Q. What do we mean by democratic forces?
A. The leaders and constituents who were responsible for fighting authoritarianism in the 1970s and restoring democratic institutions in the 1980s and sought to maintain them since.
Q. What do we mean by “fallen out of favor”?
A. It means losing at the ballot box, as in 2016, with the election of Pres. Duterte, who ruled Davao as mayor with an iron grip and in 2019, when the entire opposition slate of Otso Diretso failed to make it to the senate, which consolidates Duterte’s control of the legislative branch.
Q. What do we mean by democracy?
A. We mean, not only the system of obtaining popular mandates through universal suffrage, but the democratic system of checks and balances, the freedom of the press, respect for the rights of the minority, observing due process, and the rule of law.
So after defining these terms, we come to the question, why have democratic forces fallen out of favour?
The answer I’d like to offer is varied and multi-dimensional. Let me start off by saying that the election of populist strongmen is a trend that is not unique to the Philippines alone, but part of a global trend, from Vladimir Putin in Russia, Narendra Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkey, Bolsonario in Brazil, and Trump in America.
So let me begin first with some of the global forces that help explain this situation around the world, before going to the particular case of our country. So in answer to the question that we’ve posed, here are some possible explanations for the waning of democracy around the world:
1. The rise of the far right, nationalist leaders around the world can be traced to the effects of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is the late-20th Century resurgence of 19th Century ideas of laissez-faire economic liberalism or free market capitalism. Free markets means opening up borders to trade in both goods and services.
Dani Rodrik, a professor of political economy at Columbia University, has explained it this way:
Sometimes simple and bold ideas help us see more clearly a complex reality that requires nuanced approaches. I have an "impossibility theorem" for the global economy that is like that. It says that democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full.He means that globalisation, or the integration of world markets under a system of free trade will either weaken national sovereignty, as in the case of EU members where nations surrender their ability to set monetary and immigration policy, or weakens democracy, as in the case of Russia with the emergence of Putin or China with the consolidation of power by Pres. Xi Jinping.
What Rodrik is saying, is that you can’t have all three: globalisation, national sovereignty and democracy. What happened in the US with the election of Trump is that the swing states in the rustbelt of America wanted him to restore national sovereignty, which they felt they had surrendered to the WTO and the UN.
These are workers in the manufacturing and coal mining sectors that have been ravaged by imports from abroad aka China and Mexico, and America’s commitments to things like the Paris Accord on climate change. In other words, globalisation created losers out of them, eroding their standard of living, causing them to vote at the ballot for someone who promised to restore their dignity.
This is a situation that is familiar to many developing nations. In Latin America in particular, which like the Philippines adopted neoliberal policies after the Latin American debt crises in the 1980s, and where populist leaders from both the left and the right, have risen in response. This leads me to the second reason.
2. The rise of populism.
There has been a populist backlash against the tide of neoliberal capitalism that has swept the world. What do we mean by populism? Francis Fukuyama offers three definitions:
The first is a regime that pursues policies that are popular in the short run but unsustainable in the long run, usually in the realm of social policies. Examples would be price subsidies, generous pension benefits, or free medical clinics.Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was an example of the first and third type of populism. He used the state’s revenues from oil to bankroll social programs, which became unsustainable when the price of petrol fell.
A second has to do with the definition of the “people” that are the basis for legitimacy: Many populist regimes do not include the whole population, but rather a certain ethnic or racial group that are said to be the “true” people.
A third definition of populism has to do with the style of leadership. Populist leaders tend to develop a cult of personality around themselves, claiming the mantle of charismatic authority that exists independently of institutions like political parties. They try to develop a direct and unmediated relationship with the “people” they claim to represent, channeling the latter’s hopes and fears into immediate action. It is typically coupled with a denunciation of the entire existing elite, which is of course invested in existing institutions.
Nigel Farage in the UK and the far right movements across Europe are examples of the second, where their focus has been primarily against immigration, and treating certain ethnic groups within their society as not representing “true English” people, even though these are people who were born and grew up there. Modi’s ethnic nationalism is another form of this.
Erap Estrada and Rody Duterte are examples of the third form of populism. While Erap appealed to the left or the poor or masa, Duterte appealed to the right. They both denounce the “elites” of civil society, dubbing them “evil society” as in the case of Erap, or dilawans, yellow forces, as in the case of Duterte.
Whenever you have a group of people who feel excluded in society, whether they be the poor masses, left behind by globalisation, or the victims of violent crime, drug syndicates and the like, you have fertile ground on which populist leaders can weave their magic.
So from the global to the local, let’s now look at the reasons particular to the Philippines that led to democratic forces falling out of favor.
3. The ineptitude or failure of the political elites to govern effectively.
In 2016 there were three to four populists running against one moderate, in the person of Mar Roxas. Jojo Binay and Grace Poe were populists who were claiming the mantle of Joseph Estrada and his buddy Fernando Poe, Jr. Duterte and Santiago were populists on the right. You would have thought that the moderate had the best chance of winning in this field.
But there was a swing late in the election cycle from Binay and Poe to Duterte. Why did this happen? Some say, Poe who gradually moved to the center ate away at the votes for Roxas, but actually, she could claim it was the other way around. Preferential polls revealed at the time that those who voted for the Senator, predominantly had Duterte as their second choice. If anything, Poe ate away at Duterte’s votes, not Roxas’.
The question is why was the administration candidate so unpopular? Pres. Noynoy Aquino had retained his popularity all the way to the end of his term, so why was his chosen successor not voted in, nor was he elected for another term in the senate last May 2019?
The answer is, many people felt that though well-meaning, though honest, the political class that they represented, failed to provide good, and effective governance, as they had claimed.
What is effective governance? It’s doing the right things, which means having:
A professional bureaucracy - with merit based appointments, not out of political favor
Prudent fiscal and economic governance
Appropriate and sufficient delivery of basic services
Proper defense of the realm - not surrendering our sovereignty or control of our borders
Rational infrastructure spending and urban planning
It also means observing the rule of law, or doing things right, which means:
Maintaining the independence of the courts, free from political influence or interference
Efficiently dispensing justice
Protecting the rights of individuals and sanctity of contracts
Enforcing equality before the law - providing access to legal services, and a fair trial
Observing the even application of the law
Daang matuwid, or the right path that the previous administration used as its mantra, was meant to usher us into a period of enlightened governance in the country. And to their credit, they tried to do this, by expanding social programs, in a fiscally responsible manner, with the 4Ps, or Pantawid Pamilya, conditional cash grants, and expanded health care to indigent families.
It failed however to provide adequate physical infrastructure to keep up with the times. Its PPP, public-private partnership flagship program, which was itself a vestige of the neoliberal economic policies adopted by Mrs Corazon Aquino’s government in the 1980s, failed to deliver on time, the much needed improvements to transport and logistics.
Their development acceleration program, or DAP was ruled unconstitutional by the highest court of the land, and was rorted by congressmen and senators with fake projects, costing the taxpayer billions that could have been used to build much needed infrastructure.
4. The lack of executive competence on the part of the president who had spent his whole political career in the legislative branch, deliberating on laws, showed.
His father, Ninoy, had at least been a town mayor and provincial governor before becoming a senator. But Noynoy’s only experience at managing things was as a sales rep for Mondragon enterprises, the outfit of his late-mother’s former tourism secretary.
Noynoy’s mishandling of the fallout of the Luneta hostage taking and the Mamasapano police operation which ended in the massacre of the entire special forces group of policemen was an indictment on his leadership
Mar Roxas who at least served in the executive branch under Erap Estrada and Gloria Arroyo, should have at least done better. But the problems at the transport department with the MRT, which was operated by a group that he had a longstanding history with, and the post-Yolanda recovery efforts, exposed his lack of decisiveness and executive ability, overall.
5. Their inability to dispense justice fairly or evenly was also exposed following the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona and the Janet Napoles scandal.
Only non-allies were prosecuted after the scandal, even though some allies were implicated by whistleblowers as well.
Ineffective governance and failure to observe the rule of law is what led to the collapse of support for the Daang Matuwid coalition in 2016. It led to a populist backlash, from all social and income groups. It didn’t matter whether you were wealthy, educated, or not. Polls revealed that voters had turned away from the yellow forces.
The question now becomes, how do they win back, not just favor, but legitimacy in the eyes of voters? This is important, because no amount of pandering to the public will win you back legitimacy once you have lost it. It’s about regaining trust, which has been lost.
Let me now offer six ways they can do this:
1. Improve their executive capabilities. Find candidates with proven executive competence. We love our mayors. Jokowi and Bukele were first mayors of Jakarta and San Salvador before becoming president. Our very own Erap Estrada and Rody Duterte were mayors. In the era of local autonomy, metropolitan city mayors not provincial governors rule. Isko is being touted as a future presidential candidate as early as now. We like decisive leaders. Those who get things done, as opposed to scholarly senators who deliberate and craft bills meticulously. Men of action, as opposed to men of books. Jesse Robredo was one such type on the yellow bench, which is increasingly looking shallow. His widow has tried to offer her own version of good governance known as tsinelas economics. Her program of channeling charitable donations to marginalised communities was, however cited by the Commission on Audit for its failure to liquidate expenses. This is something that her camp needs to address. Just as an aside, wouldn’t it be good to have regional autonomy, so that mayors and governors who perform well in their cities and provinces, could then be promoted and practice governing at a bigger scale, so as to prepare them for eventually running the country later on? As Duterte noted, he was unprepared for the gravity or scale of the problems he would be confronted with as president. There is just such a big chasm that now exists between governing at the local level and the national. Somehow, we need a better way of grooming future leaders of the country, by gradually expanding their skill sets, until they are ripe for national office.
2. Work to expand opportunities for the middle class (as an antidote to populism) - as opposed to pandering to a very narrow set of social groups solely. VP Leni’s gambit failed last May. Otso Diretso’s platform which her Ahon Laylayan Koalisyon wrote made it difficult for them to appeal to the broad middle class. Unlike PDP-Laban’s platform which was offering better service delivery to OFWs, households and the like. I’m not diminishing the importance of securing the rights of LGBTQI, indigenous, urban poor, drug dependents, etc. What I am saying is that these are not uppermost in the minds of the struggling households in the suburbs of Cavite and Laguna, for instance, struggling to make a living, while travelling three to four hours a day to the city and back, putting kids through school and university, and having to deal with senior, ailing parents, etc. What they want is efficient transport, safe streets for their kids, access to education and healthcare, stable prices, and better wages. So expanding opportunities for the middle class would mean working with the administration to fast-track infrastructure and jobs program. Passing fiscal, financial and regulatory reforms to spur investment and entrepreneurship, and pay for social programs like universal health care. Improve our urban planning system, increase the rate of home ownership, regulate water, power and telco providers in a way that promotes the interests of consumers, the stability and sustainability of the system, and so much more. People with a stake in the system, will not vote for someone to wreck it. They will want to preserve it. The way to do this is to increase the ranks of the middle class.
3. Improve the functioning of political parties to move us away from personality, celebrity driven politics. What we have now are three major parties, acquired by three different tycoons. NUP from the remnants of Gloria’s and Ramos’ Lakas-NUCD party, run by the ports magnate Enrique Razon, a close friend of Mrs Arroyo’s husband. NPC under the patronage of Danding Cojuangco, at first, but now run by Ramon Ang, his successor at San Miguel Corporation. And the Nacionalista Party run by the family of Manny Villar, who is the richest man in the country. Together these three parties control 42% of district seats in Congress, 103 seats. The remaining institutional parties are Lakas, Liberal Party and PDP-Laban, which together control 47% of districts or 115 seats. The rest are mom and pop operations, remnants of their founders, such as PMP of the Estrada clan, PRP of the late Miriam Santiago, HNP of the Dutertes, and LDP of the Angaras, which account for the remaining 10% or 25 seats. Even partylist groups are now run by rich individuals. So in politics as in business, when you have large conglomerates competing with SMEs run like mom and pop operations, how can we ensure that competition is free and fair? First of all, we need to ask the question, whether it is right to let the captains of industry run political parties. Should those who decide on regulations, awarding of budgets, franchises and contracts be subordinate to business tycoons? Secondly, if these patrons weren’t there, how would these parties survive? How can we ensure that parties are based on ideas, principles and programs of government, rather than personalities, or worse corporate interests? In most democracies around the world, doesn’t matter if they are in the Northern or Southern hemisphere, some form of state-sponsorship of political parties is in place. This means that parties receive financial support from the taxpayer if they meet certain criteria, such as disclose their sources of finance, which shouldn’t include large donations from individuals or corporations, properly audited by the COA. Political party reform in other words, which unlike federalism or cha-cha have sponsors from across the aisle and political spectrum, and have passed in the lower house, but not in the senate. So now my question is, why not create a unity ticket to push for these reforms that would institutionalize political parties.
4. Improve the functioning of our courts and judicial system as a whole. Declogging the courts, so that justice is dispensed with efficiently. This could mean reviewing the structure of the courts, creating specialist courts, increasing the number of judges. It also means applying modern IT systems in judicial administration. Strengthening the prosecutorial arm of the government, as well as ensuring access to legal counsel. Aside from that, reforming our sentencing laws and policies, improving our jail and rehabilitation system. Finally, ensuring the independence of the DOJ, the Office of the Solicitor General, at all times, which should never be used as political instruments, again.
5. Improve our mechanisms for democratic accountability. This means improving our election system. Improving the way we hold public officials to account. Strengthening the Commission on Audit and the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate and indict corrupt officials. Improve the efficiency of the Sandiganbayan to hear such cases. Strengthen the prosecutorial arm of the government as well. Make the appointment of judges and justices more transparent.
6. Strengthen citizen involvement and participation in public life. This could mean having town hall meetings, informal meetups, listening tours, and the like. Socmed is just too toxic for this. It’s necessary to improve the level of discourse. Stop the name calling, scapegoating and tribalism. Start to build bridges, engage in coalition building, rather than virtue signaling and internal purges of the ranks. The pro-democratic forces need to expand their base and be more inclusive in the way they reach out to the general public.
So that’s it. That’s my summary of why democratic, yellow forces have fallen out of favor, and how to win it back.
Did I miss anything? Please tell me through the comments section below. Hope to hear from you. This has been another edition of The Cusp, I’m Doy Santos. Thanks for watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment