“Ombudsman wants COA memos out of public eye”
(Inquirer)
“’Significant decliner’ Philippine ranks 116th
in the global corruption index” (Philstar)
What do the two headlines above tell us?
Plagued by corruption for decades, the Philippines, according to the 2022 Corruption Perception Index, got a dismal score of 33 out of 100, ranked 116th among the 180 countries, and has remained one of the “significant decliners” among the Asia-Pacific countries.
One seeming corruption expediter is the controversial ombudsman, Samuel Martires. Wanting to keep the COA reports out of the public
eye on government agencies for probable corruption, he drew flak lately from
activist groups which asked why the supposed country’s “top graft buster” would
advocate “greater opaqueness rather than transparency”.
Three years ago, the same ombudsman restricted access to SALNs – a mechanism for transparency and accountability for public officials. “Doing away with it is like [giving] carte blanche to unscrupulous government officials in using the people’s money,” said House Deputy Minority Leader Rep. France Castro. The filing of SALNs is required under Republic Act No. 6713 with the Ombudsman considered the custodian of such documents.
These two headlines tell us about the sorry state of
our country where corruption is rampant and pervasive, and where public trust
and confidence are eroded and undermined. They also raise some crucial
questions: Is there hope for our country to eradicate corruption in our
lifetime? Is long-term governance the answer to our plight?
LONG-TERM GOVERNANCE
Dealing with multiple political, social, and economic
problems, such as corruption, poverty, inequality, and natural disasters, among
others, the Philippines has lagged behind its ASEAN neighbors in terms of
economic growth. Some observers have attributed this to the instability and
inefficiency of the Philippine democracy characterized by frequent elections,
weak institutions, fragmented parties, and polarized politics. They have
suggested that our country may benefit from a system of long-term governance –
the same leader or ruling party stays in power for a long period without
regular or competitive elections.
Long-term governance can take various forms, such as
dictatorship, absolute monarchy, or one-party state. Some examples are China,
Singapore, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Cambodia. But is long-term governance
the answer to our country’s plight? What are the potential advantages and
disadvantages of this system? How feasible and desirable is it for our country
to adopt it?
ADVANTAGES
Long-term governance can provide stability and
continuity in policies and institutions which may foster economic growth and
social development. A long-term leader or ruling party can implement consistent
and coherent policies that can address long-term problems and goals. They can
avoid policy reversals or disruptions that may result from frequent changes in
leadership or government.
For example, Singapore has been led by the same dominant party, the People’s Action Party, since 1959, and has transformed from a poor and underdeveloped colony to a prosperous and modern city-state.
Long-term governance can reduce political conflicts and violence, as
there is no need for power struggles or opposition movements. A long-term
leader or ruling party can maintain order and security in the country by
eliminating or suppressing any threats or challenges to their authority. They
can also prevent or resolve any disputes or tensions among different groups or
regions in the country. For example, Vietnam has been ruled by the same Communist
Party since 1975 and has achieved political stability and national unity after
decades of war and division.
Long-term governance can allow for quick and decisive actions in times
of crisis or emergency, as the leader or ruling party does not have to consult
with other branches of government or the public. A long-term leader or ruling
party can mobilize resources and implement measures that can address the urgent
needs and demands of the country. They can also adapt to changing circumstances
and realities by adjusting their policies and strategies accordingly. For
example, China has been ruled by the same Chinese Communist Party since 1949
and has shown remarkable resilience and agility in dealing with various
challenges such as the Sino-American split, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the
environmental crisis.
Long-term governance can promote innovation and modernization, as the
leader or ruling party can pursue long-term visions and ambitious projects
without fear of losing popularity or support. A long-term leader or ruling
party can foster a culture of creativity and excellence in the country by
investing in research and development, encouraging entrepreneurship, and
supporting cultural diversity. For example, India has been governed by Narendra
Modi since 2014 and has emerged as a major power in terms of economy,
diplomacy, and innovation.
DISADVANTAGES
Long-term governance can lead to corruption and abuse
of power, as the long-term leader or ruling party faces little or no
accountability or checks and balances from other institutions or the public. A
long-term leader or ruling party can amass a huge personal fortune, manipulate
the constitution and the electoral system, appoint their family and cronies to
key positions, and use the military and the police to suppress dissent. For
example, under 14 years of Martial Law from 1972 to 1986, which was a period of
dictatorship, repression, and corruption, Marcos Sr. amassed a huge personal
fortune. Here are excerpts from The Guardian article: The $10bn
question: what happened to the Marcos millions?
“In the early hours of a February morning in 1986,
Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos flew into exile…The Marcoses had seen the crisis
coming and been able to prepare their escape, so when they landed that morning
at the Hickam USAF base in Hawaii, they brought plenty of possessions with
them.
“The official US Customs record runs to 23 pages. In
the two C-141 transport planes that carried them, they had packed: 23 wooden
crates, 12 suitcases and bags, and various boxes, whose content included enough
clothes to fill 67 racks; 413 pieces of jewelry, including 70 pairs of
jewel-studded cufflinks… and more than 27m Philippine pesos in freshly-printed
notes. The total value was $15m.
“The reality…was that Ferdinand Marcos [Sr.] had amassed a fortune up to 650 times greater… he had accumulated up to $10 billion while in office.”
Long-term governance can violate human rights and civil liberties, as
the leader or ruling party may suppress dissent and criticism, censor
information and media, and control education and culture. A long-term leader or
ruling party can impose their ideology or agenda on the country by restricting
or manipulating the freedom of expression, association, and assembly. For
example, Cambodia has been ruled by Samdech Hun Sen since 1985 and has
experienced political repression and human rights violations. Hun Sen has
banned the main opposition party, jailed its leader, and cracked down on civil
society and media. He has also controlled or influenced the education and
culture of the country by promoting his version of history and nationalism.
Long-term governance can create resentment and resistance among the
people, especially if they are dissatisfied with the performance or policies of
the leader or ruling party, or if they aspire for more democracy and
participation. A long-term leader or ruling party can face opposition or
challenges from various sectors of society, such as ethnic minorities,
religious groups, regional movements, civil society organizations, and
pro-democracy activists, among others. For example, Indonesia has been governed
by Joko Widodo since 2014 and has faced various challenges and controversies in
his administration, opposition, and criticism from various groups.
Long-term governance can hinder adaptation and reform, as the leader or
ruling party may become rigid and dogmatic, resistant to change and feedback,
and isolated from reality. A long-term leader or ruling party may fail to
address the changing needs and demands of the country and the world and may
stick to outdated or ineffective policies and strategies. They may ignore or
reject any suggestions or criticisms from other actors or institutions and may
isolate themselves from the global community and trends. For example, North
Korea has been ruled by the Kim family since 1948 and has become one of the
most isolated and repressive countries in the world.
A FISH OUT OF WATER
Like a fish out of water, long-term governance is not
the answer to the Philippine plight. While long-term governance may have some
benefits, such as stability, continuity, and decisiveness, it also has many
drawbacks, such as corruption, abuse of power, violation of human rights, resentment,
and resistance. Moreover, long-term governance is not feasible or desirable for
our country, given our colonial legacy, democratic tradition, constitutional
system, civil society activism, and ethnic diversity.
Our country should focus on strengthening its
democracy and institutions, improving its governance and accountability,
enhancing its economic and social development, and promoting its national and
regional interests.
This is the best way to address the Philippine plight and achieve a better future for our country.
PARTING SHOT
Ombudsman Martires: "I don’t think a receipt is
important."
Dale Carnegie: "Applause is a receipt."
The Ombudsman doesn’t deserve a “receipt.”
Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft
Bing AI-powered co-pilot
Head collage photos courtesy of inquirerdotnet, Radio
Free Asia, & Global Times
Still photos courtesy of Tenor & Keep Calm
Video clips courtesy of YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment