I have just gone over a qualitative research study that confirms what most of us believe – that corruption in government is the root cause of the hardships that the people endure. The current pork barrel scandal is certainly proof of that. Because of this Mother of All Thefts, we have been deprived of the benefits of good governance, such as employment opportunities and basic services, and the poor have been consigned to greater depths of poverty.
The travails that we had to endure under the Arroyo administration are also certainly proof of that. In fact, it was this realization that catapulted Noynoy Aquino to the presidency. His landslide victory was won on a premise and a promise.
The premise: “Kung walang korap, walang mahirap.” (If there is no corruption, there is no poverty) The promise: There would be no corruption on his watch and, as a result, the country’s problem of poverty would be solved and the hardships of the people would be alleviated.
The premise was a typical advertising man’s creation – long on rhyme and short on reason. But it had enough truth in it to resonate among the masses. Besides, the promise was credible because of Aquino’s parents. Cory, perceived as incorruptible. Ninoy, revered as a martyr.
Today, however, halfway into Aquino’s incumbency, the masses have remained mahirap. Jobs, social services and other benefits from a rebounding economy have not trickled down to them. Not surprisingly, the masses have concluded that the reason they are still poor is because the system is still corrupt.
Early in his tenure, Aquino could believably pass on the blame to his predecessor. But after three years, that rationale has worn thin.
Expectedly, Aquino’s detractors have taken advantage of the situation. The P10-B pork barrel scandal, which Aquino should have logically bannered as a major milestone in his anti-corruption campaign, instead opened a Pandora’s box of suspected financial shenanigans involving his government.
The fallout has left Aquino’s apologists on the defensive, striving to prove that he has not lost his moral compass.
Frankly, in spite of the pork barrel scandal and his insistence on keeping his own special discretionary fund – described by virtually everyone but folks from Malacañang as “the president’s pork” – I have continued to keep my faith in Aquino’s determination to cleanse his government of corruption. As I wrote in an earlier column, what can one do who has to swim with sharks, operate with snakes and deal with swine? One has no choice but to adjust.
I’m still convinced that the free hand that Aquino has given his officials in the justice system to go after the alleged pork plunderers hammer and tongs is proof of the seriousness of his anti-corruption campaign.
But to go back to the findings in the survey, one is constrained to ask:
If corruption is what keeps a government from providing benefits and basic services to its citizenry, what do you call a government that provides its constituents with the benefits of good governance and endeavors to compensate for the poverty of its people by way of opportunities for employment, free education, subsidized health care, unheard of benefits for its senior citizens, and humane resettlement of its informal settlers?
An ideal government. Right? One that is not corrupt. Right?
This is the paradox of Jejomar Binay, vice-president and former mayor of Makati. Not just his known political enemies but even those who purport to be enlightened and knowledgeable (specially those who habitually post their comments on social media) have portrayed Binay as Corruption Incarnate, ostensibly because of the power that he and his family have wielded in Makati for decades.
But then, how does one explain the massive public investments required to provide the benefits that Makati’s citizens have enjoyed? If the pork barrel of the senators and congressmen had been used for their constituents the way the government of Makati has been doing, wouldn’t our countrymen have more jobs, schools, health services and other benefits?
Which brings me to the myth of “Kung walang korap, walang mahirap.”
Would a simon pure and incorruptible but incompetent government be able to successfully fight poverty? On the other hand, would an honest and competent government that has no social conscience be able to alleviate the plight of the poor?
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stressed that last point in his first inaugural speech, at the height of the Great Depression, when he presented his plan for economic restoration: “The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”
Roosevelt could well have been talking about the Philippines. The harsh fact is that, the much-vaunted trickle-down economics, has succeeded in enriching the rich, but is taking forever to make the poor less poor, because of lack of compassion for their plight.
While fighting poverty is a de kahon promise of politicians, along with the vow to eradicate corruption, most presidents of our country have failed to live up to expectations.
The only one who came closest to fulfilling that promise was Ramon Magsaysay. Going by his mantra, “He who has less in life must have more in law,” he exerted an earnest and sustained effort to bring the poor into the fold of government, setting up the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee and literally opening the gates of Malacañang to the masses to listen to and act on their complaints and expectations.
But among current public officials, only Jejomar Binay, as mayor of Makati, actually delivered on his pro-poor philosophy of governance: “When it comes to allocating local government resources…government must place priority on addressing the concerns of the economically disadvantaged. Makati’s rich and the middle classes can look after themselves. It is the poor who depend on government and they expect government to see to their wellbeing.”
Unfortunately, like the Biblical prophet who is not appreciated in his own hometown, Binay’s efforts have not been as well appreciated by the pillars of civil society and the activists of social media as they are by his poor constituents and the many provincial towns and cities that he has helped.
Fortunately, his good work has not escaped the notice of the jurors in the annual selection of the Top Ten World Mayors, which recognizes the best local executives around the globe. In 2006, Binay was ranked fourth in the world and the only one from Asia.
***
