Charter change and its substantive effects on Philippine growth and progress

Realism according to its fathers, is about the emphasis on facts and analysing its causes and consequences. This is about valid causalities. And basing one's analysis of society on universally accepted moral principles, which are all abstract, would lead one to fail in appreciating the true causes of human actions and behaviour.

Why is it that I think we, as a nation, is actually moving backward instead of forward. The reality of our times call for a more in-depth appreciation of our economic growth and development. Our national economy is on the rise. The problem really is how to spur these economic gains to trickle down to benefit the greatest number. For us to discover the answer to this question, we need to appreciate how capital behaves.

Capital behaves like water---it occupies space. It needs space. The more space it occupies, the more it replicates itself. For it to occupy space, capital has to have a purpose on why it occupies such a space.  Such a space must have a structure by which to allow the flow of capital from one place to another. Over time, capital grows. Its growth depends on exchange. Men produce capital, and it grows based on men's interactions. The growth of capital depends on both qualitative and quantitative factors. Quality is necessary to assure replication over time while quantitative factors influences the behaviour of capital. The more capital a place has, the higher the possibility of its immediate repetition over time.

Therefore, the main responsibility of a state which adopted capitalism is the creation of structures by which capital flows freely. The traditional view of concentration of capital is not the norm; capital must be distributed freely to benefit a wider number of people. However, the intrinsic nature of capital eventually allows it to be concentrated under the management of a few. Small capitalists which produce capital eventually succumbs to bigger ones due to the nature of the complex system of exchanges which occur during production. Banking and loans are often seen as tools by which bigger capitalists assume ascendancy over others. SME's are slaves of banks. They loan their capital from banks. Banks are owned by big capitalists. Gains from banks are then put out by these big capitalists into exchange systems to generate more profits. Therefore, small profits are generated by small capitalists while bigger profits over time are for bigger capitalists.

Since both actors are within the system, it is therefore, the system that creates the rules of behaviour of both the small and big capitalists. The more tight regulations the state imposes upon the system, the more concentrated capital becomes. Hence to free capital up, a state must create a system which allows the free flow of capital, from the top-to-bottom or from agent to structure-level.

Changing the system to a new one obviously creates challenges and often systemic problems. The system establishes the rules of behaviour. These rules are contained in a document the state refers to as a Constitution. The Constitution lays down the rules, not just political and economic, but also social and cultural. Changing a constitution requires a re-imagining of roles and relationships. The main questions are what kind of relationships do we need to defeat poverty incidence in the Philippines?

Those who want change in the Philippines actually want a change in the relationships and exchanges which occur within and outside the state structure. Charter change is not just changing the governance model, no. It is re-engineering the structure to create interactions and relationships which, eventually redounds to the moralist or utopian belief of the greatest good for the greatest number. We have seen in several historical experiences already of several states that such an endeavour is not as easy as it seems or as easily as contemplated by our leaders. There are costs and risks which are more dangerous than the risks we so face today.

Lastly, why do we face the biggest threat in our existence as a nation? Because our leaders want to change a system which has been there for over 40 years. Unless this administration wanted nothing more than a revolution, such a "constitutional" or "peaceful" change will definitely not happen because the possibility of creating the former relationships and exchanges which perpetuate the very system from the very beginning exists! There is no change in the mindsets of those who will create the new Constitution. There is no change in their morality, and they are even worse now than before. Power is still the dominant cause of our leader's actions and behaviour. Creating a stricter environment thru constitutional change will only debilitate this country, affect economic growth and worsen social conditions.

What this country needs is an interregnum of about two to three years while we study the ramifications of such an action. While we analyse what is the best structure to coast us towards choppy waters of the future, we slowly modernise our thinking and base all our actions using realist lens and discard utopianism--for a while.