Where are we? (II)

Those familiar with the blog may recall that it has time and again asked these simple questions, to us Filipinos, as a nation: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

But then again, let’s look at a third-party example, so we aren’t jaded. And this is from a book that is hot off the press, “The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save our Democracy,” Katherine M. Gehl, Michael E. Porter; Harvard Business Review Press, 2020.

“Foreword: Before serving the United States as members of Congress, we each served as members of the armed forces. Chrissy earned a systems engineering degree from Stanford University on an ROTC scholarship and served in the Air Force, helping design defense systems for the ballistic missile attack. Mike joined the Marines the day he graduated from Princeton University and served in intelligence across the world. Both of us felt we owed this service to our extraordinary country.

“During our time in the military, we served under and led men and women of great diversity—each with their family backgrounds, stories, and belief systems. We came together united by our common goal to protect this country we treasure. Military duty was a great honor and formed the foundation for our continued service today—service to our districts, our states, and our country.

“While we are immeasurably honored and privileged to now be serving again in Congress and to be working on behalf of our constituents and our country, we are both dismayed by the current state of play in Washington, DC. Like many of our colleagues, we are deeply frustrated. We know you are too.

“As veterans, we know what it means to fight on the same team for America we love so much. That love hasn’t changed. That desire to fight for America hasn’t changed. So why aren’t we now on the same for-America team? Why is our status as members of different political parties seem more potent than our shared love for America, our many areas of agreement, and our shared responsibility to solve problems and get results? Why are we more often opponents than colleagues? Why are we collectively allergic to the compromise and teamwork required to do what Americans expect of their Congress? Why can’t we get big things done for the American people?

“Because the system will tear us apart as it were. In American politics, winning isn’t winning unless the other side is losing and losing badly. That shouldn’t be – and it doesn’t have to be. This book proves it.

“Katherine and Michael argue that ‘it’s the system.’ Most important, they propose specifics on how we can fix it together. Their prescription is powerful. It is nonpartisan. What’s more, it’s doable.

“The next generation of elected leaders is not required to carry on the dysfunctional legacy of gridlock and bad blood that has defined our recent politics. We must match our love of country with a system designed to serve the people, not the ‘political-industrial complex.’ We want to look back on our careers in public service and see that we were able to make American lives better, coast to coast.

“We know you want the same. We’re excited about the possibilities.

“This book arrives not a moment too soon. Please engage—we owe it to our extraordinary country to do so.” [Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher (WI, elected 2016); Democratic Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan (PA, elected 2018)]

These lines stand out: “Why can’t we get big things done for the American people? Because the system will tear us apart as it were. In American politics, winning isn’t winning unless the other side is losing and losing badly. That shouldn’t be – and it doesn’t have to be. We must match our love of country with a system designed to serve the people, not the ‘political-industrial complex.’”

Where are we, as Filipinos? These American politicians can call a spade a spade.

Recall what the blog says about our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism that we rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

Recall too that as a Fil-Am, the writer can participate in US elections but chose not to – and the above-referenced book will explain why, better than he can.

Yet, he takes seriously the other elements of the American ethos, including paying taxes, investing, community life – and what he is most proud of, the spirit of volunteerism, after his retirement. And President George W. Bush, who renewed the call for volunteerism after 9/11, recognized his “service to others – for demonstrating the outstanding character of America and helping strengthen the country.”

Those familiar with the blog may remember that he didn’t purposely migrate to America. He came as an expatriate courtesy of his old MNC-company. And for convenience’s sake, they secured him a US passport. He had a regional and global role, and visa application time lags that came with a Philippine passport can’t dictate his foreign trips.

Let’s get back to the Philippines. There are reasons why we don’t call a spade a spade as Americans do. We are Asians and more polite – and cherish harmony. Yet, our accountants will tell us that there is such a thing as net worth – or our assets minus our liabilities. It explains why ours is a culture of impunity.

Sadly, if America, a model for democracy, can be waylaid by a Trump and the political parties despite 244 years as a democracy, what more of the Philippines? It was 74 years ago when the Americans granted us independence. That is less than a third of the period compared to the US.

But the real difference is the Americans started on a quest of their own – to create the new world. They wanted to innovate and overcome persecution – and nature’s wrath.

And the prescription by the authors of the above-referenced book is for the US to innovate again. It is not a surprise since one of the authors, Michael E. Porter, is an innovation guru. Beyond his engineering and MBA degrees, he has a Ph.D. in business economics. And is referenced among the concluding quotes in every posting of the blog.

“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 its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]

Innovation is not limited to coming out with a new product idea – where countless fall into the trap of idea generation that doesn’t address a human need – to raise humankind’s well-being. Some readers of the blog may remember that the writer was responsible for buying a technology that answered such a need for the most prominent brand of his old MNC-company.

Even a Fortune 500 company must be outward-looking despite its R&D capability. The point is for us Pinoys to learn how to be less inward-looking and parochial and insular.

In the case of Porter, innovation starts at the strategy level – and through to execution. “He is credited for creating Porter’s five forces analysis, which is instrumental in business strategy development today.” [Wikipedia]

Unsurprisingly, Porter’s co-author, Katherine M. Gehl, was once his client and learned Porter’s five forces analysis. And it was Gehl who adapted the model to the treatise of their new book, “The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save our Democracy.”

If it is not apparent yet, the writer is a practitioner of innovation and strategy, although as a volunteer in Eastern Europe, he calls himself a development worker. It is an echo of Porter’s playing field: “innovation” can be pursued from the strategy level to execution. And because of his marketing background, he also studied Steve Jobs and the social sciences. That is why he changed the finance-driven planning and budget process at his former company to business alignment.

And he did executive education in strategy at Columbia University, i.e., it catered to practitioners. It included classwork, but the “fireside chats” were deeply engaging – with practitioner-academics, including those at the board level involved in strategy at Fortune 500 companies.

But let’s get to the Washington gridlock. Those familiar with the blog will recall that it has argued against absolutism – aka tribalism. And it is precisely why the Republican and Democratic Parties will never see eye-to-eye. And that is why the writer chose not to participate in US elections – they serve the “political-industrial complex,” not “to get big things done for the American people.”

And the innovation the authors propose is to move away from the fistfights between two candidates. Instead, to ask voters to rank-order five candidates so that no one can predict the elections’ outcomes, whether primary or general. It is to leverage competition, the very foundation of the free market system.

The proposal does not mean runoff elections. But the process of tallying votes will run a few times. The one that comes in fifth drops out after the first tally. And then, the votes of the remaining four will be taken collectively across all voting locations to ascertain the final score.

The two-party system has raised “the barrier to entry” for newcomers so high that voters and vested interests can predict the winners. Sadly, for the voters, vested interests have a higher power to elect their choices than them. Take the gun manufacturers. They have so much sway on the elections and why America can’t stop senseless killings.

In the case of the Philippines, how do we overcome our pitfalls? We have a less than powerful incentive compared to the Americans. They set out to create a new world. And it is a crystal-clear example of defining the common good. And still, they are foundering. 

That is why the blog keeps asking these simple questions: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

We are an underdeveloped economy – stuck as a service-consumption economy. And we don’t forward-think as the Americans did or even our neighbors. And so, we can’t merely say that we want to traverse the road from poverty to prosperity. 

In the meantime, we are in a state of learned helplessness. We continue to rely on OFW remittances. And on oligarchy to run the economy in cahoots with political patronage.

How many of our thought leaders are championing the imperative to pursue an industrial-investment economy and proactively tapping foreign money and technology? 

Recall that is how our neighbors – all – took their journeys from poverty to prosperity. It sounds too simple, and they must be naive. That may be the perspective of Juan de la Cruz. Yet, look at where we are and where our neighbors are – whom can we call naive? 

Is it naïveté or denial because we instinctively want to preserve the status quo? Because anything beyond it is Greek to us? Enter: metacognition. Absent experience in development, we are not predisposed to question how we think. 

And if we want the next generation prepared for the future, they won’t be given our higher education is like the economy, the regional laggard.

Our reliance on OFW remittances is now going almost fifty years or two generations. We are so way behind our neighbors development-wise, and Pandemic 2020 just pulled us farther back.

Do we fear poverty? Not to worry, it will get worse. Post-COVID-19, there will be a tendency to the quick fix. And it will blind us to forward-think.

Think again: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

If we can’t square the circle on the first question, how do we move up and figure out the next two?

Gising bayan!

“Here is a land in which a few are spectacularly rich while the masses remain abjectly poor. And where freedom and its blessings are a reality for a minority and an illusion for the many. Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy, dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste. 

“But the fault was chiefly their own. Filipinos profess the love of country, but love themselves – individually – more.” [Ninoy Aquino, Foreign Affairs magazine, July 1968; Stanley Karnow, New York Times Magazine, “Cory Aquino’s Downhill Slide,” 19th Aug 1990.]

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? Moreover, 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]

“True social reform has little to do with politics. To unmoor ourselves from the burdens of the past, we must be engaged in the act of continual and conscious self-renewal. All men are partially buried in the grave of custom. Even virtue is no longer such if it is stagnant.

“Change begins when we finally choose to examine critically and then recalibrate the ill-serving codes and conventions handed down to us, often unquestioned, by the past and its power structures. It is essentially an act of imagination first.” [David Henry Thoreau; American essayist, poet, and philosopher; 1817-1862]

“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]

“You have to have a dream, whether big or small. Then plan, focus, work hard, and be very determined to achieve your goals.” [Henry Sy Sr., Chairman Emeritus and Founder, SM Group (1924 - 2019)]

“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]

“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]