Breaking the unholy alliance between business and politics

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa
(The Philippine Star) Updated April 28, 2013 - 12:00am

Businessman and entrepreneur Manuel V. Pangilinan should be congratulated for opening a debate on the role of business in nation building.

He said “the government should allow the private sector to take an active role in ensuring that economic growth was shared and enjoyed by all classes.” Pangilinan was reacting to the report of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) that the numbers of the country’s poor were unchanged since 2006 despite high economic growth.

But it is not quite how MVP puts it. He asks if it might work better for the Philippines if the government allowed the private sector to take an active role in pushing for economic growth.

I can understand where he is coming from, feeling frustrated that so much could be done if only the government were to welcome private initiative. Being an entrepreneur he wants to take on agriculture in a massive way since the majority of our poor are farmers. He says the private sector can help the industry with a greater infusion of technical know-how and capital.

“The imperative is inclusive, not exclusionary, growth. Business and government need to work together to identify areas that offer the higher levels of employment and income to our people — agriculture and tourism, for instance,” Pangilinan said.

Malacañang’s reply to the MVP initiative is disappointing. The president’s spokesman said “eradicating poverty in the country was not an overnight thing.”

Edwin Lacierda blames “the high level of poverty incidence on the lackluster performance of the agricultural-fishery sector.

Someone should tell him not to make it a chicken and egg problem. Agriculture and fishery are “lackluster” because it does not have the means to perform better and not the other way around.

He then gives an ominous warning that defeating poverty cannot be done overnight. Maybe. But we can at least begin and that is where the MVP suggestion can be put to good use.

*  *  *

Historically, the private sector or more accurately family owned companies control government in the Philippines.

Well, MVP does not need to go very far. Rentier politics thrives in the Philippines. Media is used as the rent to acquire benefits and contracts from a government that owes its election victory to media. No wonder, private groups are all eager to own media that they can use for the benefit of candidates during election campaigns.

It is well known that the Lopez empire was built using this formula. One member of the family was in charge of media and finance and another in politics.

So MVP should address his call for more private sector initiatives differently. He should call for a level playing field based on meritocracy. If this is the case then private sector should indeed be given a more active role but please it should not be exclusively for ‘cronies’.

*  *  *

The unholy alliance between business and government in the Philippines was best described in “An Anarchy of Families” by Alfred McCoy. In his book he points to the closeness of business interests to government in our political structure as the reason for a weak Philippine state.

“From provincial warlords to modern managers, prominent Filipino leaders have fused family, politics, and business to compromise public institutions and amass private wealth — a historic pattern that persists to the present day.” McCoy writes.

He cites how the Osmeñas and Lopezes, elite Filipino families formed a powerful oligarchy — controlling capital, dominating national politics, and often owning media. He also takes on provincial warlords like Ramon Durano, Ali Dimaporo, and Justiniano Montano who have used “guns, goons, and gold” to accumulate wealth and power in far-flung islands and provinces. He shows how this collusion between government and private interests has continued into the 21st century, despite dramatic socio-economic change that has supplanted the classic “three G’s” of Philippine politics with the contemporary “four C’s” — continuity, Chinese, criminality, and celebrity. (We must add “PCOS” elections.)

*  *  *