|
The recent World Bank study, wherein the Philippines was dismally
ranked to have the most corrupt government in East Asia, has once
more made abundantly clear the tremendous obstacles that a
developing country, with a radical imbalance in wealth, must face in
order to attain good government.
I have dealt with this pressing
problem in previous Times articles (“The moral crusade of Father
Panlilio,” December 1, 2007; and “Moral leadership and good
governance: Father Panlilio revisited,” March 8, 2008). In the
former, I argued that, far from establishing that an honest and
morally upright man can be elected, Fr. Panlilio’s victory
actually proved how difficult it was. In the latter, I insisted that
despite difficulties in attaining good government, a developing
country should avail itself of and not abandon democratic political
processes as a means to change.
In this article, I pursue this
theme. Though the odds in obtaining good government are formidable,
they are not so insurmountable as to necessitate resignation or
capitulation. Peaceful democratic processes must still be resorted
to, despite the enormous, overwhelming odds.
In the first article, I
enumerated the four sequential steps necessary to good government: (i.)
how to ensure that the honest or morally upright man gets elected
into office; (ii.) how to guarantee that other government officials
become honest or morally upright; (iii.) how honest government
results in a moral transformation of society; and (iv.) how honest
government leads to the improvement of the people’s plight.
In the previous two articles, I
explored only the first. Since Father Panlilio was unexpectedly
elected as governor of Pampanga, how can we reform our electoral
processes so as to facilitate the election into office of other
honest men and to enable good government to be instituted more
permanently?
Given present political
realities, apart from a priest who enjoys the benefit of the doubt,
only someone, who is independently wealthy, stands a reasonable
chance to be trusted by the populace so as to be elected, to remain
honest while in office, and to be effective as a leader. The other
alternative is to have at society’s disposal a group of
philanthropists or benevolent businessmen, who would be willing to
wield their money and resources towards ensuring a higher standard
of political leadership.
These two possibilities, which
form aspects of a solution, are not so far-fetched. In fact, I
propose that the remedy to the Filipino’s ills must lie somewhere
along those lines.
Mayor Alfredo Romualdez
In elections past, some honest
and independently wealthy men, such as Mayor Alfredo Romualdez, have
been voted into office. During the first year of his first term
(1998 to 2001), the quiet and unassuming mayor even surpassed in
Tacloban, whatever the much heralded and popularly acclaimed Fr.
Panlilio was able to accomplish in Pampanga.
The mayor’s secrets lay in
reducing corruption and in instituting sound business practices in
governance. Mayor Romualdez, himself, was an extremely successful
businessman, a shipping magnate, way before he ran for office and
immediately before his brother-in-law, Ferdinand E. Marcos, became
president in 1965.
In his style of governance, he
availed himself of his financial acumen to ensure efficient tax
collection; he made sure that corruption was stopped either at the
get-go or by effective policing and prosecution.
That put the coffers of Tacloban
in the pink of health. At the end of the first year alone, the
city’s assets totaled P741,012,085.41, liabilities amounted to
P110,749,837.04, so that the city had residual equity in the sum of
P630,262,246.41. With the increase in tax collections and the
consequent savings, the mayor was then able to construct a public
market, a sports complex and various other public buildings vital to
Tacloban’s social welfare.
The beneficial effects of such
governance then proceeded to encourage, either from fear or from
persuasion, others to don the same honest public persona. An
atmosphere in society, where honesty is rewarded and corruption
punished, went a long way towards reform.
It is of course not enough that
the honest man gets elected. He must also be able to institute and
implement correct government policies. That requires not only good
character or noble intention, but, more importantly, sound
intelligence and rigorous training.
Naive do-gooders preferred
Unfortunately, professionalism is
at an all-time low these days. Given the contrast between the
evil-intentioned but extremely astute dictator Marcos and the
well-meaning but woefully naive do-gooder president Aquino, the
ignorant Filipino has developed a preference for the latter style of
leadership. That has to be overcome if reform and progress is to be
achieved.
It is said that from him to whom
much has been given, much is to be expected. There are no truer
words today. The moneyed elite, graced with so much opportunity and
benefits, must now be willing to return to society what it presently
enjoys.
The moneyed elite must be mature
enough to realize that in order for it to deserve the benefit of
privilege, it must ensure, through the exercise of largesse, that
the right type of honest leadership steer the Philippines towards
greater prosperity and stability. Otherwise, there would be no peace
and stability for the elite to speak of and enjoy.
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
