political economy

by peter s. badilla
historical sidetrack
 “Democracy” was invented by the Greeks. They had “citizens”
that enjoyed full political rights. But this democratic society was
founded on the presence of “slaves”.
 The notions of “left” and “right” came from the experience of the
French Revolution, where the leftists and the radicals sat on the left
side, and the republicans and the rightists sat on the right. The
“imaginary” liberals sat on the center.

a German fallout
 With the claimed fall of international communism, rooted from
Gorbachev’s experimentation, and symbolized by the fall of the Berlin
wall, the left is said to be retreating. The other tendencies (center
and right) take center stage.

liberalism to
libertarianism to (liberal) conservatism
 Today, economic liberalism is associated with classical
liberalism, "neoliberalism", "propertarian" libertarianism, and some
schools of conservatism, particularly liberal conservatism.
Mumbo jambo?
 Is this just word confusion or enrichment? Anyway we may
describe the left and the right as guilty of the same sin. But what has
been dominant in international politics, before and after the Cold
War? Liberalism or liberal something.
theory and practice
 This is both at the levels of theory and practice.
 There is really no “pure” liberalism.
 What now pass for liberal ideologies or principles are a hodge-
podge of liberalism, libertarianism (the Cato approach) and
conservatism (which ain’t rightism).
 This is actually more so at the level of reality, in terms of what
governments implement.

politically,
 Economic liberalism is, as we said, the other side of the coin.
Its political version is political liberalism. Commonplace names are
“democracy”, even “pluralism”.
“neither left nor right”

 In the traditional categorization of political affiliation and

leaning, liberalism is the “center”, neither left nor right- theoretically.

in practice,
“leans” to the right
 In practice, however, what we consider as liberalism “leans” to
the right. (Although it could lean a little bit to the left, thus, left
liberalism.)
 But most governments, though claiming to be democratic and
liberal, contain, both in its program and policy, to-the-right tendencies.

Reagan and the bushes

 The United States’ recent presidents offer us a good example.
While Clinton and Obama, to a certain extent, formally democrats,
are decidedly liberal or liberalistic, the same cannot be said of
Reagan (a republican) and the Bushes. (Republicans would cry foul
when tagged as “rightists”. Ironically, they don’t mind the
conservative label.)
both internal and
external policies
 This is true both to their internal and external policies. Reagan
became known for the Irangate scandal and for suppressing
Nicaragua and other progressive and leftist governments in Latin
America, while promoting, what one of their officials call, “their own”
(to that effect) authoritarian (as opposed to the totalitarian) regimes
such as that of El Salvador.

statism?
 Economically, this is statism.
 Contravening the classical tenets, the state or the government
intervenes in the economy.
“neoconservatives”
 A different genre is what Michael Harrington calls
“neoconservatices”, these are formerly liberal or left-leaning figures
who became conservatives in their political views.
In Europe-
more defined and distinct
 In Europe, where socialist and even communist political parties
abound and are legitimate participants in the political polity, liberalism
is more defined and distinct.
ala US?
 But a similar situation exists ala US.
 Prime Minister Major, a member of the Labor Party (of a
country, which along with the Scandinavian countries, originated a
viable welfare program) can be considered “liberalistic”, while
Chancellor Merkel of Germany (originator of “state socialism”) is said
to be “conservative”. Interestingly, there is a new concoction– liberal
conservatism.
“self-proclaimed liberals in Europe can be said to be purer and truer
in Europe”
 Yet, self-proclaimed liberals in Europe can be said to be purer
and truer in Europe.
 This “concentric circle” approach is mainly founded on
similarities in ideas and activities. While you have the two big parties
in the US, parties are much more varied and complex in Europe.
Pluralism
 Given the complexity of political affiliations and leanings, it
would be nice to talk about a particular political position (based on
liberalism), that is more encompassing and flexible at the same time.
Pluralism anyway is “democracy at work”. This is a function of
dynamics.

 Theoretically, we can define here a “true center” (theoretically

true liberalism), but its occupied political space adjusts both a little bit
to the left (center-left) and to the right (center-right).

pluralism maximized
 But really, pluralism can be generalized and effectively point to
it as the entire spectrum of political affiliations and leanings. Thus,
you may include the extreme left and right.
“more not less”
 In other words, we need more political actors, political options.
 Unfortunately, the trend is the narrowing down of our political
choices.
 Also, there has to be “more of politics”– qualitatively. More
parties, more ideologies, more principles.
 So that in the end, we will not ask “What is left with our
politics?”
“political arena”
 Thus, pluralism entails a “specific” and “general” approach.
 That is why we have the notion of a “political arena”.
 Just like the image of historical warriors in Rome fighting it our
for survival and glory, we should have, in the present time, a political
arena, featuring all sorts of parties and movements.
“political market”?
 And in so far as political economy is concerned, this goes along
with the idea of some sort of a “political market”, where political
consumers can freely choose their political products and parties,
without prejudice and intervention.
“Beyond left and right”?
 In social science in general, there is talk of “beyond left and
right”. Giddens, Bobbio and some “Greens” come to mind.
 But even in Europe, this is problematic, especially at the level of
practice.
 This is more so in a depressed economy like the Philippines.
what it entails
 This is not just the “blurring” of parties, but points to its relative
positioning and shifting. The worry is its “overall tilt to the right”. This
would be along the line of Fukuyama’s claim (end of “socialist”
history). The more sophisticated (if not sick) version is the
Braudillarian scheme, where the left and the right are out of place.
“just like postmodernist debate”
 Theoretically, it is similar to the debate about post-modernism.
 That it is just a “state of mind”, and is not necessarily reflective
of realities or actual conditions.
two minds
 But if it’s just a change of mind, then reality is safe. But
postmodernism is a bulldozer; it moves back, erases, destroys. If it
creates something in the process, it should be accidental, or else it’s
guilty of “modernist” sins.
philosophies and ideologies
 It is really a question of political programs and policies founded
on political philosophy and even ideology.
 There certainly are different political ways to go about
addressing Filipino concerns.
 Thus, the centrist, liberal and democratic way is one.

Limits to political liberalism?

 In theory, questions and issues can be raised on the limits to
political liberalism.
 This is both in terms of its “people part” and “structure part”.
 Simply put, how can you have the best and most effective
politics?
 Presumably, this is to serve the majority of the populace.
 Broad and deep political participation is a must.
 Or, we’ll just remain mired in poverty and mediocrity, unless we
can somehow go forward and advance despite our political, economic
and socio-cultural moorings.

political economy defined

 As we said political economy was invented by Adam Smith and
David Ricardo.
 It was then expounded upon by Marx.
“base and superstructure”
 According to Marx, the “father of communism”, the economy
serves as the “base” or the foundation of society. The
“superstructure” are the other aspects of society such as politics and
culture. The base then is like the infrastructure.
“economy is predominant and determinant”
 The relationship between the base and the superstructure is
that the former is not only predominant over but “determinant” of the
latter. This means that the nature of politics and culture depends on
the nature of economics.
“the left and the right”
 Other than the connection between the British economists and
Marx, this theoretical relationship between economics and politics is
also held by groups and individuals adhering to the center-right
politics, whether it is mentioned explicitly or not.
 It is just a question of “theory integration”, i.e.,
socialism/communism has a systematic rationale and explanation for
it. (That’s why we call it “ideology”.) Ditto with center-right claims,
however different the formulation is.
historical economic stages
 Another important idea in political economy is that, historically,
there are historical stages of economic development. Starting with
ancient and the so-called Asiatic, way, feudalism comes next, to be
followed by the capitalistic stage. Imperialism is the next stage; its
highest stage according to Lenin.
A peak at philippine history
 Our “feudalistic” period covers the bulk of Spanish colonization.
It was simply the Galleon trade, before reforms were somehow
introduced by Governor General Basco and the like.
 Though more of an “internal” system, externally, it was
mercantilism that prevailed.
the political side of feudalism
 Feudalism is also a political concept.
 Thus, while the governor-generals and the alcalde mayores
were leading the country and the provinces, the land-owning elites
were as powerful especially in the provinces. (Interestingly, many of
them were the Hispanic orders and other big-time hacenderos).

capitalism philippine-style
 In the middle of 19th century, the country began to be integrated
into world trade. Foreign companies filtered into the country. (This is
the external side of it, the internal being the economic changes that
resulted from efforts to build an internal economy like the monopoly
system.)
 When the Americans became hegemonic, we were integrated
into their economic system.
 They remain as one of our main trading partners.

imperialistic design
 The acquisition of the Philippines by the US was largely part of
the imperialistic design of the US, a newly powerful country at this
point of time. (Other than the desire to project political and economic
power, the impetus came from within the US, previously adopting an
“isolationist policy”, regardless of whether its out of “benevolent
assimilation” or what not, leading to the Spanish-American and
Filipino-American Wars.)
via trade agreements and
political re-engineering
 Between the two countries, trade was formalized and
heightened via trade agreements, and, internally, by its political re-
engineering of what was then called the Philippine Island.

The Japanese version

 The Japanese tried to impose its own version, but lost out in the
military war between the two regional powers. Internally, our “war of
liberation”, led by the USAFFE and the Hukbalahaps took the form of
a battle against the latter.
 But in reality, in so far as the international scene was
concerned, it pitted the two alliances– Allies and the Axis.

neo-colonialism

 The economic hegemonic hold of the US over the Philippines

continued into the Third Republic, cemented by trade agreements like
the Laurel-Langley Act, its membership in the UN, regional blocks like
SEATO, the physical presence of the American bases, and the actual
interventions by IMF and WB. This is our “neo-colonial” phase.

and globalization
 With the advent of the APEC, and the WTO, a newer level was
attained, ushering in the era of “globalization”.

bilateral trade?
 Given our economic difficulties both internally and externally, a
rethinking of our economic position and maneuverings might be of
necessity, however integrated we are to the international economic
order.
 Maybe bilateral trade agreements will prove to be beneficial.
 In short, we need a “big brother” in Asia.

filipino leaders and politicians

 It can be said that our leaders and politicians were part and
parcel of this economic scheme. Naturally, they also were the
economic beneficiaries of this economy.
 Quezon and Roxas, including Aguinaldo before them, our
earliest presidents, belonged to prominent economic families, though
originating from the provinces.
 Members of the legislative assembly and the Supreme Court, or
majority of them anyway, could be considered to come from the
capitalist or bourgeoisie class.
the Polity
 And so, if we go back to classical political concepts, “polity”, the
root word of science is really similar to the modern-day concept of
“state”, the more important parts of which are the government and the
people.
 Needless to say, polity and state exist in a certain place and
time. (“Always historicise” says Jameson, an American modern-
postmodern thinker.)

the contemporary Philippine Polity

 What is the state of Philippine polity?
 What are its problems and issues confronting it?
 Is it similar to other countries?
 Is it different? How different?

One of the most “democratic” countries in Asia

 The Philippines has been touted as one of the most
“democratic”, formally, in Asia. One historical reason cited is its
tutelage by the Americans, who basically built our political structure
(local and national) and its dynamics.
 Presidents, upon the inauguration of the Third Republic, from
Roxas to Marcos, are deemed “democratic”, in terms of formal
political criteria.

the “sectional” issue

 The problem, however, is the “sectional” issue.
 This emanates from the theoretical need for social equality and
integration.
 This explains the popularity of the political and economic
policies of President Magsaysay. Here was a “man of the masses”.
(Though in reality he was definitely middle class, in fact a provincial
elite.)
 Also not as “lateral” the “Filipino First” policy of Garcia.
 Also the more contemporary Erap magic- at least for a while.
 Technically, his predecessor, President Ramos, tried this tack
with his “social reform agenda” and professional connections with
certain NGO groups.

“democratization” issue
 The Philippines, of course, is famed for its “people power”. (1, 2
or 3 depending on one’s point of view and political affiliation.)
 Also the “democratic space” under the Aquino presidency.
 Meanwhile, qualitative changes have been minimal. One is the
party-list system. Another is the “autonomous regions”. The former,
however, hasn’t really made a dent on ideal political participation,
though it has enabled left-leaning groups and movements, and
marginalized sectors to make their presence felt. The latter has been
plagued by problems ranging from its leaders (Misuari, founder of
MNLF being the first governor of ARMM), personnel, structure and
funding.

 Meanwhile, senatoriables from left-leaning political parties and

movements have entered the fray of mainstream politics, and
remains to be seen if they will be successful or not. Hontiveros, the
SD candidate, almost won. But how do we categorize her votes?
Akbayan votes? NGO? Sympathetic or support? Mechanistic?
Planned? Accidental? Leftist?

 Bayan did not make it. But they again topped the party-list
version. Their failure in the senatoriable race can be studied both in
its “offensive” and “defensive” aspects. Aside from traditional
reasons, ironically, they also lost out in the sheer number of choices.
Nature of Philippine politics
 Philippine politics is still personality-oriented and controlled by
families, dynasties and clans (unlike the West which is more party-
based, especially Europe.)
 A very recent example of its presence and impact is the events
related to the so-called “Maguindanao massacre” allegedly
perpetrated by the Ampatuan clan.
 And come election time, it is still gold, guns and goons that
make the difference.
traditional, feudalistic
and modernistic tendencies
 Early social science analyses claim that the root of our political
problems lie with certain backward cultural practices, such as “utang
na loob”, and more political ones like “patronage politics”.
 The more socialism-oriented studies stress our feudalistic
background.
 Add, in more contemporary time, the business and elite
interests who have indirect and direct relationships with politicians.
“modernization”?
 Mainstream political scientists claim that “modernization” is the
key (Huntington’s easily come to mind, though it is biased on Western
political society). This is both at the level of political institutions and
practices.
philippine political culture
 Questions must be raised on this idea though.
 For one, the Philippines has its own political culture.

 Thus, there might be “backward” and feudalistic cultural

practices that somehow hinders political development, but there are
those that would facilitate it.
 Enriquez’s notion of “pakikipagkapwa” comes to mind.
 Theoretically, the question is how to take advantage of “good”
indigenous practices and incorporate “scientific” and formal political
practices.

“political stagnation”
 There is what we can say political and not just economic
stagnation. This is with regards to its structure and workings.
 Meanwhile, former President Arroyo joined the congressional
race the last election. (Critical analysts read more into this scenario
and paints in the background a change from the presidential to
parliamentary form of government. Else, why would the President be
interested? She won in her district; maybe she just wants to be a
“kingmaker”. So far she has been treated just like any other
congressman, and Belmonte has been chosen as the speaker.)
political backpedalings
 Centrist and liberal (on paper) politicians still dominate the
political landscape. (Our more picturesque word for them is of course
“trapos”.)
 Cory Aquino, partly as a euphoria of people power, had left-
leaning cabinet members and advisers. However, they slowly were
removed and faded from the political picture as a result of pressure
from interest groups. Then there were the attempted coups against
her government, and assassination of leftists.

 In the Ramos presidency, some NGO groups, perceived to be

moderates, entered the political arena. Same with the Erap
presidency, featuring another group of NGOs. However, their role
was not substantial and functioned more as political decoration.
 The Arroyo administration was a different case. It involved
actual political killings (extrajudicial killings) and disappearances of
activists.

the Marcos regime

 The Marcos regime saw the imposition of martial law.
 Civilians remained at the helm though. It was not a military
dictatorship. Some are even claiming that it was “mild”, compared to
other similar regimes. (Cases of brutalities, disappearances and
killings especially of activists and leftists happened notwithstanding.)
A certain political climate
 But it belonged to a certain political climate, not only in Asia
(Suharto in Indonesia, and the ones in Thailand and Korea, but in
Latin America, Africa, Middle East, and Europe).

“good economic plan”?

 By the way, though there are arguments, the Marcos regime
supposedly laid a good economic plan, involving economic projects of
medium-to-heavy industries. (Supposedly a UP School of Economics
paper about the time came up with the analysis to the effect that
“Marcos was more corrupt or less benign than the other dictators”.)
“wind of (conservative) change”
 Nowadays, in general, there is a definite trend towards political
conservatism.
 This is compounded by talks of “regime change”, involving the
military; (from “self-coup” to “civilian coup” to “white coup” and a
direct military coup d’etat either by the entire organization or a part of
it. Whether these are just stories by people who see too much action
movies or read too many political thrillers remain to be seen, though a
senator claims that the CIA and the defunct RAM to be somehow in it.
Historically, other than the movements of Honasan, Soldiers of the
Filipino People, YOU and Trillanes, the only other similar event is
something that happened in the Garcia administration, though it’s not
clear what really happened then. The devil is in the detail– and
mechanics.)
where will it leads us?
 There is no telling where the Philippines, politically, is bound to
go.
 Maybe the usual way. Traditional politicians come and go.
Many are corrupt. Some are working hard. Few are doing service to
people. The civil bureaucracy chugs along.
 But changes are meant to happen.
 Whether it’s just a change in people or structure is still
undeterminable.

the election
 Villar and Aquino were perceived to be the front runners in the
elections. Both are senators and have a business background,
though the former is of course a billionaire, one of the richest man in
the land.
The result
 President Noynoy won. Villar kept quiet. Some other
candidates bandied abut electronic cheating. The cabinet members
have been chosen. Their work remains to be done. Congress and
the Supreme Court are up for some overhaul and decisive decision-
making.
the managerial type
vs the charismatic
 In this election, there seems to be a surfeit of the “managerial
type”, including Roxas, Bayani and Gordon.
 But the main problem is “production”, not just management–
politically and economically.
 Maybe, what we need is someone to “inspire” us individually
and as nation.
the flow of power
 Power is in the hands of the new government. Its exercise will
be a matter of observance and analysis. Will Noynoy turn out to be a
carbon copy of Macapagal-Arroyo? Of his mother of course? Or will
he be a political president? Either way, it might not be too bad. But
as it is we need someone short of a miraculous guy, given our myriad
of problems.
the source and structure of power
 And if we go the full Weber, Noynoy, the sort of charismatic
guy, will need to be with a few good men. These are the leaders,
whose core need to shape up. The bureaucracy, especially the
middle guys, have to go along. This is the “internal” side of state-
building. The people part, given the right vision or vocation is a facet
of it.
transitional period?
 But one is wont to ask if we are in a transitional period.
 The word “crisis” has two meanings, one negative, its
denotative meaning, the other not so.
 The positive meaning has something to do with “opportunity”.
(Ours is maybe a crisis of opportunities.)
chicken and egg?
 Which is the priority problem? Economics or politics?
 Rather, which will solve the other?

“reinventing government”?
 There is an approach, formally associated with the discipline of
public administration called “reinventing government”.
 This approach basically parallels state and corporate
administration and management; specifically transposing the latter’s
style of management to the former.
 The problem is simple– governments are not corporations, and
vice versa.
The Asian trend–
the Thailand example
 If we go by Asian examples (especially the ones that
experienced an economic miracle), the Thailand scenario
immediately confronts us. In there, a coup just ousted a civilian
president, who was in turn replaced by another civilian president after
a temporary occupation of political power by generals. Mass actions
in no time followed. But the Thailand example is quite unique, given
its national history and the specific relationship of its military-civilian
sector– and its activist groups.
the Burma experiment
 The Burma example started as an experiment of the military
leadership and some moderate socialists. But as it is, it has proven
to have produced another military-led government, and its would-be
lady president.

authoritarian and strong states

 Other countries in Asia, deemed democratic, are actually
authoritarian in form and reality, or at least are what are called “strong
states”. Malaysia is a historical example in the ASEAN.
 Indonesia (guided democracy), Singapore (under the helm of
Lee Kuan Yew) and South Korea (with the contemporary of Marcos)
are more recent ones; the Tiger economies in short.
 Japan, historically, with its shogunate, was a militaristic country.
In modern-day, it is the US’ strong bastion in Asia.
 China, with its socialist political framework is self-explanatory.
Its external issues are Tibet and Taiwan.

and so we have a problematique

 Recent presidents, guided by these national experiences
around the country, have espoused “strong” presidencies. The
attraction is given. But the Philippines has had a strong claim on the
“democratic way of life”.
two solutions
 This has had two versions so far.
 One is the “technocratic” and/or “official” solution in the Marcos
era.
 The other is the “liberal project” of Ramos. This had the added
attraction of, very similar to Marcos ideologues, the so-called
“democratic revolution”, of condemning the elites, their cartels and
monopolies.
politics first, politics last
 The simple thesis is that bad politics produce bad economics,
so fix politics. But in doing so, the result is “more politics”. At least, it
is not the hard-core neo-liberal solution that simply wants to do away
with anything political once and for all– inside and outside the
national state. It’s just the economy.
political and economic spaces
 What to do meanwhile?
 The safe answer is the theoretical construct of “space”.
 In other words, there is the political sector, there is business.
 Though, as we have discussed, theoretically and practically
linked, the convenient way is for each to mind its own business. (As
it is, we go back to our original idea.)
 These spaces will necessary be concentric (The politically
opposite Japan and China, the former formally liberal and democratic,
the latter socialist come to mind), but the “entanglements”, if bad and
not properly implemented, will have to be done away with.
strengthening liberal institutions
 Setting aside talks of Philippine-style democracy or even
liberalism, institutions must be established and strengthened. There
are two good developments. One is the party-list system. The other
is local autonomy.
widening liberal institutions
 These institutions must then be widened to accommodate
people’s and social needs and aspirations. There must be more
participants, and targets must be wide.
Sun tzu and divisoria
 Philippine businessmen and managers are fond of mouthing
business buzzwords. But the problem is also cultural. Weber, with
his “protestant ethics” again is relevant. Filipino businessmen,
especially the Caucasian mestizos, are said to prefer industrial and
service work, while disdaining manufacturing and avoiding dirtying
one’s hands. This is of course nothing new and we have the
Spaniards and Americans to blame for this malaise.
a matter of political dynamics
 But the constitutional, legal and bureaucratic structures can
only bring us so far. There must be constant and critical pressure
from below– from the people, professional groups, volunteer workers,
from NGOs, from progressives, and from the activist and militant
community. They must challenge the boundary of laws and the
ramparts of elite leadership.
the rationale for government
 The government stands for the people, and exists to craft and
implement the needs, will and direction of society. Most basic are the
economic needs. It is for this reason that the political-economy
approach was invented. To claim otherwise is to give an excuse to a
problematique political situation or form or conduct of governance.