Daven Tamayo

Article (news)

OPINION: I don't think we get it

Edmund Tayao

Why do we always have scandals in government? The flood control mess is not the first and corruption is as old, even older than the famous golden orinola of President Elpidio Quirino ages ago. We never learned.  We still anchor our faith, our lives and our future on personalities. We never gave serious thought to systems: How we “choose”, not just elect, leaders out of nowhere, make sure that they remain true to the reasons they were chosen to lead and therefore ensure that they are accountable. Systems matter and this particular system exists but we haven’t really given it serious thought. Why do we suffer from endless flooding despite the trillions the government — we, the people — have been spending for infrastructure that supposedly should free us from the discomfort, hassle and health risks of wading in flood waters?Money.  That’s the simplest answer.  Money is not in itself bad. After all, it was invented to facilitate transactions, to make obtaining our daily needs easier.It is a tool. In fact, it is supposed to be good as it’s intended to make life easier for us.  But why has it become this headache that we have to bear?It is hard enough to make enough money and make ends meet and now we have this harsh reality that our hard-earned money is just being pocketed while we face hardships every minute of the day. Some even live it up in style with nary a thought of shame.It starts with our politics, one that is just based on personalities. No political parties, no mechanism of choosing the right and qualified leaders and no accountability. In fact, in the recently held midterm election, with the looming election of many whose only credential is a name that many know, we had to compose a song that captures the very archaic kind of politics we have.  Let me just share a part of that song.<div> </div>“Paggo-gobyerno at pulitika, payak walang sistemaTaya sa tao hind isa programa, pangalan at pera sapat naKaya’t lagi sa dulo lahat tayo nganga”<div style="margin-left:20px"> </div>“Pagka sikat, may pera at walang magawaPaggising sa umaga takbo kaya isip nyaWalang plano tanungin mo bokyaBudots lang, kanta at panukalang walang kwentaYun ang benta dahil nga sabi nila masa” “Ang layo”, perhaps that’ll be the quip reaction of some, wondering what does this got to do with the lost of trillions to corruption.When one spends his own money — or worse, relies on other people’s money — to run in elections, that is the start of the problem. Any successful professional starts with something before becoming big. Unless, of course, you are born into money and your capacity to run for office is simply inherited from your parents. This explains the “nepo baby” phrase put together by netizens to refer to those with generational wealth.Nonetheless, even if you are spending the money provided by your parents, this is still your money and you will no doubt recover that when you successfully win election and are already in power. That would be OK perhaps if the campaign money only runs to hundreds of thousands.An effective campaign, however will cost millions, depending on the position you are aspiring to. Unless you are running for a barangay position — again, depending on the size of the barangay — a candidate is likely going to require millions.Now the next question is how you’d be able to recover that amount and more. After all, you didn’t just spend money to serve even if candidates always make that claim.Even if candidates argue all campaign spending comes from supporters, that will still be in the millions and only those with millions to spare would be willing to support. And this will not come free.  As the saying in economics goes, “no such thing as free lunch”.Whether it is your money or someone else&#x27;s, you will recover it. That’s where corruption comes in. The money intended for any acquisition in government, from food during meetings, to office supplies, to service contracts and infrastructure projects, a percentage for sure is seen as an entitlement, of both the winning candidate and their supporters.This explains why businessmen are always around a candidate during an election campaign.This would not be possible if the operations of government are not affected by politics, or more simply partisanship and kampihan.  It is so far from politics in most countries where it is always a competition for public support for particular programs and or political principles.Sadly, ours is likely the most politicized governmental setup. Technocracy has long been advocated and set up, but merit and fitness remain mostly a second thought.<div> </div><div>PARTISANSHIP IN APPOINTMENTS</div>A career in government has become a lot more rewarding now compared to 20 years ago. Government pay has improved dramatically since the introduction of the Salary Standardization Law. The impact of all these however is all but diluted with the sustained incursion of partisanship. Who you know remains the single most important qualification to get appointed to a coveted government post.The head of an agency, i.e., the secretary of a department, obviously has to be appointed by the President.The undersecretaries too, of course, although they have &quot;strict&quot; professional qualifications provided by law. Still, many have been appointed up to the undersecretary level who are not only unqualified, but but who have also been proven to be superfluous or non-performing. Worst, a presidential appointment is required even down to the director level.A qualification to political appointments should at least be considered. Perhaps we can say that it is something that’s really important as it is a measure of trust. However, it should not be at the cost of the more important professional qualifications.The candidate for appointment must at least have the required educational background and professional experience and not just closeness to the appointing power.But even if there are mechanisms to help the President determine the merit and fitness of appointees, some who are not even close to qualified do get posts. <div> </div><div>AGE AND LITERACY</div>Meanwhile, the requirement to run for office is simply being old enough and being &quot;able to read and write”.  And that is OK. I don’t think there is any country that requires an elected official to have a degree, especially an advanced one.This is what to be democratic means. Some will argue still that it doesn’t have to be interpreted literally. On the other hand, to get to a good school and to have the same opportunity as anyone becomes a question of circumstances that ultimately become a reason for inequality.Thus, it is but logical to stick to the basic requirement of being able to read and write, so that everyone, at least as a basis, has the opportunity to offer themself for an elected position in government.This is the reason that for career officials, the requirement is different. They are supposed to support political leaders in running the government as well as balance the advantages of merit and fitness and popularity. Hence, to qualify to a government position, even to be a clerk or administrative assistant, one has to go through a strict process and satisfy particular requirements. All the more should directors and those higher should have the right qualifications.To circumvent this and rely more on familiarity is to disturb the balance.When there are no institutions or processes that help choose and prepare would-be leaders in government, without merit and fitness, we cannot expect the optimal, not even the minimum in government service.But how do the many qualified career officials feel and react after every election, when they have to work with appointees who are not qualified and came from nowhere?If we are to check on every department for example, how many would be compliant to the number of undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and directors provided for in the agency? Given this context, how does it play out to the mind-boggling mother of all corruption that’s unravelling before us?  It doesn’t require rocket science to understand that elected officials who fund their own campaigns and career officials, who have to cater to partisanship themselves, make a really explosive mix. Even if the take-home pay of government officials increases a hundredfold, given a setup with no accountability, this will continue to happen.This is not because of our culture but simply because of behavior.  If there is an effective system of incentives and disincentives to act accordingly then perhaps there will at least be considerably less incidence of corruption.I am almost certain the reader will shake their head in disbelief and ask if it’s even possible to have this in place and the answer is yes. <div> </div><div>POLITICAL PARTIES</div>Many have been talking, thinking and researching about system change for a really long time now.  Much has been written about it.  Real change can happen if we change the kind of politics we have and put in place a functioning system. If there is a process where would-be leaders are recruited and, in the process, prepared to lead when they are qualified and worthy of political party support, then there can be no doubt we will only be choosing from among individuals qualified to lead.When such a system is in place, it goes without saying that there would be “real” political parties organized to do the process that we have just described. It would also mean that there would be a way for them to raise the resources necessary to run a respectable campaign and support candidates they nurtured and nominated to run for an elected position.This setup means the candidate would not have to use their own money and would not even have to raise money for the campaign. The political party will raise the money and the candidate can focus on their messaging. This way, the candidate is shielded from undue influence and will be inclined to pursue what they deem necessary to improve the people’s daily lives. This way, candidates need not concern themselves with getting back their campaign funds.No doubt there will still be possibility of getting corrupted by some groups but it will no longer be systemic as how we are seeing it now.<div> </div><div>WHAT&#x27;S NEXT?</div>This brings us now to what’s next?  Should the President step down? If we say yes for whatever reason, the question one has to ask is who then will take over? The obvious answer to that is the Vice President will take over. that’s what the constitution says, after all. But there’s the rub. Those who are wanting to get rid of the President are resorting to extraconstitutionality but will likely go back to the constitution to insist that the VP takes over.Let’s assume then that it’s just right to get the President out of Malacañang and for the VP to takeover.The next question then is will that solve the problem of this humongous mother of all corruption? There’s no dearth of basis to ask this question as many of the supporters of the VP are actually from the same group of the last administration. She herself is the daughter of the previous President. One, there was a system change attempt instigated by her father, but what happened to that?  Did they actually support the system change, or just create a body for that to show that they have intention to actually pursue system change?Two, were the people in the previous administration, many are now identified with the VP, free from corruption before? What happened to the Dengvaxia controversy, Pharmally and laptop scandals?  Were any of those actually involved even prosecuted? Would it be possible for an undersecretary to call the shots so to speak and be entirely responsible and thus now the only one made accountable?  The more important question is, if the VP takes over, will she pursue the resolution of this heinous infrastructure thievery? Will she ultimately pursue “systemic change” as this is the only real resolution.In the end the question is more for us ordinary folks. Are we so cursed a people that we can only bet our future on personalities we’ll never completely have basis for?

Why do we always have scandals in government? The flood control mess is not the first and corruption is as old, even older than the famous golden orinola of President Quirino ages ago. We never learned. We still anchor our faith, our lives and our future on personalities.

Why do we always have scandals in government? The flood control mess is not the first and corruption is as old, even older than the famous golden orinola of President Quirino ages ago. We never learned. We still anchor our faith, our lives and our future on personalities.