Come February 25, that date will remind us of two things: One, that revolutions are not two-week affairs. These are processes which take a long time to mature and for people to really see and feel its results. And second, genuine revolts are often lead by the people. Bogus ones are hijacked by the elite.
February 25 is supposed to be our time of self-reflection. People should be given time to reflect what really went wrong--why is it that the same conditions that precipitated the first revolt remain and even worsened? What are the real gains that the People got from this revolt, other than the often repeated line of "we regained our freedoms" or " we are freer now than before."
Who really got freed that time? Was it the people?
The Filipino People are still enslaved by the twin evils of poverty and inhumanity. The number of poor people tripled from a mere 7 million to its present state of 27 million. Killings against journalists remain unabated. The state remains a tool of the elite groups in perpetuating a neo-liberal economic system that oppresses the poor, especially the workers. Workers right now are still being enslaved by capitalists. The ranks of the lumpen proletariat has risen to astronomical highs due to the inability of the system to effect a trickle down effects after every economic gain.
Investors see the Philippines as a “low cost, but higher risk” country. It means it is cheaper to do business in the Philippines compared with other Asian countries but the risk is definitely higher than others. Meta Group Incorporated defined that risk as political. The Philippines, says MetaGroup, is second largest IT outsourcing hub, but political instability is affecting competitiveness.[1] Since 2003, the global competitiveness of the Philippines has seen good and better days due to rampant graft and corruption, worsening peace and order situation and political instability.[2]
The World Economic Forum’s “The Global Competitiveness Report, 2008-2009” ranked the Philippines in 74thplace, lower than its neighbor Indonesia (58th) and Vietnam (73rd). Compared to Malaysia (24th place) and Singapore (8th), our country lags behind in terms of competitiveness. [3]
The latest Global Competitiveness report shows a further decline in the ranking of the Philippines. Our country is now at 85th place, even lower than Trinidad-Tobago. Vietnam is ranked well above us.
Global competitiveness is affected by poor governance. In the World Bank’s Governance Index, the Philippines performed poorly in governance, registering a negative 0.59% since 1998 to 2008, well below Indonesia’s (-0.14%). There is a high incidence of political violence (negative 1.41%, down to about negative 1.25% since 1998) compared with other countries in the region.
Governance has been largely affected by perceptions of rampant graft and corruption and crony practices.A survey of 1,400 business leaders carried out by Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, a Hong Kong based company, found that the Philippines was considered the most corrupt of the 13 Asian economies, followed by Thailand, China, and Indonesia. The Philippines is separately ranked number 131 out of 179 countries by corruption watchdog Transparency International in its 2007 report, placing it on a par with Libya and Burundi.[4]
Global Integrity Report (2008) has this to say about the Philippines:
Despite some impressive world-class anti-corruption safeguards, such as formal "cooling-off" employment periods for senior officials leaving government, the Philippines remains challenged by the lack of a formal access to information regime and an election system that breeds cronyism and corruption in the political process. Improvements in the transparency surrounding government procurement remain promising, and civil society groups continue to play an important role in the debate around governance reforms. Restrictions on financial donations to candidates and parties from those with business before the government are an interesting and rare regulation internationally.[5]
In terms of peace and order, the Global Peace Index places the Philippines in 114th place with a score of 2.357[6], suggesting a higher incidence of political and non-political violence outbreaks in the Philippines compared with its neighbors in Asia.
According to the World Economic Forum Executive Opinion survey, the top five issues which the Philippines needs to address are the following: corruption, inefficient bureaucracy, inadequate infrastructure, crime and theft and policy instability. Furthermore, the Philippines needs to address irregular payments in public contracts, prevalence of illegal political donations and the rising business costs of terrorism.
Quality of Life in the Philippines
Good governance is basically anchored on giving the best quality of life for its citizens. Political scientist Henry Poole described government’s importance as the people’s medium to achieve a higher quality of life. He wrote that the quality of life is strongly correlated with open governments. As government opens more avenues for the exercise of basic rights and freedoms, it leads to a higher the quality of life for its citizens.
“Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes, and so corrects, corruption. “[7]
Philippine democracy under a regime of turmoil. Steven Rogers of the Open Democracy Society described democracy in the Philippines as under a regime of turmoil. [8] Arroyo’s failure to provide opportunities for the direct exercise of civil liberties has led to a continuous debilitation of public institutions.
Philippine democracy under extreme decay. Friedrich Stiftung describes democracy and political freedom in the Philippines as under “extreme decay.” The Heritage Foundation meanwhile gave the Philippines a score of 56.9 in its 2008 Index of Economic Freedom. The US think tank described Philippine economic freedom as “moderately unFree” placing the country in 92nd place out of 157 countries in the world.
Partially Free Philippines. The US think tank Freedom House downgraded the status of the Philippines from “free” to “partially free” The institute said that the negative status change was “based on credible allegations of massive electoral fraud, corruption, and the government’s intimidation of elements in the political opposition.”
In its overview of the Philippines in its 2009 Freedom in the World Country reports, the think-tank maintained the current status of the country as “partially free” with a score of 4 out of 10 in political freedom and 3 out of 10 in the civil liberties index due to:
High-level corruption scandals inhibited governance in 2008 and generated significant public opposition to the administration. The number of extrajudicial killings declined during the year, and a new army chief with a pledged commitment to human rights was appointed in June. However, a breakdown of peace negotiations between the government and Muslim insurgents plunged the southern provinces into the worst violence since 2003, with more than 600,000 people displaced from their homes by year’s end.[9]
Bertelsmann, a European think tank gave the Philippines 4.5 in terms of civil and political liberties, placing the country in the 46th rank out of 132 countries.[10] The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in its November 2008 assessment report categorized the state of political freedom in the Philippines as “under constant seize”.
The problem, says Cornell University professor Carl A. Trocki of the Southeast Asia program is that Philippine democracy continues to exhibit “cacique-type” behavior.[11] Likewise, political analysts also think that Philippine democracy is “weak” and “infantile”.
In a paper presented to the Conference Democracy and Civil Society in Asia, Joel Rocamora succinctly described the situation as:
The Philippines has the most persistently undemocratic democracy in Asia. Except for the period of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos between 1972 and 1986, the Philippines has had a functioning democracy since independence from the United States in 1946. At the same time, a small group of powerful families has dominated politics and kept the economic benefits of power to themselves. Many analysts use the modifier "elite" when referring to Philippine democracy. (Bello and Gershman, 1990)
Effective participation by citizens outside of elections is limited. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore (much more obviously unlike the military dictatorship in Burma) with their Internal Security Acts, the Philippine state does not impose too many formal limits to the self-organization of disadvantaged groups. But a combination of bureaucratic rules and informal means including violence continues to make organizing difficult. Without effective popular pressure, government is generally not accountable.[12]
World Bank: Governance in Philippines, a failure
The World Bank ranks the Philippines as a failure in governance. Failure of governance has been attributed to graft and corruption, cronyism and inability in providing concrete policy directions.
A confidential Friedrich Stiftung report summarizes the Philippine situation insofar as combating the twin evils of graft and corruption:
“The Philippines faces a steep battle in combating and preventing corruption among elected and unelected office holders and in discouraging officials from utilizing public positions for family and business interests. There is effectively no political party system in the Philippines–no strong and operational political parties to speak of, no discipline among parties with switching commonplace among candidates, and no clear system of accountability within the party nor between parties and the public. Prominent is the tendency of public officeholders to exhibit loyalty to families, relatives, and friends even at the expense of compromising the larger public interest.”
Political Challenges
Freedom House described the political situation in the Philippines as worsening due to rampant graft and corruption, cronyism and influence peddling, leading to what German think tank Friedrich Stiftung described as a decaying democracy.
Corruption, cronyism, and influence peddling are rife in business and government. Despite recent economic reforms, a few dozen leading families continue to hold an outsized share of land, corporate wealth, and political power. Local “bosses” often control their respective areas, limiting accountability and encouraging abuses of power. [13]
The Heritage Foundation meanwhile gave the Philippines a score of 56.9 in its 2008 Index of Economic Freedom. The US think tank described Philippine economic freedom as “moderately unFree” placing the country in 92nd place out of 157 countries in the world. Asia Barometer describes Philippine democracy as a “tired democracy”.[14]
Reporters without Borders meanwhile increased the ranking of the Philippines by 14 places (128 out of 169).
Two popular indices of civil and political rights are Freedom House’s Civil Liberty and Political Right Scores. In 2006, the Philippines scored 3 on both indices, putting it in the league of Cambodia and Thailand in the middle of the 13 East Asian countries and territories covered by the Asian Barometer. Taiwan tops these measures at 1 for both civil liberty and political rights, while China comes in last, scoring 6 and 7 respectively.
Another set of indicators that portray the state of “control of corruption”, “voice and accountability”, “government effectiveness”, and “rule of law” prevailing in a country or territory is provided by the World Bank. In 2006, the Philippines obtained a negative score on “control of corruption” (-0.69), “rule of law” (-.48), and “voice and accountability” (-0.18). It scored close to zero (-0.01) in “government effectiveness”. This puts it in the league of Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China as far as having no positive score on each of these measures. The rest of the East Asian bloc – Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan – score positively on all three measures. Mongolia and Thailand have mixed scores.
Philippines Risk Assessment: Political social economic conditions
Gloria Arroyo was inaugurated as president at the end of June 2004, taking up her first electoral mandate since assuming the presidency in 2001 from Joseph Estrada, who was forced from office by massive street protests related to charges of corruption.
Arroyo's efforts to tackle corruption and to focus on economic reform have been undermined by a string of scandals. A year after being elected, her popularity rating had fallen to a record low amid opposition claims that she cheated in the elections. She apologized to the nation for talking to an election official about her hopes for victory in the run-up to the 2004 poll but denied any wrongdoing. Because of continuing allegations of corruption against her administration, Arroyo survived the political maelstrom.
Social and economic reforms introduced during her first term did little to ease poverty or the country's debt burden. She has taken a strong line on law and order and in 2006 lifted a moratorium on the death penalty. She also has allied herself closely with the U.S.-led war on terror.
Arroyo advocated constitutional reform. She proposed to swap the country's U.S.-style presidential system for a parliamentary government before the 2010 elections. The existing constitution was adopted to prevent the president from subverting democracy by stealth after the fall of the corrupt dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. However, any attempt to change the constitution rouses suspicion that it is the first step back toward dictatorship.
Because of budget deficits and widespread corruption, the Philippines recovered from the regional economic crisis of the late 1990s more slowly than other Asian countries. The budget deficit is forecast to widen in 2009, as revenue collection is hurt by lower economic growth and corporate tax cuts. Analysts believe Arroyo's aim to eliminate the budget deficit by 2010 is overly ambitious.
Once self-sufficient in rice, the country has lost nearly half its irrigated land to rapid urban development during the past 20 years. It is now the world's biggest importer of the crop. Recent falling global food and oil prices, together with sluggish domestic demand, are forecast to allow the rate of inflation to slow from 9.6% in 2008 to 4.5% in 2009. Owing to the deepening global financial crisis, growth in gross domestic product is expected to slow from 7.3% in 2007, its fastest rate of growth in 31 years, to 1.9% in 2009.
The New Administration
Just four months prior to his one year rule, President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III continues to face extreme challenges. There is no visible strong political opposition against Aquino so far, but rising prices of goods, gasoline and utility rates remain a very viable social and security threat against the administration.
Aquino inherited a dysfunctional society run by elite groups whose interests ran counter to the general interest. The dysfunctionalism is intentional. As the country grapples with more problems, the higher and weaker government becomes in solving the root cause of its problems.
Slowly, promises made by the Aquino administration concerning social reform remain unfulfilled. Several sectors are now slowly realizing their error when they supported Aquino during the May 10, 2010 elections. Promises of national reforms fell by the wayside, as Aquino gave way to the whims and caprices of his election funders, all members of the traditional elite groups. Aquino’s neo-liberal economic policies are giving rise to an undercurrent of social dissent. This wave of dissent will continue to fester for several years and probably will not be strong enough to topple this administration.
Comments, however, against Aquino’s governance style remain. Several groups, including the very influential Makati Business Club (MBC) had already issued statements commenting on the “easy going” work ethic of Aquino. Aquino’s failure to effect strong governance had already made a very strong misimpression among the people. The botched Manila Bus hostage crisis, the diplomatic row with Taiwan and rising criminality are signs of a growing problem, which this administration considers minor issues.
Rising poverty is slowly configuring the social structure, with more and more Filipinos falling into the lower middle classes. More than 26 million Filipino families consider themselves poor. Statistics from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) revealed that the ranks of the rich and middle income groups fell from 19,700 families to only about 18,000---lower by 1% from the previous figure. This happens despite previous government pronouncements of successes in the arena of encouraging foreign investments.
Analysts, however, remain bullish on the Philippine economy. Worries, however, are now being expressed by several businessmen, including Ramon Ang of San Miguel Corporation. Ang said that government should allow the free fall of the Philippine peso to avert a possible food crisis. Food prices are expected to further increase this year, and a strong peso could mitigate the effects of such a crisis. Ang expects the Philippine peso to reach 35:US$1 before the end of the year. It still remains however, what contingency plans the Aquino administration intends to implement given the slow deterioration of the political situation in the Middle East.
We face extreme challenges, which, to my mind, are man-made. We chose the bakla route for change, by promoting a "non-violent" revolution that further promoted violence within our own society.
We prevented a bloodbath in 1986, yet because of our "yellowish" predilection, we allowed the continued perpetuation of elite rule, to the detriment of the people. Yes, there was no life lost in that event in 1986. But, every single day, millions lose their lives and futures all because we tried to avoid the inevitable.
[1] Stacy Collett, “The Philippines: Low cost, but higher risk:Costs are low and the English is flawless, but there are pockets of political instability.” Computerworld, 15 September 2003.
[2] Michael B. Mundo, “ Growth and Business Competitiveness among 80 economies: Philippine Rankings Rise and Fall, “ Makati Business Club confidential report, No. 52 - November 2003. This is based on the 2003-2004 Global Competitiveness Report released by the Switzerland-based World Economic Forum (WEF) last 30 October 2003.
[3] World Economic Forum, “ Global Competitiveness Report: 2008-2009”, Switzerland, 2009.
[4] http://www.reportbuyer.com/
[7] Henry Poole, CivicAction.com, 3 January 2007.
[11] Trocki, Carl. Gangsters, democracy and the state in Southeast Asia. USA: Cornell University Press, 1998: 57
[12] Joel Rocamora, “Formal Democracy and its Alternatives in the Philippines: Parties, Elections and Social Movements”.Paper presented at the conference Democracy and Civil Society In Asia: The Emerging Opportunities and Challenges. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 19-21 August 2000
[13] Freedom House, “ 2009 Freedom in the World Report” released July 2009.
[14] Segundo Eclar Romero and Linda Luz Guerrero, “Philippine Democracy and Governance 2005:Insights from the Asian Barometer Survey” included in An Asian Barometer Conference on the State of Democratic Governance in Asia report. June 2008: 24.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you very much for reading my blog. You inspired me. But if you intend to put your name "anonymous", better not comment at all. Thanks!