Uncertain future

Elaine Dezenski, head of Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (Paci) had an interesting thing to say at the World Economic Forum on East Asia. “An environment free of corruption depends not just on leadership at the top, but leadership that sets the right tone that permeates the way things are done at every level. The institutions of governance in any society must be strong enough to withstand changes in political leadership, because transparency and ethical conduct are deeply embedded.”

Dezenski said that in response to questions about how she saw the fight against corruption in the Philippines faring after P-Noy finished his term. Jaspal Singh Bindra, executive director for Asia at Standard Chartered Bank, for his part said he wasn’t too worried after P-Noy goes. The 2016 elections, he said, won’t spoil the momentum for the country. P-Noy has raised the bar for governance and Filipinos will want nothing less. “If you have public support for it, it’s very difficult to undo it in a democratic setup. I think the public will not permit going back to old days.”

The second, of course, is what P-Noy himself has been saying, not least in his State of the Nation Addresses. A more ethical code of conduct has taken hold of and spread throughout the bureaucracy, he says, and will persist well afterward. In any case, the people won’t allow a recidivist lapse to the old ways of doing things. They have tasted the fruits of progress that have come with the change of heart, or mind, among their public officials and they will not tolerate a return to the bad days.

I’m not so sure about that.

You need not look far to see how tenuous that belief is. We could not have had a more ideal situation for moral transformation than after Cory came to power, when the country exuded euphoria and the determination to never again go back to the days of pillage and despotism. Fidel Ramos, who came after Cory, wasn’t so bad, though he labored too from charges of spectacular corruption. But after him in quick succession came Erap and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the first restoring epic pillage, the second epic pillage and despotism. The best of things can be undone, and in this country with no exceptional effort.

The problem in our current case is first of all the validity of the claim that the spirit of the  daang  matuwid  has seeped through the ranks.

P-Noy himself seems pretty much the sole exception to the rule. He’s the only one who hasn’t been tainted with charges, or rumors, of corruption. You ask for example how high up the division of spoils in Customs goes, only P-Noy routinely escapes suspicion, and mention.

Arguably, personal honesty and example count for a great deal. However you doubt that the campaign against corruption has succeeded with flying colors, you may not doubt the fact that it has plucked us from the morass of the previous regime. The guests to the WEF are right to attribute our impressive economic surge to the climate of relative honesty and transparency associated with the persona of P-Noy.

The truth of the power of example we see from the negative end in Arroyo. She did not just tolerate the culture of impunity, which applied as much to pillage as to murder; she encouraged it by being the chief purveyor of it. You cannot stop your people from stealing everything that is not nailed to the floor if you keep showing them how hard at work you are trying to pry the nails of the furniture from the boards. If corruption persists today, it is in spite of P-Noy; if corruption rioted yesterday, it was because of Arroyo.

That is a hell of a difference, and it shows—not least in the economic performance.

But there’s a limit to how far personal honesty and example can go. And that’s the part where Dezenski’s comment comes in. The only way really to guarantee that the climate of change, or a more honest environment, can be sustained, or survive the incumbent President’s departure, is to institutionalize it. How to do that? By making sure the new culture “depends not just on leadership at the top” but “permeates every level” of society. That is what the P-Noy administration has not done.

Both Dezenski and Bindra point to social media in particular as a crucial factor in institutionalizing a culture inimical to corruption. But that is the one thing government has not only not exploited to the full, it is the one thing government has ranged itself against. That was the one thing that brought P-Noy’s ratings to an all-time low late last year, as he bucked the social media’s strident calls for an end to pork (and Disbursement Acceleration Program) and the passage of the freedom of information bill. Indeed, as he showed a resistance, if not antipathy, to the public helping to chart the direction of things. Thereby reinforcing the view that government was just a benign patriarchy—benign, but a patriarchy nonetheless.

A strange pass for something that emerged from the loins of People Power, or a variation of it.

No, I do not share the WEF’s inordinate confidence or belief in the accomplishments being conserved and even expanded after P-Noy goes. It is not only that I do not see that the spirit of  daang  matuwid has spread very far in the bureaucracy enough to sustain itself by momentum or inertia, it is that I do not see that the force necessary to push it along, which is a strong public voice in governance, has been generated. The self-sustaining elements, structures and institutions are just not there. Keeping the gains, keeping the momentum, remains a matter of finding the right individual, person, man or woman, to do the job. We don’t find him, or her, heaven help us.

And right now, given Jojo Binay and Mar Roxas, we’re as near to doing so as finding 10 just men in Sodom and Congress.