How do we know GMA’s administration is really doing better? - CHASING THE WIND by Felipe B. Miranda

By the end of June 2001, if not sooner, enough people should have gotten over the euphoria induced by EDSA Dos. The high spirituality of mid-January would have sufficiently waned and people, spiralled down to their daunting challenge of everyday living in this republic, would ask the same question Filipinos had asked of every administration after its first six months.

How do we know that this administration is really doing better?

Six months from now, people could answer by pointing to a much revived stock exchange experiencing a new influx of foreign as well as domestic investors. Others might make reference to assistance from international financial institutions whose confidence in the GMA administration is indicative of its better performance in overall governance. The same people would probably also point to a better tax collection effort, a stabilized peso, a decreasing inflation rate, a lower rate of unemployment, a higher quarterly growth rate in the country’s gross domestic product and an improved trade balance.

Yet other people would situate the improvement in statistics concerning public safety, the decreasing volume and incidence rate of index crimes, the numerous raids against illegal gambling, prostitution, drug establishments and other institutions of vice in the country.

There would be a slew of investigative bodies looking into graft and corruption in government, docketing various public officials and visibly prosecuting them in special courts set up to facilitate faster resolutions of their cases. One of these special courts could well be the one that tries a former president for the heinous crime of national plunder.

Figures could be trotted out by specific government agencies relating to their increasingly successful efforts to assist the poor, the sick and the disabled citizens. Mountains of statistics would be compiled by public commissions, committees, task forces and other bodies in support of the claim that the new administration indeed had put together the requisite social safety nets for the truly needy and the historically disadvantaged Filipinos.

All of these artifacts – the traditional political, economic and social indicators of good governance – could be ingeniously packaged by resourceful spin doctors and imaginative public relations experts to provide the public a reassuring image of an administration that is doing much better than its immediate predecessor. If these artifacts reflect enough of the objective realities of Philippine society six months from now, Filipinos would indeed be on their way to being a more fortunate people and the GMA administration must be hailed as a truly exemplary and exceptional political dispensation.

There has always been a favored circle within Philippine society with enough access to the sources of truth regarding the functioning – or dysfunctioning – of this country’s government, its lead institutions and influential decision makers. In the midst of contrived images of successful administration performance, this circle had known all along what the brutal facts of the country’s situation actually were. Whether it was the martial law regime of Marcos or the juetengate network in Estrada’s watch, members of this elite had intimate knowledge of the facts and usually collaborated in their misrepresentation to the public.

The question then still remains, how do Filipinos know that this new adminsitration is indeed doing better? Minus the plethora of manipulative statistics and the alluring power point presentations, how does the public itself get to know that better governance is being effected?

The answer is not really all that difficult to figure out. All the public has to do is to work out another set of good governance indicators that resist easy manipulation by those in government.

Come June 2001, people in this country and most particularly in Metro Manila would be able to say GMA’s administration has done well for the country – much, much better indeed than all the years of Estrada had managed to do – if Metro Manila stinks less because there is less uncollected garbage, if fewer streetchildren stalked the streets of Metro Manila and other areas of the country foraging like stray animals for food, shelter and human company and, one may also add, if the traffic reflected more discipline and human regard by those who drive their vehicles as well as the pedestrians who avail of these vehicles.

Without some improvements in these core areas, one can only romanticize the allegedly superior virtues of a new administration. Romancing an administration is irresponsible in the face of accumulating garbage, brutalized children and anarchic traffic. On the other hand, any administration that can effectively address these human concerns will find it much easier to handle the challenges of sustained economic growth, equitable development and legitimate governance.

Should the GMA administration be able to deal successfully with the nation’s garbage, streetchildren and traffic, the chances for having an EDSA Tres would be absolutely zilch, zero, nada. Then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would have little cause to worry about how history would judge her administration of the Philippines.