What transformation?

In his first State of the Nation Address in July 2010, President Aquino pledged a “transformational presidency” that would stamp out corruption and poverty and set the pace for reform. But today, no institutional reform has been made beyond the removal of Renato Corona as chief justice and the prosecution of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The state of the nation is no different from how it was 26 years ago.

Since 1986, the Sona of every President at the start of his/her term talks of grim economic and political scenarios, crises, and bankruptcy—a finger pointed at their predecessors—with a pledge to change things. Corazon C. Aquino promised “structural reforms” with a centerpiece comprehensive agrarian reform program to end land tenancy. Fidel V. Ramos talked of economic “pole vaulting” and a “social reform agenda.” Joseph Estrada mouthed “radical restructuring” and a decisive end to corruption. Arroyo pledged “long-term structural reforms,” one million jobs every year, food for every family, and “a strong republic.”

But all these Sonas since 1986 expose a national situation with no meaningful change—a country overtaken by its neighbors. The poverty level just fluctuated from 60 percent in 1987 to 51 percent at the end of Arroyo’s 9-year term. Unemployment was almost the same: from 10 million without jobs to almost 12 million—if the underemployed are included—with a further increase in poor-quality jobs. From $23 billion, the Philippines’ foreign debt has ballooned to $63 billion. Rare signs of GDP growth find state economists without answer as to why such growth does not trickle down to the poor. Three years ago, the net worth of the country’s 25 richest Filipinos ($21.4 billion) was equivalent to the total income of 11.1 million families, or 56 million Filipinos.

The avowed commitment to lighten the gloom has fallen short of what all the Presidents drumbeat as comprehensive reforms. Every program was defined by term limits, and was thus devoid of the needed strategy and continuity. Every short-term solution was essentially palliative and subscribed to development models—e.g., privatization, deregulation, and structural adjustment programs (SAPs) now being repudiated in many parts of the world for their disastrous results. In varying degrees, corruption, patronage, economic plunder, and attacks on human rights marked every presidency, with governing institutions irreparably weakened and mistrust in government deepened.

Mr. Aquino tried to raise hopes that he would be a “transformational” President with a straight roadmap (“daang matuwid”) for social change. But the “social contract” that he promised to fulfill was made nebulous by a lack of vision and a series of blunders from Day 1 until the end of 2011, when his trust ratings began to dip. This juncture saw the arrest of Arroyo for electoral sabotage and the impeachment of her ally, Corona, for constitutional violations. Where this would lead in terms of wide-ranging institutional reform in governance and justice begs an answer.

After two years, Mr. Aquino’s performance flops and his pledge to stamp out corruption has become a mere prop to conjure the image of “transformational leadership.” The nonperforming lawmaker is now replicated in Malacañang. After two years, not a single priority bill has been enacted. A new mining policy reverses decades of collective gains by the people: Local communities are now prohibited from stopping mining operations, thus allowing transnational mining firms to exploit at will.

The claim of GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 was driven by a surge in government consumption and is therefore unsustainable. The main drivers of economic growth, productivity, and jobs creation, such as agriculture and investment, performed poorly. Unemployment has worsened alarmingly from 10.9 million in 2010 to 11.7 million today (or 11.7 percent of the labor force, the underemployed included). Of those employed, only 57 percent have regular jobs, indicating the fast deterioration of work quality.

The economy will continue to rely heavily on overseas Filipino workers’ remittances—the perennial rescuer of the economy. Compared with the daily outflow of 3,000 Filipinos seeking overseas jobs in 2010, the number has risen to 4,500 this year. The government is aggressively exporting labor: It aims to double the country’s share of world seafarers from 25 percent (or 347,150) to 50 percent by 2016. Yet Mr. Aquino has cut the welfare and services budget for OFWs by close to P800 million, leaving only about P262 million.

The social divide has widened even more: The combined wealth of the 40 richest Filipinos more than doubled, growing by $24.6 billion (108 percent) to total $47.7 billion (equal to 21 percent of the GDP). The number of households who rated themselves poor rose from 9.1 million (2011) to 11.1 million (April 2012), or 55 percent of the population.

In contrast to the swift removal of Corona, Mr. Aquino exerts no political will in having top criminal fugitives and violators of human rights arrested. In two years, the number of politically motivated extrajudicial killings has reached 81, including two foreign development volunteers.

Mr. Aquino takes pride in tying the Philippines’ sovereign rights with the United States—from defending its territorial claims, to the modernization of the military, foreign policy, and domestic counterinsurgency. Clearly the direction he is taking is the same dependency and “brown American” mentality that his predecessors took, giving the country nothing but loss of dignity and respect in the world.

The litmus test of Mr. Aquino’s “transformational leadership” is in instituting sweeping reforms that will address longstanding social, economic and political woes—ensuring even just the basic minimum rights to life, employment and wages, housing, health, and other human development indices. The critical test is in giving up dynastic interests and not expanding it horizontally and vertically, as in backing the senatorial candidacy of a nephew who may yet take a shot at the presidency next time.

Transformational leadership means restructuring systems and institutions, a strong ideological commitment, transcending clan interests, and renouncing traditional patronage. It requires the will to fight, bringing the presidency to the masses, and linking up with their collective interests. It should inspire liberation, not convey pessimism.

Without social consciousness grounded on the real conditions, and the will to change, transformational leadership will remain elusive. With the way he has shown his “leadership” so far—where backpedaling is the norm—has the nation seen the rest of Mr. Aquino’s presidency?

Bobby M. Tuazon is the director for Policy Studies of the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG). He chaired the Political Science Program of UP Manila.