Corruption, Bureaucracy and the Philippines 2000, II

by Manuel L. Quezon III

But why make the bureaucracy the "guardian of reform" at all? Why not just throw misfits and rascals out? As I understood it from Almonte's speech, the problem isn't just corruption. After all he said that "According to the Ombudsman, bureaucratic corruption costs us one billion pesos yearly" -a piddling sum, when you come to think of it: from what we read in the papers the money made by crooks in high places exceeds that amount several fold! No, the reason why the bureaucracy has to be reinvigorated has a more revolutionary rationale behind it.

The bureaucracy will be a bulwark against the elite, specifically local industrialists-cum-plutocrats. Sez Almonte, "In its present situation, the Philippine State is still largely incapable of either guiding the process of late industrialization" -by which we are to reach NIC-hood- "or at least leveling the playing field to make the 'free market' work. Even when you have a reformist like President Ramos at the helm, the higher bureaucracy can still interpret and implement the President's reforms in a way that preserves the power, prestige and privileges of the oligarchic interest-groups that are its traditional allies."

RAM's ideological guru then indulged in some rational-sounding historical observations, to explain how oligarchs became the natural allies of pencil-pushers. Sez he: "The key point... is that -from our colonial rulers- we inherited a weak civil service. This contrasts with the East Asian tradition of strong, efficient bureaucracies - bureaucracies accustomed to thinking themselves independent of -and superior to- the elected politicians." What East Asian tradition was he speaking of: the corrupt Mandarin system of China? The equally corrupt civil servants of Japan who, save for the period of fascism when they were shunted aside by the military (who knew a thing or two about corruption anyway!)- to this day, have intimate ties with politicians, who are bribed by industrialists, and whose ranks are periodically reinvigorated by civil servants who retire to become politicians? South Korea, maybe (ho ho ho!)? Almonte explains. "Unlike the British, the Dutch, or the French -but like the Spaniards before them- the Americans never developed a colonial bureaucracy "(poor us!). "Instead of administrative capacity, they emphasized electoral politics in their Pacific colony. One of the first things they did was to expand the severely limited franchise set up by [Spain]. (The Partido Nacionalista, founded in 1907, is Southeast Asia's oldest political party)." Good God, it seems our misfortune was not to have been colonized, but rather, to have been colonized by the Spaniards and the Americans! Could it be colonialism per se, isn't bad? About the British legacy: where did they set up a bureaucracy sterling in its efficiency? India? In that vast sub-continent, a large part of it was left in the hands of the rulers of princely states, whose bureaucrats were chiefly concerned with indulging the whims of their Maharajas! Malaya, never more than a vast rubber plantation? Burma, never more than a vast teak plantation and a ruby mine? Since when were they noted for having good civil servants? Oh, and the Dutch -who were perhaps even more exploitative and vicious than the overlords we had to kowtow to! Considering that they did not do anything to improve the lot of their Dutch East Indies subjects, one wonders how much of bureaucracy existed at all -what need have you of a bureaucracy, when you provide no schools, few hospitals, and are content to keep your subjects in ignorance, filth, and subject to iron-handed control? Ah, and the French -who propped-up a bloated puppet Emperor (Bao Dai), had even the cemeteries torn-up to provide more land for the cultivation of rice (for export, mind you, not to feed the Indochinese)! Yes, the French whose legacy was the corrupt government that masqueraded as South Vietnam! Aha, what about Singapore? To give Lee Kwan Yew his due, Singapore's bureaucracy was solely his creation and outstanding achievement. If this is the sort of evidence Almonte can sweep under the rug with impunity, one wonders about the basis for anything else he says! To wrap up the rest of the speech: Almonte lists the problems of our beaurocracy as follows: too many employees and uncompetitive salaries; duplication of functions; lack of accountability; the need to privatize even more. The ills that plague our nation can be ameliorated by "increasing political capacity" (simply put, enhancing the "legitimacy and effectiveness of State institutions"); increased NGO participation (if possible, to the point where they will have a greater role in "social welfare programs that government cannot administer so well"); and emergency powers. Yes, you read correctly: "It is in this context that we should regard the President's request for emergency powers to reorganize the bureaucracy. I don't think you [the civil servants] need to fear reorganization would affect specific jobs. Tenure would be respected. Not savings in personal salaries -but greater efficiency and greater responsiveness- would be the goal of any reorganization." Sounds nice, but what does it mean? Why not just go on, then, with streamlining through attrition, a policy dating back to Cory? But that;s just it: Almonte sounds nice, but contradicts himself -he wants to "level the playing field," through increased State intervention: but doesn't that just mean that if you're an industrialist you'd better jump on the NUCD bandwagon, or be labeled an "oligarch"? He wants to cut out deadwood -but reassures us that jobs won't be in danger!? He blames politics for our ills, but admits that he feels "we must subject most every aspect of government's functions to the electoral free market"? In the end, he hasn't said anything other people haven't said before; the difference is he's a master of smoke-and-mirrors: so it sounds new, and bold, but in reality it's good, old-fashioned sycophancy -the sort every past president would have enjoyed hearing.

###