itself. The alternative is: More of the Same, as we spiral down into chaos and anarchy. ***** The bulk of this article appears in the November 25, 2002 issue of the Philippine Weekly Graphic magazine. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �What Is to Be Done� IT TOOK hundreds of years to develop effective parliament systems of government (as in Britain) during which the necessary infrastructures developed, particularly few and stable political parties with well-defined philosophies of government. Nothing like that exists in the Philippines nor can it because Filipino politicians are not interested in the public weal but in advancing their own power and wealth and in establishing ways to perpetuate themselves in office. With the right kind of voting public, indoctrinated in love of country and civic duty, in public schools staring in kindergarten, federalism works as well or better than parliaments. The fundamental problem is the Filipino; he will wreck parliaments just like he wrecked presidential governments. I can�t think of one Filipino pol who puts his country before himself or who considers that anyone could be his equal or better. Robert Hanan, Queensland, Australia. [email protected] November 25, 2002 MY REPLY. You seem to believe that good or bad politics is biologically determined, and that the Filipino is not capable of good politics simply because he is a Filipino. This is arrant nonsense on the same level as the Nazi doctrine of the biologically determined uebermenschen and untermenschen. The very fact that there is a reasonably successful parliamentary government in Malaysia, where the dominant political group (the Malays) are ethnic brothers of the Filipinos, demolishes your anti-Filipino prejudices. Filipinos and the Malays of Malaysia differ on two major points: religion and political inheritance. The Malays are predominantly Muslim, while Filipinos are predominantly Roman Catholic. Knowing your anti-Catholic prejudices, I can state right away that religion is not the crucial difference since Islam is not more enlightened or more enlightening than Roman Catholicism. The crucial difference between Filipinos and the Malays of Malaysia lies in their political inheritance. Filipinos inherited the worst kind of liberalism from the Americans, who glorify the individual over and above the community. This has stunted the growth of a sense of nationhood among the Filipinos, as they grew up more conscious of their rights as individuals, rather than of their responsibilities to the community or nation. Fortunately, the Malays of Malaysia did not inherit this from the British. That is why most Malaysians (and Singaporeans) accept without question the Internal Security Act (inherited from the British colonial government) as a necessary administrative tool to protect the community from subversives, despite the reduction in individuals� civil and political rights. This would not prosper in the Philippines because Filipinos have been conditioned by their American inheritance of liberalism to be extremely protective of individuals� rights even when the community is already on the brink of disaster. Your statement that �federalism works as well or better than parliaments� suggests that you believe that federalism and parliaments are mutually exclusive. That is not so. The opposite of a federal union is the unitary state. There are federal unions that use the parliamentary system (e.g. Australia, India, Malaysia), and there are federal unions that use the presidential system (e.g. the USA, Brazil, Mexico). On the other hand, there are unitary states that use the parliamentary system (e.g. France, Israel, Japan), and there are unitary states that use the presidential system (e.g. the Philippines, Chile, Taiwan). ............................................................................... YOU WROTE �prevent or penalize political turn-coatism, dismantle political dynasties, require political arties to have program-specific platforms, enforce party discipline among their members�..� Nice wish list. Even the presidential system would work with these. If it couldn�t be done until now, why should it change all of a sudden? If these are the conditions necessary for your parliamentary system, it will never work. It will remain the same disaster, just with a different name. And we�ll probably soon beat Italy in most frequent government changes because everyone will conspire to get his turn at the trough. Changes must be made in substance, not form. You wrote: �At the same time, the electoral system has to be drastically revamped to free it from the clutches of Big Money, to clean up the voters list (through an electronic natinal ID card), and to strictly enforce electoral laws with a Comelec that has teeth��� A pipe dream. What element in the parliamentary system would suddenly and miraculously make all these possible? Welcome to more of the same. Peter Ritter. [email protected]. November 25, 2002 MY REPLY. Since you so obviously believe that nothing can be done to make things better, why do you bother to stay in this hopeless country? As a foreigner, you have the option to leave and go back to the paradise that you came from. Yet you stay. Are you a masochist? ������������������������������������ HER REACTION is typical among all of us practically. We are so used in (sic) asking, asking, asking. Giving is not a part of the Filipino psyche. To hell with the bayanihan spirit which exists in the mind the (sic) in postcards only. But in reality, we are so fond of asking. Fly in from overseas and land at the NAIA and a traveler goes through a gauntlet of beggars. We are never ashamed to ask. Even for solutions to our national problems which is (sic) self-inflicted, the solutions of which reside from (sic) within. Is this brought about by our Catholic religion, too, which rests on the premise and used extensively by our priests, that God provides everything?���. Joe. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 MY REPLY. I have been to the NAIA about 20 times in the past 12 months, and I do not recall seeing even once the gauntlet of beggars that you�re complaining about. If you want to become an effective social critic, you will have to desist from making wildly exaggerated statements and to master your grasp of the English language. ������������������������������������ I SHARE the ill effects of the misfortune brought to us by the bureaucracy, but writing articles and sending email is not a thing which can produce tangible effects. I as an IT practitioner have equipt myself with knowledge, but it proved futile in a government set-up where you have to adhere with policies and you have to succumb to authorities who have risen into power because of politics. Tell me what to do, and I will campaign for it. Rommel Billones. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 MY REPLY. Sorry, but writing articles and sending email is all I can do. ������������������������������������ ULYANOV replies: All power to the soviets! But, alas, there are no soviets, only sacristans, social climbers and crooks. So scratch this out. Tax the Church and promote contraceptives. Hail Pilo Lacson. Globalize at deliberate speed. Ross Tipon. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 ������������������������������������ IF THE PRESENT crop of leadership will not legislate their own demise, who will undertake the drastic measures to effect meaningful changes? Gras Reyes. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 MY REPLY. Superman, of course. Who else? ������������������������������������. HI FOLKS (addressing his egroup), Obviously, a good number of you have received your email copy of the column written by Tony Abaya in the Philippine Weekly Graphic mag, where he is a regular opinion maker. I firmly believe in the idea of giving a Filipino benevolent leader a much longer time in running the country and getting it out of a rut that it is in right now. Or else, as Tony puts it, �chaos and anarchy� shall continue to inhabit the land. What to do, ladies and gents? Archie Lacson. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 ������������������������������������ (In reply to Archie Lacson) LOOKS LIKE this group � certainly like many others � is going �round and �round in circles, a seamless ring, out of an excess of energy and, unfortunately, a lack of appreciation and commitment to a common direction. Tony Abaya has always made a lot of sense, but his thing is to think and write about it. Others like to egg people on to go, go, go but somehow inspire others not to go, go, go with them but to come up with different ideas to compete with theirs. Still others are just milling about laboring to discern who is leading so they can follow, and are getting lost in the swirl. More others are taking to the soapboxes and even the rooftops proclaiming THE solutions and exhorting the masses to mount up and charge � and nobody is convinced. What is to be done, indeed? Find the leader and follow him. Do the times produce the leader? Or does the leader emerge to define the times? Wouldn�t it be great if we could first agree, really agree, on what we want � in general principles, then in consistent and specific terms and plans, then look for the leader who espouses them, honestly and sincerely espouses them, and give him (OK, or her) our total support? Or what about waiting � just waiting � for the leader to announce himself (herself), galvanize the masses, and devote our energies to helping him (her) in the interest of our future well-being? What�s a leader? An indefatigable visionary and intellect with the ability to inspire and energize and organize and achieve? What do you guys say? Sometimes first-things-first is not delay but actually the fast track. But where to start? How about from Tony Abaya�s ideas? Bobby Hilado. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 ������������������������������ (in reply to Archie Lacson) I AGREE WITH you in so far as having a benevolent leader to lead our country out of the quagmire of corruption. But first we must have clean, intelligent and honest elections. Remember, Marcos was once called a benevolent strongman by the CIA officials whom he was able to hoodwink. Then he got greedy! I said it many, many times in different fora: to have intelligent elections we must first have voter education. I once wrote Rep. Edmund Reyes (by virtue of his being chair of the House Electoral Committee) but to this day I never had the courtesy of a reply.. It seems that our pols, once elected, become public masters instead of public servants�� Rome. [email protected]. November 26, 2002 MY REPLY. If I may. It is not possible to have �clean, intelligent and honest elections� under the present system, where even convicted child rapists, coup plotters, criminally inclined ignoramuses, and fugitives from the FBI get elected as long as they have the money to buy everyone. It is also not possible to conduct an effective voters education campaign in an environment in which a) media is for sale to the highest bidder, and b) the stupid masa are distracted by idiotic TV programs that trivialize our problems and the search for their solutions. That is why I believe we have to go through a transition period under a government of national salvation during which we must redefine the rules, before we have another election. Otherwise, it will be More of the Same, ad infinitum et ad nauseam. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |