Perils of privatization

One word that was waved like a magic wand during the Wednesday Senate hearing was privatization. To solve the problem let us just leave projects like the broadband system to the private sector. A book written by Cullen Murphy Are We Rome? The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America, disagrees. Indeed, he singles out privatization and blames it for the fall of America. He says it is “more disturbing but largely ignored similarity between the fall of Rome and America today. Wholesale privatization of the US government seemed innocent enough but soon it engulfed the entire political system and ultimately blurred the line between public good and personal gain.”

“Rome had trouble maintaining a distinction between public and private responsibilities — and between public and private resources. The line between these is never fixed, anywhere. But when it becomes too hazy, or fades altogether, central government becomes impossible to steer. It took a long time to happen, but the fraying connection between imperial will and concrete action is a big part of What Went Wrong in ancient Rome.

America has in recent years embarked on a privatization binge like no other in its history, putting into private hands all manner of activities that once were thought to be public tasks — overseeing the nation’s highways, patrolling its neighborhoods, inspecting its food, protecting its borders. This may make sense in the short term — and sometimes, like Rome, we may have no choice in the matter. But how will the consequences play out over decades, or centuries? In all likelihood, very badly, Murphy concludes.

He cites Oxford historian Geoffrey de Ste. Croix who traced five centuries of the Latin word suffragium, which originally meant “voting tablet” or “ballot” to make his point about privatization. That change, he concluded, illustrated something fundamental about Roman society and its ‘inner political evolution.’ “The original meaning went back to the days of the Roman Republic, which had possessed modest elements of democracy. The citizens of Rome, by means of the suffragium, could exercise their influence in electing people to certain offices. In practice, the great men of Rome controlled large blocs of votes, corresponding to their patronage networks.

Over time Rome’s republican forms of government calcified into empty ritual or withered away entirely. Suffragium meaning “ballot” no longer served any real political function. But the web of patrons and clients was still the Roman system’s substructure, and in this context suffragium came to mean the pressure that could be exerted on one’s behalf by a powerful man, whether to obtain a job or to influence a court case or to secure a contract. To ask a patron for this form of intervention and to exert suffragium on behalf of a client would have been a routine social interaction.”

What happens when we put large amounts of money into this system? The author says it is not a great conceptual distance to move from the idea of exercising suffragium because of an age-old sense of reciprocal duty to that of exercising it because doing so could be lucrative. “And this, indeed, is where the future lies, the idea of quid pro quo eventually becoming so accepted and ingrained that emperors stop trying to halt the practice and instead seek to contain it by codifying it. Thus, in the fourth century, decrees are promulgated to ensure that the person seeking the quid actually delivers the quo. In time suffragium referred not to the influence brought to bear but to the money being paid for it: “a gift, payment or bribe. By empire’s end, all public transactions require the payment of money, and the pursuit of money and personal advancement has become the purpose of all public jobs.”

The change, from ballot box to cash box led de la Croix to say “this, in miniature, is the political history of Rome.” The same questions are now being asked of America. Where is the boundary between public good and private advantage, between “ours” and “mine”? From this question others follow: What happens when public and private interests are not aligned? Which outsiders, if any, should be allowed to put their hands on the machinery of government? How can governments exert collective power if the levers and winches and cogs lie increasingly outside public control? Privatization occurs every time official positions are bought and sold. It occurs when people must pay before officials will act, and again if payment also determines how they will act. And it can occur anytime when public tasks (the collecting of taxes, the quartering of troops, the management of projects) are lodged in private hands, no matter how honest the intention or efficient the arrangement, because private and public interests tend to diverge over time.” Sounds familiar.

*    *    *

If like most Filipinos you wonder why despite our being a talented people and with abundant resources we fall behind less endowed countries in our region, the answer was obvious, watching the televised Senate hearing of the broadband controversy. It may not seem obvious now but this constant preoccupation with faultfinding is already changing all of us. It is becoming ingrained in our political culture as if it was all that mattered — that we come clean and require that only saints run for public office. Yet, the hypocrisy is palpable: destructive politics in the guise of morality. The senators were not interested in pursuing the truth. And this was definitely not a hearing in aid of legislation and yet we are letting it go as if the mendacity was normal.

The senators, mostly from the opposition, had already made up their mind not because they understood the project or cared whether it was useful and will benefit the Filipino nation but because it was a campaign platform for the next election.

Outside that hall, more serious and thoughtful Filipinos may agree that the broadband and cyberspace education projects are good but they were overwhelmed by the issue which preoccupied all: whether or not bribery was attempted. The all consuming value was to accuse and humiliate the President’s men and eventually nail her down. Secretary Neri stuck to his guns and cited executive privilege but the senators were not interested. The objective of the hearing was to incite people to overthrow government and oust her. Secretary Neri said as much before the hearing: his testimony might provoke another people power revolution and that is the last thing we need at this time when we are consolidating economic gains. Any people power or another impeachment to unseat the president will be bad for us and would hurt the poor most in the deluge that would follow. We’re back to overthrow attempts and making a habit out of it — Hyatt 10, Black and White Movement (some of them were cheering in the crowds), Garci tapes, impeachment and ZTE. Not unlike suffragium that consumed Roman society, by the time we realize what went wrong with our country it would be too late. We would have already been consumed by it.

My e-mail is [email protected]