Social democracy in the Philippines

Social democracy is a political, economic and social system that combines the principles of a free market economy with the values of social justice.

This was my topic a week ago. However, I noticed that in my column and almost all readings on social democracy always use as examples developing countries mainly in northern and central Europe. This includes the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland – Germany and the United Kingdom.

Is social democracy a luxury only rich nations can afford? Since the 1980s, social democratic countries are historically ascribed to wealthy western European examples characterized by universal welfare, inclusive economic growth, democratic institutions and regulated capitalism.

The book “Social Democracy in the Global Periphery: Origins, Challenges, Prospects” by Richard Sandbrook, Marc Edelman, Patrick Heller and Judith Teichman (Cambridge University Press, 2007) argues that social democracy is feasible in non-Western states or the Third World.  The authors even maintain that social democracy is essential for equitable and sustainable development in these non-Western states.

In most books on this topic, the assumption is that social democracy is a product of unique historical and cultural circumstances such as industrialization, class compromise and strong labor movements. The usual argument is that these circumstances cannot be replicated in the non-Western world.

Sandbrook and his co-authors reject these arguments. The book defines social democracy broadly as a mode of governance that combines representative democracy, state regulation of markets, progressive redistribution of wealth and investments in public services such as health and education. These goals can be found even in the poorest of Third World countries.

To substantiate their argument, the book provides detailed case studies of four countries:  Mauritius, Costa Rica, Chile and the state of Kerala in India. These cases serve to demonstrate the conditions under which social democratic practices can emerge and persist outside the West.

Here are the summaries of the four case studies.

Mauritius stands out for its successful blend of ethnic pluralism, democratic governance and state-led development. Despite its small size and limited resources, Mauritius has managed to sustain a generous welfare system and competitive export economy. The authors attribute this to elite consensus, an inclusive political culture and robust institutions.

Costa Rica is highlighted as a Latin American anomaly. The country abolished its military in 1949 and redirected resources towards education and health care. The authors emphasize the role of a reformist middle class and a strong public sector spirit, even amidst strong pressures from the political left and political right in the Central American region.

Chile presents a more complex trajectory. The brutal military dictatorship under Pinochet gave way to a democratic transition marked by a pragmatic social democracy under the Consertación coalition. While Chile retained many neoliberal policies, it also implemented significant social spending and poverty reduction programs. The case illustrates the compromises and achievements of post-authoritarian reform movements.

Kerala, a state in southern India, offers a subnational example. With high human development indicators despite low per capita income, Kerala demonstrates how political mobilization, specially through leftist parties and mass organizations, can drive pro-poor policies in a democratic framework.

According to its authors: “The lesson of these cases is not that there is a single path to social democracy but rather that political will, strategic coalitions and inclusive institutions can refrain the possibilities for equitable development in the global periphery.” The term “global periphery” refers to the non-western world.

The important lesson for the Philippines is that economic growth and social justice are not opposing goals. The usual argument in a capitalist economy is that in order to accelerate economic growth, a country must sacrifice social justice such as a living wage for the labor sector.

It is possible that in Third World countries, social democratic reforms with its goal of equitable distribution of wealth might be difficult to achieve in countries where authoritarianism, weak institutions and crony capitalism prevail. Because the authors rightly stress the importance of grass roots mobilization, social democracy faces obstacles in countries where civil society, mass movements and nongovernmental organizations are relatively weak.

In the Philippines, however, there is already sufficient groundswell for social democratic principles to have solid following. Some examples of these is the movement to raise the minimum wage substantially in spite of the strong opposition from certain business sectors.  There are also social democratic policies that are strongly gaining support, like strengthening universal health care, free meals for grade school children and the repeal of the Rice Tariffication Law to help small farmers.

One of the biggest obstacles to an equitable society is to drastically minimize the scourge of graft and corruption that is currently pervasive in our society.

The realization of the Philippines as a social democratic state where social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth is a pragmatic, not a utopian, goal.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]