Time to dance?

An expat told me that in his country, politicians are mostly reviled by the public for perceived profligacy in handling taxpayers’ money, incompetence, and all the venalities that Pinoys consider to be part of the job description of our homegrown politicos.

A career in politics is not seen in his country as a path to fortune or even fame in its positive sense, the expat told me; political renown can quickly deteriorate into notoriety.

The expat, however, comes from an advanced western economy with high literacy, where voters are keenly aware of their democratic rights, their tax systems and how public funds should be spent.

In that country, politicians’ perks that we take here for granted can lead to a formal investigation, criminal indictment and prison time for corruption and abuse of power even for top government officials and their equally prominent cronies in the private sector.

As in other advanced economies, citizens in that country pursue other paths to fortune if not fame, utilizing creativity, technological innovation and strong competitiveness to excel in many fields, from the sciences to the arts and business. They gain wealth and prominence through the power of their ideas, by building the infrastructure needed by their nation, or by producing quality goods and providing services for their people and the world.

In such countries, people earn their billions as pop music stars, haute couture designers, software developers, even book authors. They build their own cars, trains, commercial ships and defense equipment.

In our country, politicians are also reviled by the public. You hear many morbid jokes about dropping a bomb on certain government buildings to eradicate political pestilence. 

But Pinoy politicos can be as tenacious as fungus. And every election, an overwhelming number of us voters troop dutifully to the polling centers to cast our ballots, hoping the lesser evils will win. It reminds me of that sexist joke about women, applied to politicians: can’t live with them, can’t live without them.

Politicians thrive so well in our country that family fortunes are built and nurtured on politics. We are now seeing an explosion of family fiefdoms across the country, with clans controlling the provision of supplies and services to the government and the public. Clans control local judicial systems and sometimes even organized crime. For the typical Pinoy politico, you can never be too powerful or too wealthy.

A number of these clans maintain their grip on power by keeping their constituents semi-literate, poor and at the mercy of their patronage. The pork barrel is rarely used for education projects because once the undereducated becomes better informed, once a politician can no longer fool all of the people all the time, the family fortune goes bust.

 With laws, rules, institutions, and systems including taxation skewed to favor the power elite, foreign investors stay away, and ordinary Pinoys who want to rise on their own merit leave the country, looking for a better environment.

*      *      *

Benigno Simeon Aquino III, after personally working with politicians for 12 years, has seen enough of them up close to develop a deep distrust of many of them, according to people close to the President.

The distrust is the biggest hindrance to any initiative to bring change in this country through a revision of the Constitution.

While President Aquino reportedly agrees that certain economic amendments can stimulate foreign investments and make the nation more globally competitive, he worries that any effort to change economic provisions will open the floodgates to self-serving political changes.

Proponents of Charter change believe that with a President who can be expected not to try to perpetuate himself in power and personally benefit from amendments, it’s now or never for a constitutional rewrite.

The other side of the argument is whether the nation can afford the distraction of a constitutional revision, or even a few amendments, which can take until 2016 to complete including nationwide ratification. The distraction will be worse if proponents manage to insert political amendments.

Many people share P-Noy’s suspicion of politicians’ hidden agenda in proposing Charter change. But constitutions should be dynamic, and ours was written nearly three decades ago, when the world, if not our country, was much different.

Even political provisions can use changes.

If we set aside our suspicions, we can consider that while the Charter imposed term limits, politicians now perpetuate not just themselves but their clans in power. Dynasties were built out of necessity, to go around term limits set on individuals but not their relatives.

A P-Noy-backed Cha-cha may rationalize if not eliminate political dynasties. It may get rid of the party-list system, now a farce of what it is supposed to be. It may compel judicial restraint so we are not faced with the prospect of perpetual litigation and the judiciary taking on executive functions – something that is spooking investors.

Then there are all those economic provisions that have long called for amendment, if P-Noy wants the nation to catch up with its neighbors in attracting foreign direct investment.

With the 16th Congress preparing for its opening, P-Noy can expect lawmakers to revive the Cha-cha initiative. Instead of immediately tuning out, as aides said he does, he might want to keep an open mind.

P-Noy will have to weigh the potential for good of Charter change with the perceived evils.