Why we struggle in the 21st century

Call it national pride which every nation has. Still, we better objectively assess where we are in the distribution curve of peoples and nations? Human undertakings – including our efforts to raise PH global competitiveness, for instance – are precisely that, human. Enablers like strategy, structures, systems and even technology are critical. But the ability to pull them together is informed by their mindset and worldview and culture and similar soft elements.

We assumed that being a poor country we can’t be equal to the West? Because we don’t have the means – starting with capital and technology. But we know about Vietnam. And before that the Asian tigers. Singapore’s per capita income is greater than that of the US, for example.

Didn’t we also assume that leadership must be parochial? That it must be hierarchical, and for good measure we expect our leaders to be paternalistic? Is leadership any of the above? What if we add patronage, cronyism and oligarchy? Do they in fact explain why we’re the regional laggard?

Which brings us full circle to global competition and the culture of innovation. What leadership isn’t can be said of innovation as well. Leadership is about getting the best in people and innovation clearly is no different. How do we get the best in people? Not if we don’t see them as equals. Simply put, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Take the war on drugs. Will the killing field win the war? At what price? Did shock and awe win in Iraq? Or more to the point, has America won the war on drugs? “The drug war is not working, and if alternatives are not considered now, a solution may never be possible.” [https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html]

Benchmarking is inherent in the pursuit of excellence – and to get the best in people. But we still believe “Pinoy abilidad” is our ideal? Have we heard about Portugal? “14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like,” Zeeshan Aleem, mic.com, 11th Feb 2015. “In 2001, the Portuguese government did something that the United States would find entirely alien. After many years of waging a fierce war on drugs, it decided to flip its strategy entirely: It decriminalized them all.

“If someone is found in the possession of less than a 10-day supply of anything from marijuana to heroin, he or she is sent to a three-person Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically made up of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The commission recommends treatment or a minor fine; otherwise, the person is sent off without any penalty. A vast majority of the time, there is no penalty.

“Fourteen years after decriminalization, Portugal has not been run into the ground by a nation of drug addicts. In fact, by many measures, it's doing far better than it was before.

“The background: In 1974, the dictatorship that had isolated Portugal from the rest of the world for nearly half a century came to an end. The Carnation Revolution was a bloodless military-led coup that sparked a tumultuous transition from authoritarianism to democracy and a society-wide struggle to define a new Portuguese nation. 

“The newfound freedom led to a raucous attitude of experimentalism toward politics and economy and, as it turned out, hard drugs. Portugal's dictatorship had insulated it from the drug culture that had swept much of the Western world earlier in the 20th century, but the coup changed everything. After the revolution, Portugal gave up its colonies, and colonists and soldiers returned to the country with a variety of drugs. Borders opened up and travel and exchange were made far easier. Located on the westernmost tip of the continent, the country was a natural gateway for trafficking across the continent. Drug use became part of the culture of liberation, and the use of hard narcotics became popular. Eventually, it got out of hand, and drug use became a crisis.

“At first, the government responded to it as the United States is all too familiar with: a conservative cultural backlash that vilified drug use and a harsh, punitive set of policies led by the criminal justice system. Throughout the 1980s, Portugal tried this approach, but to no avail: By 1999, nearly 1% of the population was addicted to heroin, and drug-related AIDS deaths in the country were the highest in the European Union, according to the New Yorker.

“But by 2001, the country decided to decriminalize possession and use of drugs, and the results have been remarkable. What's gotten better? In terms of usage rate and health, the data show that Portugal has by no means plunged into a drug crisis . . . the proportion of the population that reports having used drugs at some point saw an initial increase after decriminalization, but then a decline.

“Drug use has declined overall among the 15- to 24-year-old population, those most at risk of initiating drug use . . . There has also been a decline in the percentage of the population who have ever used a drug and then continue to do so.

“HIV infection rates among injecting drug users have been reduced at a steady pace, and has become a more manageable problem in the context of other countries with high rates . . . And a widely cited study published in 2010 in the British Journal of Criminology found that after decriminalization, Portugal saw a decrease in imprisonment on drug-related charges alongside a surge in visits to health clinics that deal with addiction and disease.

“Not a cure but certainly not a disaster: Many advocates for decriminalizing or legalizing illicit drugs around the world have gloried in Portugal's success. They point to its effectiveness as an unambiguous sign that decriminalization works.

“But some social scientists have cautioned against attributing all the numbers to decriminalization itself, as there are other factors at play in the national decrease in overdoses, disease and usage.

“At the turn of the millennium, Portugal shifted drug control from the Justice Department to the Ministry of Health and instituted a robust public health model for treating hard drug addiction. It also expanded the welfare system in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. Changes in the material and health resources for at-risk populations for the past decade are a major factor in evaluating the evolution of Portugal's drug situation.

“Alex Stevens, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Kent and co-author of the aforementioned criminology article, thinks the global community should be measured in its takeaways from Portugal. The main lesson to learn decriminalizing drugs doesn't necessarily lead to disaster, and it does free up resources for more effective responses to drug-related problems.”

Aside from the war on drugs President Duterte made other headlines. “Macoy should be kept where he is cherished, not where he can be spat and pooh-poohed on. And it would cost a humongous sum to prevent such possible desecration in terms of additional sekyus (who’s spending for the announced transfer and the year-round security?). No need though for an epitaph saying HERE A LAWYER LIES STILL or HERE A LAWYER STILL STEALS.

“The time has not yet come. The Marcoses still have to acknowledge the gross human rights violations (kleptocracy established by our Supreme Court on July 15, 2003) that occurred in their time, say sorry, and just maybe put up a fund for the treatment and burial of aging ailing victims and scholarships for deserving apos with the talent and integrity of their ancestor. Then, the healing may begin. Meantime, patience, while 75,000 human rights compensation claims are being processed.

“Digong wants a new organization vice the UN. What if only North Korea, Syria and Somalia apply? He still has to acquire the gravitas of a statesman-diplomat. ‘Above all, no zeal,’ advises Talleyrand. Digong may well be a diamond in the rough but he has to stop telling people publicly what he thinks of them and their ancestors, or their sexual orientation. This is 2016. Human dignity matters. It has always mattered. But, he seems to treat serious matters as jokes.

“Gravitas I do not see in BongBong Marcos, either. People talk of how he lost to Leni Robredo by a slim margin . . . That is not how I see it. BB has billions and a well-known name (if controversial), vital in name recall, I am told.

“Raissa Robles had a 2012 story on how BB ‘had a direct hand in trying to withdraw US$213M from a Swiss bank in 1986.’ Ill-gotten wealth. BB has the Solid North. He dissembled about his nonexistent degrees from elite British and American universities.

“Leni comparatively has nothing but a good non-controversial name. She would take the bus to and from Naga, alone (she has security now). Unassuming, I sensed, when she was my grad law school stude in San Beda in 2013. I read somewhere that she candidly admitted having taken the bar exam twice (like Claro Recto, Hillary Clinton and Gerry Spence). The virtue of candor. No talk of bogus Oxford and Princeton degrees.” [Leni’s slam-dunk, LMB and Plaza Miranda, Rene Saguisag, The Manila Times, 26th Aug 2016]

How do we rate or rank Marcos versus Duterte versus Juan de la Cruz? Aren’t we about rank and its privileges? And why we struggle in the 21st century?

And we want to resurrect Marcos in Duterte? Didn’t Marcos show us how to toss oligarchies and dynasties? Now we cheer Duterte whether he tacks left or tacks right, whether he flip-flops or whatever? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Have our memories deserted us? Are we praying for a despot? Try Putin or al-Assad? Or talk to Eastern Europeans? Visit this writer; he is flying to Sofia on 19 Sept. Hint: they will laugh in our face – you don’t want to be led by the nose!

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

At home with insularity

Are we or aren’t we? Whcat if we’d google “insularity”? Insularity is synonymous to narrow-mindedness, blinkered approach/attitude, parochialism, provincialism, localism, narrowness, small-mindedness, pettiness, short-sightedness, myopia, inflexibility, dogmatism, illiberality, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, bias, etc., etc.”

Would insularity then explain our inability to develop the instincts of community and the common good? And so we want out of the UN? It’s not even surprising. The UN is a much bigger community, the community of nations. And we expect the UN to be perfect – perfectly in sync with the Pinoy worldview?

And what is that worldview? Do we point to history and/or our colonizers to explain what we call destiny? Whatever happened to community and the common good? But do we wear our faith on our sleeve?

“The binary, dualistic mind cannot deal with contradictions, paradox, or mystery, all of which are at the heart of religion. Sadly, a large percentage of religious people become and remain quite rigid thinkers because their religion taught them that to be faithful, obedient, and stalwart in the ways of God, they had to seek some ideal ‘order’ instead of growing in their capacity for love. These are not bad people; they simply never learned much about living inside of paradox and mystery as the very nature of faith.” [Richard Rohr's Daily Meditation, 21st Aug 2016]

“Our biggest problems, bad governance and corruption, are problems about people, not (necessarily) of political structure or political consciousness, not (necessarily) political institutions. They are subjective, not objective, concerns.” [Federalism, for what (?), Florin T. Hilbay, inquirerdotnet, 8th Aug 2016; former solicitor general Hilbay teaches at the UP College of Law, where he offers a course on constitution drafting.]

In other words, do we acknowledge that we are the problem? SolGen Hilbay is talking about federalism yet his treatise has universal application? “People will not wake up to a new constitution that will magically confer upon them the ability to govern themselves well or make them less corrupt.”

And “How do we change from unitary to federal?”, Lito Monico C. Lorenzana, The Manila Times, 10th Aug 2016. “If . . . preconditions are not put in place and we proceed with a transition to a federal government, then we may have a government much worse than we currently have.

“Consider the scenarios: (a) We would have allowed the same personalities and political parties controlled by dynasties into the federal states, each establishing their fiefdoms, possibly with their own private armies and untrammeled looting of the States’ resources; (b) Control by the local elite and oligarchy of the economy and the political structure would result in regulatory capture of government agencies. This would all be fortified by a patronage system flourishing within a much smaller State area and population.

“This will result in inequality, a greater gap between the ‘haves and the have-nots,’ weaken citizens’ participation in governance and eventually destroy democracy. Then the mantra ‘Change is Coming’ would have been a total disaster!”

“[F]ederalism, as a concept, does not really have any content beyond ideas such as having clear lines of separation between the state and the federal government, or dual sovereignty, or subsidiarity, or some other fancy legal term. The truth is that federalism is as federalism does, and only the details of any federalism project can reveal its various practical meanings.

“The relevant question is therefore not whether we should become a federal republic, but what we want to use federalism for. Federalism is but an instrument, a vehicle for carrying solutions in a new constitution. It is a structural platform that will constitute the base in which the nuts-and-bolts solution to our social problems will be grounded and fastened. You cannot judge the beauty of a house by just looking at its foundation.

“The way to unpack the President’s federalism project is through a clarification of purpose(s), by asking which problems he is trying to solve.

“Here’s a basic laundry list: Is this about the inefficiencies and injustices caused by “Imperial Manila”? Does he see our unitary state as a source of the political and bureaucratic bottleneck that has only served as a barrier to provincial growth? Has our Manila-centric politics failed to unlock the vast potential of the other regions, and sapped resources away from them? Is the attention lavished on Manila so undue as to suppress the identities of the various ethnic communities in the country? Is this about the flow of taxes and wealth, such that we need a constitutional re-piping of the channels of resources to allow a more equitable distribution of income? Is this about who gets to control our natural resources? Or is this about the sale of agricultural lands? How will a federal structure change the way basic services are conceptualized and delivered?

“We need to see the fine print so we can compute costs and benefits.

“At the same time, while federalism may be able to offer theoretical advantages, that certainly is only half the picture. How the text of the new constitution will interact with Philippine society is the other half. Will the paper change result in a transformation of political culture and governance? The interaction between law and culture is an entirely separate challenge. Convincing the people to ratify a new constitution is easier than making them change their ways. There are simply no models that can predict the impact of a new constitution on individual consciousness and institutional practices.” [Hilbay, op. cit.]

Why are we unable to build this nation and move from an underdeveloped to a developed state? Isn't it the law of nature? The exception being Bondying?

Do we take self-government for granted? And that Western-style democracy doesn’t suit our temperament and our culture?

Let's dissect that. Do we believe that our human development quotient (HDQ) is cast in stone? Nation-building is not about IQ or even EQ? It is HDQ? That is, we have yet to rise above and beyond the dark ages and pursue an egalitarian ethos?

Parochialism, hierarchy and paternalism go against this ethos and, worse, is an insult to The Creator? Add to that political patronage, cronyism and oligarchy? We may assert high IQ or even EQ, but does our culture explain our HDQ?

“The architects of the first democracies of the modern era, post-revolutionary France and the United States, claimed a line of descent from classical Greek demokratia – ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, as Abraham Lincoln put it.”

“We may live in a very different and much more complex world, but without the ancient Greeks we wouldn’t even have the words to talk about many of the things we care most about. Take politics for example: apart from the word itself (from polis, meaning city-state or community) many of the other basic political terms in our everyday vocabulary are borrowed from the ancient Greeks: monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy and – of course – democracy.

“The origin of the Athenian democracy of the fifth and fourth centuries can be traced back to Solon, who flourished in the years around 600 BC. Solon was a poet and a wise statesman but not – contrary to later myth – a democrat. He did not believe in people-power as such. But it was Solon's constitutional reform package that laid the basis on which democracy could be pioneered almost 100 years later by a progressive aristocrat called Cleisthenes.

“Cleisthenes was the son of an Athenian, but the grandson and namesake of a foreign Greek tyrant, the ruler of Sicyon in the Peloponnese. For a time, he was also the brother-in-law of the Athenian tyrant, Peisistratus, who seized power three times before finally establishing a stable and apparently benevolent dictatorship. It was against the increasingly harsh rule of Peisistratus's eldest son that Cleisthenes championed a radical political reform movement which in 508/7 ushered in the Athenian democratic constitution.”

“By the time of Aristotle (fourth century BC) there were hundreds of Greek democracies. Greece in those times was not a single political entity but rather a collection of some 1,500 separate poleis or 'cities' scattered round the Mediterranean and Black Sea shores 'like frogs around a pond', as Plato once charmingly put it. Those cities that were not democracies were either oligarchies – where power was in the hands of the few richest citizens – or monarchies, called 'tyrannies' in cases where the sole ruler had usurped power by force rather than inheritance. Of the democracies, the oldest, the most stable, the most long-lived, but also the most radical, was Athens.” [The Democratic Experiment, Professor Paul Cartledge, BBC-History-Ancient-Greeks-Greek Democracy., 17th Feb 2011]

Why are we unable to build this nation? Can we imagine being in the 21st century and mirroring tendencies from days BC? Wittingly or not, do we justify things archaic as representations of our culture? 

Can we step up to the challenge of self-government and nation-building? “People will not wake up to a new constitution that will magically confer upon them the ability to govern themselves well or make them less corrupt.” [Hilbay, op. cit.]

“If . . . preconditions are not put in place . . . then we may have a government much worse than we currently have.” [Lorenzana, op. cit.] And “The way to unpack the President's federalism project is through a clarification of purpose(s) . . .” [Hilbay, op. cit.] But that demands being forward-looking and not living in the past? And when all is said and done, the future is in our hands?

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

To have our cake and eat it too

“Pinoy abilidad,” in other words? Let’s put that to a test. “The State Policy, as embodied in the 1987 Constitution is therefore, one of prohibition where the imposition of capital punishment is an exception. It is abolitionist in perspective, and embodies the core value of protecting the right to life and upholding human dignity.” [The Philippine Experience in ‘Abolishing’ the Death Penalty,’ Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, January 2007]

“Former mayor of Manila Lito Atienza — now a congressman — says his Catholic faith dictates his views on the issue. ‘Valuing life is a golden value of the Filipino mindset. The contraceptive mentality is not correct. The life that is conceived in a woman’s womb is a creation of the Almighty,’ he said. ‘Allow your reproductive system to function naturally and don’t meddle with it, and you’ll have good health, as a woman and as a mother.’ [Catholic leaders battle against free birth control in the Philippines, Sonia Narang, The Ground Truth Project,GlobalPost.com/PRI.org, 22nd Jan 2015]

“I am shocked at how one-sided it can be: always negative and oftentimes demeaning about our leadership. In my opinion, this negativity can be easily defused, even offset, if the Presidential communications team placed a priority on communicating with the international media in this country and abroad.” [“International media: Negative image of Phl,” Roberto R. Romulo, FILIPINO WORLDVIEW, The Philippine Star, 19th Aug 2016.]

“Allow me to cite some recent stories in the foreign press that highlight our challenge: The Economist commented on a series of anti-crime measures carried out by President Duterte’s administration, arguing that the President’s ‘ill-conceived war on drugs’ will make the Philippines ‘poorer and more violent’, and that investors will ‘flee’ if the ‘rule of law erodes’.

“The New York Times, Aug. 11, 2016 – Killings of Drug Suspects Rise to 525 in the Philippines. ‘Human rights have been sacrificed in the conduct of the anti-drug drive, with those holding the gun assuming the roles of both accusers and executioners,’ left-wing protest leader Vencer Crisostomo said. ‘It is impossible to ascertain innocence or guilt if the accused are simply shot on the spot.’

“Channel News Asia, Aug. 11, 2016 – Duterte’s war on drugs leaves jails bursting, sees mass surrenders . . . Another person feeling the effects of Duterte’s war on drugs is Don Morado Pacheco, owner of Pacheco funeral parlors. He says that since Duterte became president, the number of bodies being delivered to his 21 outlets across Manila has more than doubled.

“Some people say funeral services are good business right now, but it’s really hard,’ he said. ‘We’re exhausted. First, we’re physically tired because we pick up so many bodies. Second, it’s a sorrow for us because we are forced to ask for payment from families who are poor and have a hard time making payment.”

It isn’t surprising if we are offended by the referenced articles. But have we ever examined the Filipino worldview and assessed our predisposition for transparency – which is fundamental in self-government – including check-and-balance? Simply put, we can't take our hierarchical system and structure for granted and, more so, our culture of impunity?

“Alvarez: Trust Duterte, Congress on Con-ass,” Gil Cabacungan, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 16th Aug 2016. “Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said the public should trust President Duterte and Congress that they would do the right thing in shifting to a federal form of government through a Constituent Assembly.

“Alvarez made the appeal amid a debate on whether there was a need to amend the Constitution and how to effect this change.

‘I have faith in my colleagues in the House and senators who were elected by the people. I also trust the President who got a huge mandate from the people,’ said Alvarez in a television debate with Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who opposed the shift to federalism and the administration’s proposed Con-ass mode.

“Lagman said that Alvarez should also trust the delegates to be elected in a Constitutional Convention, which he believed was more appropriate to handle a wholesale change in the Charter than Con-ass, and would work for the best interest of the country.”

The bottom line: Can we on the one hand have our cake and eat it too and on the other fault the International or Western media for their double standard? The war on terror being an example?

Consider: “Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution Condemning Violent Extremism, Underscoring Need to Prevent Travel, Support for Foreign Terrorist Fighters,” United Nations, Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, Security Council, SC/11580, 24 September 2014.

Do we see a difference?

“At a summit presided over by United States President Barack Obama, opened by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and addressed by scores of national leaders, the Security Council this afternoon called on all States to cooperate urgently on preventing the international flow of terrorist fighters to and from conflict zones.

“Through resolution 2178 (2014), adopted unanimously during a meeting that heard from over 50 speakers, the Council condemned violent extremism and decided that Member States shall, consistent with international law, prevent the “recruiting, organizing, transporting or equipping of individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning of, or participation in terrorist acts . . .

“While most speakers acknowledged that a military and security approach to the international spread of terrorism was necessary in the short term, they stressed the need for a comprehensive approach that addressed marginalization, long-standing conflicts and other factors that helped attract individuals to extremism.”

Do we see a difference?

“Killings prompt ‘hesitation’ among European investors,” Roy Stephen C. Canivel, Business World, 19th Aug 2016.

‘This is not a judgmental issue. This is basically what we see and what we feel when we talk to international business trying to set up in the Philippines,’ [ECCP President Guenter] Taus also said.

‘We’re not looking at it from a political point of view -- really from a business point of view. Everybody waits and sees what [findings] the human rights commission comes up with,’ he said, referring to the almost 90 cases of suspected killings brought to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). ‘So I think this would explain the hesitation in business attitude and people are just waiting to see how it’s gonna end.’

“When asked if he had any specific industry in mind, Mr. Taus said: ‘Nobody in particular we want to mention here, but it’s a general sentiment that we sense when [we] talk, when we do our trade missions in Europe.’

“Apart from this, the Senate committee on justice and human rights, chaired by Senator Leila M. de Lima, would hold a probe in aid of legislation next week on the spate of killings since President Rodrigo R. Duterte assumed office on June 30.

“A total of 665 suspects have been killed in legitimate anti-drug operations, with 899 more deaths since July 1 under verification as to their circumstances, said Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Director-General Ronald M. dela Rosa when he testified before the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs also on Thursday.”

Instead of bringing down the barriers to foreign direct investments, for example, does it sound like we are fortifying them? Are we our own worst enemy? But we’re proud of our compassion and empathy?

And so we value life yet look the other way if not defend extra-judicial killings? Does being soft-hearted undermine the character of Juan de la Cruz?

Why would we see OFW remittances as leapfrogging development, specifically industrialization? Because oligarchy – the fruit of political patronage and cronyism and omnipotent and God-like – is supreme, FDIs be damned? And because to be an OFW = employment not unemployment? It’s like CCT = compassion?

Indeed, services are key to the US and Singapore economies. But we’re not the US or Singapore. And the dynamics of their economies are not reflective of ours. We’re way, way underdeveloped! Yet we feast on the opiate of “the fastest growing economy” that we’re in dire need of rehab?

Sadly, because of our parochial, hierarchical and paternalistic instincts, we don’t measure our ourselves against the rest of the world? And explains our struggles in development? Yet, Vietnam, once war-torn, seems to be well on their way?

But we like to think we have the smarts and probably do, yet would fall flat on our face because we can’t prioritize, i.e., crab mentality pulls us all down? Try community and the common good? Or we can simply be stuck in the perfect storm of our own making?

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

Adult supervision – not a question of sovereignty

“The Department of Energy has sought the help of technical experts from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to formulate a more ‘responsive and dynamic’ energy mix for the Philippines.

“‘Our main concern now is to increase the availability of quality, reliable, secure and affordable supply. We want to be certain on the decisions that we will make in order to entice more investments,’ Energy Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi said in a statement.” [DOE taps foreign experts to study PH’s energy mix, Amy R. Remo, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 13th Aug 2016]

Bravo! Indeed, it’s about time we call a spade a spade. We need adult supervision. It is not a question of sovereignty. We have a problem with self-government. But we’re not alone.

“Fractured lands,” Scott Anderson, The New York Times Magazine, 14th Aug 2016. “Along with political stasis, in many Arab nations most levers of economic power lay in the hands of small oligarchies or aristocratic families; for everyone else, about the only path to financial security was to wrangle a job within fantastically bloated public-sector bureaucracies, government agencies that were often themselves monuments to nepotism and corruption. While the sheer amount of money pouring into oil-rich, sparsely populated nations like Libya or Kuwait might allow for a degree of economic trickle-down prosperity, this was not the case in more populous but resource-poor nations like Egypt or Syria, where poverty and underemployment were severe and — given the ongoing regional population explosion — ever-worsening problems.

“I was heartened, in the Arab Spring’s early days, by the focus of the people’s wrath. One of the Arab world’s most prominent and debilitating features, I had long felt, was a culture of grievance that was defined less by what people aspired to than by what they opposed. They were anti-Zionist, anti-West, anti-imperialist. For generations, the region’s dictators had been adroit at channeling public frustration toward these external “enemies” and away from their own misrule. But with the Arab Spring, that old playbook suddenly didn’t work anymore. Instead, and for the first time on such a mass scale, the people of the Middle East were directing their rage squarely at the regimes themselves.”

Beyond energy or power, the Philippines needs a fix on infrastructure and industry. Which by now we appreciate are the building blocks of an economy.

“The Japan International Cooperation Agency has offered five proposals as medium-term solutions to decongest roads in the capital region. Jica made the recommendations in a 2014 study, which are often cited as bases for the emergency powers sought to enable President Rodrigo Duterte to address the vehicular traffic crisis in Metro Manila.” [Jica offers solutions to decongest Metro Manila roads,The Standard Business, 8th Jul 2016]

What about industry? Do we still remember the JFC’s Arangkada Philippines? From their latest assessment, we read “To boost foreign investments, it is also important to revise the Foreign Investment Negative List by reducing the list of industries where foreign participation is limited. Seven bills in the Congress that accomplish this should be enacted.”

Does it remind us of Arab Spring? “Along with political stasis, in many Arab nations most levers of economic power lay in the hands of small oligarchies or aristocratic families; for everyone else, about the only path to financial security was to wrangle a job within fantastically bloated public-sector bureaucracies, government agencies that were often themselves monuments to nepotism and corruption.”

Like the referenced Arab nations, we have a problem with self-government? If it isn’t obvious yet, the three critical elements of power, infrastructure and industry have a common denominator, that is, foreign participation if not intervention.

The Duterte administration appears to be moving in the right direction with power and infrastructure? What about industry? Aside from the war on drugs it has also opened the war on oligarchy? But we don’t want to be the Wild, Wild West?

In other words, we don’t want to confirm that ours isn’t the rule of law? Extra-judicial executions are another face of a culture of impunity? As it were, our human development quotient is plenty dire – because of our instincts of parochialism, hierarchy and paternalism? And our values of political patronage, cronyism and oligarchy? But we aren’t living in trees anymore?

If President Ramos could be deputized to talk to the Chinese, what about talking to oligarchy? “Enough is enough”?

Consider: “Most obviously, openness to the global economy pays off. Vietnam is lucky to be sitting on China’s doorstep as companies hunt for low-cost alternatives. But others in South-East Asia, equally well positioned, have done less. Vietnam dramatically simplified its trade rules in the 1990s. Trade now accounts for roughly 150% of GDP, more than any other country at its income level. The government barred officials from forcing foreigners to buy inputs domestically. Contrast that with local-content rules in Indonesia. Foreign firms have flocked to Vietnam and make about two-thirds of Vietnamese exports.” [The other Asian tiger, The Economist, 6th Aug 2016]

It is not about invoking sovereignty. Yet the bottom line is unmistakable. “Foreign firms have flocked to Vietnam and make about two-thirds of Vietnamese exports.”

We think our MSMEs can do it despite their track record? They account for over 99% of enterprises and employ over two-thirds of the labor force yet deliver only a third (or a bit more) of economic output? Simply put, the empirical evidence doesn’t support our assumption.

Didn’t we make a similar assumption before, i.e., that we could leapfrog development via services, e.g., OFW remittances and the BPO industry? As it turned out, it was a manifestation of “pwede na ‘yan”?

As discussed in a recent posting, “Our ability to know our own minds, though, is rarely called into question. It is assumed that your experience of your own consciousness clinches the assertion that you ‘know your own mind’ in a way that no one else can. This is a mistake.

“Ever since Plato, philosophers have, without much argument, shared common sense’s confidence about the nature of its own thoughts. They have argued that we can secure certainty about at least some very important conclusions, not through empirical inquiry, but by introspection: the existence, immateriality (and maybe immortality) of the soul, the awareness of our own free will, meaning and moral value.

“Introspection, ‘the mind’s eye,’ assures us with the greatest confidence that it is the best, in some cases the only authority on how the mind works, because we all think it has direct, first person access to itself. We’re all very confident that we just know what’s going on in our own minds, from the inside, so to speak.

“Yet research in cognitive and behavioral sciences increasingly undermines that confidence . . . What makes many of these results remarkable is their consistent violation of expectations, assumptions and prejudices forced on us by our own conscious awareness.

“In fact, controlled experiments in cognitive science, neuroimaging and social psychology have repeatedly shown how wrong we can be about our real motivations, the justification of firmly held beliefs and the accuracy of our sensory equipment.” [Why You Don’t Know Your Own Mind, Alex Rosenberg, The Stone, The New York Times, 18th Jul 2016]

Are we barking at the wrong tree? “What the Philippines needs is not more jobs but better jobs … The quality of jobs being created was not meeting aspirations of young people entering labor market,’ said Jan Rutkowski, lead economist at the World Bank . . . The scarcity of ‘good jobs’ reflects the structure of the Philippine economy, where low value-added activities predominate. This is partly due to constraints in the investment climate and the high cost of doing business in the formal sector.” [WB cautions vs scrapping contractual work practice, Ben O. de Vera, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 18th Jun 2016]

Because like “in many Arab nations most levers of economic power lay in the hands of small oligarchies or aristocratic families”?

And, of course, the challenge goes back to community and the common good or the absence of it. “In each, little thought was given to national coherence, and even less to tribal or sectarian divisions . . . Those two factors operating in concert – the lack of an intrinsic sense of national identity joined to a form of government that supplanted the traditional organizing principle of society – left Iraq, Syria and Libya especially vulnerable when the storms of change descended.” [Anderson, op. cit.]

That would in some ways explain our Mindanao problem? More to the point, if we can’t embrace community and the common good amongst us Catholics, what more between us and our Muslim brothers and sisters?

It isn’t about sovereignty but adult supervision?

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]