Concord in hibernation - My Viewpoint

President Estrada is applying the brakes on his administration's efforts to procure amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution. He remains convinced of the rightness of his cause, but he now realizes that the national debate has been debilitating, distracting and divisive. Ironically, those foreign investors he is hotly pursuing have shifted their attentions, and their affections, elsewhere, particularly to those Asian countries which have single-mindedly focused their energies on recovery and development. And if you read Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review, -- both magazines were singing Erap's praises not too long ago -- their common assessment is that he is bogged down in a swamp of non-essential concerns and is still unable to set firm directions for the country. This may betray an incomplete, even unfair, perception of the problems besetting the President, but you know what they say that perception is being often more important than reality.

For how long will Concord, or Constitutional Correction for development, remain in hibernation? Erap Estrada says he needs to give priority to projects which will yield "short-term" results and that the people will have to be more educated about Concord. This means it's open-ended. If he does achieve those "short-term" results (although, I take it, he does not intend to shelve projects with "long-term" benefits), his success may mean higher popularity ratings. This, in turn, may persuade him not to risk those ratings by reviving Concord. Thus, hibernation may eventually mean burial of Concord. Which would be heartbreaking for those who think that some aspects of Concord are both valid and urgent.

At the very least, I think, Concord will remain dormant or in a virtual state of suspended animation, until the long winter of the public's discontent with it is over. But the length and severity of winters do vary, from the frigid and months-long darkness of Antarctica to the relatively mild ones of some U.S. states which often do not even see snow falling.

Our Filipino public's discontent stems from a number of current realities, some of which Erap may be able to address directly, others he may only be able to begin addressing, still others he may have little control over.

If I'm reading the public correctly, and I think I am, one of their biggest objections has to do with the impression that foreigners will be able to own land. Explanations to the effect that the proposals only refer to industrial, non-agricultural land or that the amount of land allowed to foreigners will be severely limited, tend to fall on deaf ears. I think it's because land, and the ownership thereof, is a highly emotional issue which strikes deep into the Filipino's psyche. It's not only the fear of neo-colonialism, although that's important. It has to do with the general feeling that today many Filipinos have little prospect of ever owning land on which to build their homes. Urbanization and commercialization have made it more difficult, in some cases impossible, for ordinary people to own homes. The middle class has been relegated to being renters, or even squatters. Now I know the perception (again!) may not be entirely accurate but it has to be understood that foreign ownership of land presents the awful spectre of land being priced sky high out of this planet, of decent homes being totally unattainable, of families being permanently consigned to second-class citizenship.

Another concern which has taken hold among ordinary citizens is the feeling that we don't really have to give all these concessions to foreign investors. Citing the examples of other countries that don't allow foreign ownership of land or afford other extraordinary incentives, the thinking is that it is political stability, consistency of policies, an efficient and generally clean bureaucracy, adequate infrastructure, peace and order, and a high quality of life in the host country that really matter.

Finally, there is the nagging fear that if submitted to a constituent assembly, the legislators will go berserk and tamper with political provisions of the Constitution to perpetuate themselves in office. Promises to stick to economic provisions, it is argued, mean nothing to trapos whose word is not worth a plugged five-centavo coin. Erap's problem is that despite his assurances to the public, there are congressmen who openly -- and proudly -- insist that a constituent assembly should tackle such proposed political amendments as the lifting of term limits and senators elected by region.

Erap can, as a practical matter, only begin to attack the first concern above. He can immediately and directly work on the second. His ostensible clout notwithstanding, he has little control over the third, because the trapo's cupidity and woodenheadedness cross party lines.

It looks like a long winter.