It is the dynamic of a grown-up Juan de la Cruz and a leadership equipped to take him from poverty to plenty. And to understand Juan de la Cruz and the leadership he needs, we must examine our instincts as they relate to: (a) family and (b) the church.
How much do they shape our parochial and insular bias? As well as our deference to hierarchy in return for paternalism? And our value of and reliance on patronage, and political dynasties and oligarchy? And do they explain why: (a) Juan de la Cruz is passive and subservient, while (b) ours is a culture of impunity? Recall Fr. Bulatao and what he calls our split-level Christianity.
And this poses a challenge to our education system – i.e., how do we build institutions – and clearly the public and private sectors and not to forget, the church and family.
Note that papal infallibility is confined to matters of faith but to us Du30 – like Marcos before him – is a demigod. If we don’t appreciate why innovation and global competitiveness is alien to us, it is the direct consequence of blind obedience. RHIP – rank has its privileges.
At the end of the day, we can’t reap the fruit of freedom and democracy if we don’t embrace the responsibility and accountability that comes with it. Where will check-and-balance come from if both leadership and Juan de la Cruz aren’t upright?
Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Yet it is not anarchy but community and the common good. It is a dynamic tension that passiveness and subservience on the part of Juan de la Cruz is unpatriotic – if that is the language that resonates to us.
On the other hand, leadership demands foresight and the commitment to take Juan de la Cruz where he has never been before. In the case of the Asian Tigers, their leaderships were forward-looking – they had visions of being first-world nations – and figured out how to traverse the journey from poverty to prosperity.
The dynamic of a successful enterprise calls for: (a) a forward-looking leadership with a strong sense of foresight; and (b) a people that is committed to the responsibility and accountability inherent in freedom and democracy, including active involvement in institution-building.
And more to the point, Juan de la Cruz must not expect paternalism especially when it undermines our institutions. Recall how the pork barrel supposedly meant to raise the well-being of Juan de la Cruz and the community at large lined the pockets of even senior legislators.
Nation building is not a cakewalk. And even when institutions are strong, there comes the next challenge: how to win in the bigger world, regionally if not globally. For example, how can Vietnam and Thailand be competitive in the rice industry while we still can’t figure out where we are?
Consider Silicon Valley’s innovation phenomenon. What can nations learn from them? The model is best captured by Design Thinking, where: (a) cross-functional thinking and (b) consumers are brought together to brainstorm, define and address a human need, beyond a perceived need. And the caveat? Many bright ideas fall by the wayside because people carry a perception bias – and bark at the wrong tree.
Note that in Design Thinking deference to hierarchy or a discipline is not a given – i.e., there are no sacred cows. It is tapping and exploring a cross-section of knowledge and experience to raise the probability of delivering on the commitment.
The medical profession is a good example. “Rock Star” physicians work with a peer group coming from different specialized fields and even different locations and countries to keep challenging their respective knowledge and expertise. And the writer witnessed this firsthand when his wife’s surgeon asked her consent to make hers a case study for his group before scheduling the surgery on her spine.
The writer’s old MNC company pulled different expertise from four countries to develop a new product and brought the brand global dominance.
“Out-of-the-box” thinking is the one challenge that a fixed mindset – or culture – like ours struggle to satisfy. Because people take culture as a given. And until we grow up, community and the common good won’t be our North Star. Sadly, the more underdeveloped a nation like PH is, the greater the poverty and the focus on the symptoms not the cause.
Underdevelopment robs us of the foresight to see far out into the future; and the ability to overcome man’s tribal instincts. Yet, man has demonstrated his genius by advancing civilization. Unsurprisingly, the community of nations sees Du30’s war on drugs as uncivilized.
And we have yet to come to grips with the root of the Mindanao problem, that is, tribal instincts – e.g., Catholics vs. Muslims. [And it’s a universal phenomenon, demonstrated by Trump’s core supporters vs. the coastal elites, among others. Read “Political Tribes: Group Instincts and the Fate of Nations” by Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua, bestselling author of “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.”]
Unfortunately, we will replicate such tribal-like cliques assuming we adopt federalism. It goes without saying that it will reinforce and nurture “crab mentality” and turn us even more parochial and insular.
Think of the myriad problems we have. From the Manila airport to the bluster cum tyranny displayed by cabinet members to our inability to solve the decades-old problem of energy to tax evasion by supposed pillars of industry to the resurrection of once political pariahs that today can flex their muscles.
In the end, we can’t solve our pressing problems because community and the common good is not our collective instincts. And why the rule of law continues to confound us. Or is our judicial system itself a reflection of our failure in institution building?
The blog often talks about Silicon Valley’s innovation phenomenon because it demands a totally different perspective and mindset, i.e., an egalitarian ethos that is growth oriented not fixed. And it parallels product development in that benchmarking and concept development are integral to the process. In other words, it is not about one bright idea after another (no different from short-lived brands) as we see in the different unsolicited airport projects. Or in energy. Or whatever.
Yet at home with copywriting – that is, especially journalism, to craft the headline of the day – why can’t we in our problem-solving come out with an overarching concept? Whether it is about the airport or energy or a 21st century transportation system.
We are 50 years behind in infrastructure development but what do we read every day despite being well into the 21st century? The absence of coherence – still ruled by “crab mentality” – and why we are set up for tyrannical rule.
Or think of how we celebrate every time we embrace a “make-do” effort – aka “pwede na ‘yan” – in development. Does it come from mañana? Or is it a manifestation of our lack of foresight?
Consider how we chose our options: OFW remittances instead of industrialization. BPO industry instead of innovation and global competitiveness. Price-focused yet inadequate – and nowhere near competitively priced – power supply instead of rapid infrastructure development. Land reform and subsistence farming instead of a globally competitive agribusiness designed for scale and productivity and profitability. Focus on rural poverty instead of rapid economic development.
They equate to our sins of omission – and why we’re not generating the per person income of a Malaysia or a Thailand; and why our poverty is worse even when compared with latecomer Vietnam. It’s not rocket science: our OFWs know what inadequate income is – they can’t make both ends meet – and why they had to work overseas.
But we as a nation seem oblivious to reality when what our persistent poverty says is PH can’t make both ends meet. Before innovation and the demands of global competition, it was assumed deficit-spending was the be-all and end-all.
And so, we would shut our eyes in denial to our sins of omission and throw in federalism as the answer? God bless us! We continue to embrace “make-do” efforts in development without the benefit of coherence. Conversely, they equate to our sins of commission – and why we can’t solve our pressing problems.
Not surprising given we’re perception-challenged. That we can’t figure out what we must deal with, if we aren’t more ignorant that our more developed neighbors; with no sense of foresight, if we aren’t in fact clueless.
“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]
“Now I know why Paul dared to speak of ‘the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13). Law reigns and discernment is unnecessary, which means there is little growth or change in such people. When you do not grow, you remain an infant.” [Faith and Science, Open to Change, Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, 23rd Oct 2017]
“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]
“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” [William Pollard, 1911-1989, physicist-priest, Manhattan Project]
“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]
No comments:
Post a Comment