Underdevelopment
is an albatross in our neck especially when the hierarchy in our
institutions can dictate and preserve the rules that perpetuate
underdevelopment – and that is the story of Juan de la Cruz? And
beyond our political and economic institutions we have to recognize
the role and influence the church has played in our life and history
as a people? The poor have no choice and find the church a haven if
not provider, e.g., Catholic Charities – together with government,
e.g., CCT – even of their basic physiological needs. But as we get
more exposed to the outside world, including the realization that our
neighbors enjoy greener pastures, the weaknesses of our institutions
come to the fore? For example, is the passage of the RH law a
manifestation of the waning influence of the church? [In Eastern
Europe they came to the conclusion that Soviet rule had played such a
mind-game on them – that reality was lost to them – when they
finally understood that neighbors were more progressive and
developed. Early on inequality had brought about socialism and
communism to Europe that later spawned the Soviet empire.]
For
good or ill it's again an election year and that means 2013 will see
continued higher levels of consumption. We know full well that beyond
direct-election spending that elevates consumption, vote-buying also
does? And then, again, the poor have no choice but to be subservient?
But what is the source of the "pot"? For incumbents access
to government coffers is one source and for candidates in general the
goodness of industry is another? And when all is said and done, we’re
back to normal: our hierarchal system and structure is reinforced and
perpetuated. Simply, the people especially the poor – comprising
roughly half of our households – would be subservient to the
political institutions with the latter beholden to their benefactors.
Wittingly or unwittingly we have turned our institutions inherently
weak to even expect good governance to thrive and flourish – nor
for industry to be world-beaters and strongly drive a free-market
system.
We
have nurtured a system that is characterized by influence peddling
and oligopoly and thus a very narrow and limited (political and
economic) establishment. Until we break the back of this
establishment we are only paying lip service to what we like to call
an "inclusive economic system." An economic environment
that is inclusive must be broad based to begin with – especially in
the 21st century where the world has been globalized and thus the
wide latitude available to nations and people that (through their own
design) can leverage those options.
Unfortunately,
Juan de la Cruz would rather invoke the myriad parameters he has
carried through time – and proud of "Pinoy abilidad"
which translates to equivocation or "having our cake and eating
it too"? And for good measure these parameters have been woven
into the banner of nationalism and patriotism and dyed with our
unequivocal faith? Confusing? Precisely, because we equivocate when
we shouldn’t yet are dogmatic like the curia – that even a cleric
and trained theologian could sound less Catholic than Juan de la
Cruz?
Nations
fail when political and economic institutions have become well
entrenched to protect the interests of the few. And if we continue to
hedge on what an inclusive economic system demands, we would
perpetuate a lopsided and shameful economy. To be sure, certain
changes demand circumspection. But if we don't demonstrate political
will, the rest of the world shall continue to leave us behind –
especially that ASEAN is upon us. We are deluding ourselves, for
example, if we celebrate election spending for its contributions to
the economy instead of denouncing vote-buying.
Politics
is meant to create strong institutions that would then pave the way
for progressive economic institutions. But the kind of politics that
consumes us is self-serving and what is institutionalized is
influence peddling that comes hand in glove with oligopoly – and
consequently not an inclusive economic system – thus the widening
gap between the haves and the have-nots.
No comments:
Post a Comment