While I was in the town of Dumanjug near Cebu, I noticed a campaign ad for the current president Noynoy Aquino. It read “Kung walang corruption walang mahirap.” In English it means that “if there is no corruption there will be no poor.”
Corruption in the government is a big issue in the Philippines. I have discussed with all sorts of different people around here and there is definitely a consensus that the government is very corrupt. One guy went as far as to say the reason why the Philippines is a poor country is precisely because of the corruption of the government. I can see that misappropriated resources can hurt the society as a whole but I find it hard to believe that a few bureaucrats taking some kick-backs is the fundamental problem. As usual, I feel that the problem is more complex.
Corruption is a problem at any level of government but I believe corruption at the local level is widespread throughout the world. Filipinos don't believe me when I say that the American government is very corrupt in some corners. In America at the national level, there are the occasional guys who get caught receiving money from unscrupulous characters or organizations but it is still not common. American politicians work very hard to develop new ways to get kick-backs through lobbyists, campaign contributions, “the revolving door”, etc. but I believe at the state and local level there still is petty corruption because of the lack of media attention. The American media does not follow and track their bank accounts because they do not want to waste time airing a story that will only interest a handful of people. The moral of the story I think is that regardless of the culture or country, if there is room for abuse it will happen. There will always be an opportunistic person ready to do something questionable for a bit of money. Every government makes overtures about their plan to fight corruption and sometimes there are guys that actually do make a difference but ultimately you cannot outlaw pettiness. I believe this is inherent in politics and the structure of the modern state.
The Philippines also has its share of problems with small corruption which is frustrating but the real problem resides in the top politicians. I have heard a lot from people throughout my studies complaining that maybe countries with such high rates of corruption, such as the Philippines, Indonesia, or other African countries, just have cultures which tolerate this but I don't believe this for a minute. There is no inherent aspect of Filipino culture that is comfortable with corruption. It is true that politics do take a savage turn here more often than it does in America. Such as politicians in the the provinces that occasionally commission their own private armies to assassinate their opposition. That is definitely extremely rare in America but there are several provinces in the Philippines that the national government lacks effective control so it is no surprising that in the vacuum of power ambitious men take control of the situation themselves. Politics can really be a jungle at times.
So then what is the reason that the Philippines suffers from such high rates of corruption compared to other countries? My theory lies in this post-colonial world, the vestiges of this old world order still remain and have transformed themselves into organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. It is not politically correct for world leaders to overtly reveal imperialistic ambitions but new euphemisms have emerged such as, “economic restructuring” as a condition for a international aid approval. The restructuring includes opening the countries economy to foreign investors and trying to eliminate any barriers for foreign inflow of investment and commerce such as trade regulations and tariffs. Now there are conflicting opinions on the overall effect of this policy on the individual country's economy and the world economy as a whole. Some economists would argue that increased fluidity of movement and money accelerates global GDP growth and thus increases the prosperity of all those involved and so we should be promoting free trade as much as possible. There are problems with this kind of policy and the Philippines is a prime example of a nation that has got the short end of the stick.
The IMF regularly analyzes and releases reports about different countries economic problems and prospects such as their projected growth rate and possible obstacles to further growth. After their assessment they have the power to offer massive loans to fund infrastructure projects which are definitely essential for developing countries, but these loans are not free money and always have strings attached. These “strings” involve the economic restructuring that is meant to open the economy to multinational firms. It is true that in a lot of cases the domestic firms of a developing nation might not be sufficient and huge multinationals are the only corporations that have the capacity to undertake huge infrastructure projects. There still are adverse effects on the domestic economy and welfare of the people of those countries. Even though the IMF is an international organization it would be foolish to imagine that the it operates without the consent of the United States and other wealthy nations.
Now look at the Philippines. Being an old American colony the Philippine government has always been closely tied and largely cooperative with the American government. The Philippines sent troops to Vietnam and adopted neo-liberal economic policies wholesale. This means the Philippine government, with pressure from the US government, has privatized almost all aspects of their economy and society. The buses, trains, health care, energy, and even water is controlled by private businesses. The interesting thing is that during the early 1960s the Philippine economic prospects actually looked quite good and it wasn't until the mid 1960s when the Philippines relinquished their influence over the peso and lifted most export controls that things have gone down hill. The GDP did grow but as some grew prosperous the majority of Filipino's wages decreased in value while inflation increased. The cost of living increased for Filipinos while their quality of life decreased while less than one percent of the population became very rich. Basically out of all investment in the Philippines over 3/4s of it was owned by foreign corporations. This meant that some money was being made in the Philippines but the vast majority of it was transferred back to the United States and other developed nations. I think it is safe to say that the neo-liberal economic strategy undertaken by the Philippine government has not succeeded in what the IMF proposed and has devastated the domestic Philippine economy. I have heard the term thrown around that the Philippines is a “neo-colony” of the United States and the argument is that the Philippine government does not even seem to have control over their own economy and submits to US pressure on almost everything. There has always been institutional corruption in the Philippine government but the real corruption lies in the ease in which the Filipino politicians literally sell out Filipino people for the financial benefit of themselves and other business elite. The economic restructuring of the 1960s and the acceptance of foreign loans has exacerbated this situation because before they pay back these loans the Philippine government has no bargaining chip to take back control of their own economy. The IMF has essentially stripped the Philippines of any control of their own economy and the foreign debt has sky-rocketed to a point that it seems bleak that they will pay it back anytime soon. In 1965 Ferdinand Marcos took power and he promised to reform the foreign debt issue and return the Philippines back to a position of economic strength and prospect but he also allowed the national debt to increase massively. Before Marcos took power the debt was around a quart of billion dollars but by the end of his rule it had gone up to over 28 billion dollars. Corazon Aquino took power in 1986 and is the one credited with returning democracy to the Philippines. She put at the top of her economic agenda the repaying of all foreign debt and to end the control of Marcos' and his cronies had on the country. These were merely campaign slogans however and the debt continued to rise and not nearly enough was done to root out corruption in the government. By the end of 1997 the debt has risen to over 45 billion dollars.
Noynoy Aquino has made it clear that he intends to fight corruption and this kind of crony capitalism that has plagued the Philippines since its independence but I have not met anyone who shows any optimism about this. He does symbolic things to give the impression that he is cutting down on corrupt policies such as when he went to UN he flew with only a few aides, in the economy seats, and stayed in a modest hotel which compared the former president Gloria Arroyo and her family's lavish foreign trips, all paid for by Filipinos' taxes, does seem to be an improvement. It is hard for me to be very optimistic about the immediate future of the Philippine economy but the Philippine media does not hold back when criticizing the corrupt politicians and the people who actually believe the overtures of the politicians must be quite rare, I haven't met anyone yet. This disillusionment with the government and economy has the unfortunate consequence of motivating a massive amount of Filipinos to go and work abroad and so separating mother's from their children and dividing families. In light of all of this I think it is safe to assume that the government will be slow to change and reform itself but Filipinos with their warmth and upbeat attitude in the face of adversity have always impressed me. Only Filipinos, during the massive typhoon last year that flooded much of Manila, while they were waiting on the roofs of their flooded homes to be rescued could be seen laughing and joking with each other and the rescue workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment