from SKETCHES By Ana Marie Pamintuan
We are pinning so much hope for change on the elections next year. But how much different can the next president be without corresponding changes in the political system and our culture?
This question is cropping up more often as May 2010 approaches and Filipinos ask whether there is a genuine “transformational candidate” who can deliver us, if not from evil and into the Promised Land, at least onto the path of lasting reforms.
Cynics point out that any president who wins on a platform of change will eventually be devoured by the system — by long-entrenched business, political and even religious power blocs that have benefited from the status quo for several generations.
These power blocs will support the presidential candidate who seems the most likely, if he or she wins, to deliver on a promise to protect their vested interests. These interests include business monopolies and tax perks, and in the case of the Catholic Church, policies that uphold Vatican teachings on controversial issues such as contraception and divorce.
When the next president gets down to the task of governing a seemingly ungovernable people, he or she will have to work with all these entrenched interests, from political dynasties to the old moneyed elite that controls much of the country’s wealth.
Even Corazon Aquino, filled with good intentions, could not withstand pressure from all the landowners in the post-EDSA Congress, including her own relatives. The agrarian reform program that she finally signed into law was riddled with loopholes favoring landowners. But she preserved democracy in a perilous transition and that is her enduring legacy.
The closest to a modern reformist president that we’ve had, post-EDSA, was Fidel Ramos, who opened up the economy and tried to break up long-entrenched monopolies, although he also had his own clique of businessmen and was not entirely free of controversy. Vested interests hit back by supporting the campaign to stop the first Charter change initiative, which would have allowed Ramos to seek a second term.
* * *
Ferdinand Marcos, who was no member of the old rich, used absolute power to break up the oligarchy.
But eventually he created his own cabal of immensely wealthy and privileged cronies, many of whom are still very much around, cronies of a new dispensation, now wealthier and more privileged.
Many of the old oligarchs have also managed to bounce back, battling with cronies old and new for control of the most lucrative businesses. When new laws or rules manage to squeak through and monopolies are threatened, those affected shift to other sectors where political connections will still guarantee them the absence of a level playing field.
Is there a candidate who can fight this system? The best that the next president can hope for is to work within the system, and fight to prevent the system from swallowing him up.
As the scandals in the Arroyo administration piled up, there were debates on whether the President made an effort to fight the system, or whether she freely allowed herself to become locked in its embrace, finding comfort in a cocoon of corruption. People who worked with her in those early years swear that she truly tried to become a “good” if not great President, and to abide by her late father’s admonition to do right, do her best and let God take care of the rest. Somewhere along the way she lost her moorings. Those people who were with her in the early years note that the start appeared to have coincided with the death of her mother.
Dictatorship failed to break up the system. Immense popularity could have worked, but Joseph Estrada – a non-traditional politician who did not belong to the oligarchy — squandered his chance at greatness. His botched performance also taught Filipinos a powerful lesson on the downside of marrying entertainment with politics.
* * *
Filipinos tend to blame Spain and the Church for the hold of the oligarchy and the development of a culture of entitlement and corruption.
In several other former Spanish colonies as well as in China and Russia, communist revolutions destroyed oligarchies and all other family-based systems of power and wealth.
The attempt at a similar revolution in the Philippines failed, with a lot of help from Uncle Sam. We were spared the painful, bloody upheavals that those countries underwent. But now we’re stuck with the same system, and wondering if the next president will make a difference.
A clue to the promise of change held by a presidential candidate is the party. Lakas and KAMPI are still seen as the parties of the traditional politicians, masters of the art of the deal.
The Nationalist People’s Coalition is expected to institutionalize cronyism, regardless of how young its standard bearer might be.
UNO is seen as the party of Erap and everything that he stands for. Its members don’t think that’s a disadvantage.
The Nacionalistas have a great rags-to-riches story in its standard-bearer, and the latest surveys show that he has survived last year’s double-entry scandal. But Sen. Manny Villar married into an old political clan and has vast business interests.
The Liberal Party stands for change and has the standard bearer that seems most attuned to the demands of globalization. But even his handlers acknowledge that the biggest baggage of “Mr. Palengke” Mar Roxas is that his family owns the palengke. He belongs to the oligarchy.
Where is our transformational president? We may have to settle for a lesser evil, a compromise — in this case, anyone who is not allied with the incumbent.
We are pinning so much hope for change on the elections next year. But how much different can the next president be without corresponding changes in the political system and our culture?
This question is cropping up more often as May 2010 approaches and Filipinos ask whether there is a genuine “transformational candidate” who can deliver us, if not from evil and into the Promised Land, at least onto the path of lasting reforms.
Cynics point out that any president who wins on a platform of change will eventually be devoured by the system — by long-entrenched business, political and even religious power blocs that have benefited from the status quo for several generations.
These power blocs will support the presidential candidate who seems the most likely, if he or she wins, to deliver on a promise to protect their vested interests. These interests include business monopolies and tax perks, and in the case of the Catholic Church, policies that uphold Vatican teachings on controversial issues such as contraception and divorce.
When the next president gets down to the task of governing a seemingly ungovernable people, he or she will have to work with all these entrenched interests, from political dynasties to the old moneyed elite that controls much of the country’s wealth.
Even Corazon Aquino, filled with good intentions, could not withstand pressure from all the landowners in the post-EDSA Congress, including her own relatives. The agrarian reform program that she finally signed into law was riddled with loopholes favoring landowners. But she preserved democracy in a perilous transition and that is her enduring legacy.
The closest to a modern reformist president that we’ve had, post-EDSA, was Fidel Ramos, who opened up the economy and tried to break up long-entrenched monopolies, although he also had his own clique of businessmen and was not entirely free of controversy. Vested interests hit back by supporting the campaign to stop the first Charter change initiative, which would have allowed Ramos to seek a second term.
* * *
Ferdinand Marcos, who was no member of the old rich, used absolute power to break up the oligarchy.
But eventually he created his own cabal of immensely wealthy and privileged cronies, many of whom are still very much around, cronies of a new dispensation, now wealthier and more privileged.
Many of the old oligarchs have also managed to bounce back, battling with cronies old and new for control of the most lucrative businesses. When new laws or rules manage to squeak through and monopolies are threatened, those affected shift to other sectors where political connections will still guarantee them the absence of a level playing field.
Is there a candidate who can fight this system? The best that the next president can hope for is to work within the system, and fight to prevent the system from swallowing him up.
As the scandals in the Arroyo administration piled up, there were debates on whether the President made an effort to fight the system, or whether she freely allowed herself to become locked in its embrace, finding comfort in a cocoon of corruption. People who worked with her in those early years swear that she truly tried to become a “good” if not great President, and to abide by her late father’s admonition to do right, do her best and let God take care of the rest. Somewhere along the way she lost her moorings. Those people who were with her in the early years note that the start appeared to have coincided with the death of her mother.
Dictatorship failed to break up the system. Immense popularity could have worked, but Joseph Estrada – a non-traditional politician who did not belong to the oligarchy — squandered his chance at greatness. His botched performance also taught Filipinos a powerful lesson on the downside of marrying entertainment with politics.
* * *
Filipinos tend to blame Spain and the Church for the hold of the oligarchy and the development of a culture of entitlement and corruption.
In several other former Spanish colonies as well as in China and Russia, communist revolutions destroyed oligarchies and all other family-based systems of power and wealth.
The attempt at a similar revolution in the Philippines failed, with a lot of help from Uncle Sam. We were spared the painful, bloody upheavals that those countries underwent. But now we’re stuck with the same system, and wondering if the next president will make a difference.
A clue to the promise of change held by a presidential candidate is the party. Lakas and KAMPI are still seen as the parties of the traditional politicians, masters of the art of the deal.
The Nationalist People’s Coalition is expected to institutionalize cronyism, regardless of how young its standard bearer might be.
UNO is seen as the party of Erap and everything that he stands for. Its members don’t think that’s a disadvantage.
The Nacionalistas have a great rags-to-riches story in its standard-bearer, and the latest surveys show that he has survived last year’s double-entry scandal. But Sen. Manny Villar married into an old political clan and has vast business interests.
The Liberal Party stands for change and has the standard bearer that seems most attuned to the demands of globalization. But even his handlers acknowledge that the biggest baggage of “Mr. Palengke” Mar Roxas is that his family owns the palengke. He belongs to the oligarchy.
Where is our transformational president? We may have to settle for a lesser evil, a compromise — in this case, anyone who is not allied with the incumbent.
