Presidential elections and income inequality

A former presidential candidate who once proposed covering the whole country with a dome in order to protect it from typhoons is not really mad. Analogically, his suggestion is akin to the impossibility of providing safety nets and social security to all impoverished Filipinos in order to protect them against the excesses of those who are in positions of advantage. The dark alleys of decrepit public markets, the unlit parks where street urchins go, and those unfinished, deserted buildings used by drug addicts—all symptoms of social and economic injustice—are the not-so-hallowed places which portray the most difficult job that the next president of the republic needs to address: income inequality.

Income inequality is not only obvious in the places where people live. It is also apparent in the types of school our children attend. Schools for rich children are often called “exclusive,” which means that they are only for those who can afford the high tuition. The ill effect of this distinction is such that it has resulted in some form of bias against graduates of public schools. The bright students are not a concern of our education leaders. The interest and focus of the Department of Education should be on the majority of our students who not only struggle academically but also suffer from the hegemonic relations in society that income inequality creates.

The corporate world can pay enough bright people to be able to deal with price fluctuations in the stock market, the movement in interest rates, or in reacting to the weak inflows of foreign investments. The next president’s real problem happens inside the home of ordinary people whose hand-to-mouth existence indicates the lack of social security protection in the country. In this regard, the next president should be able to reach out to the poorest sector of society, even if just symbolically, in order to inspire our youth that there is some reason to hope in the near future.

Our problem therefore is the lack of fit between the highest office of the Philippines and the peripheries of society. Every day, local radio stations broadcast pleas from family members of ailing poor people seeking help from strangers. The last real attempt to connect the presidency with the masses happened with Ramon Magsaysay. Former president Joseph Estrada made much of championing the cause of the poor and used it as a slogan. But I remember my former professor in liberation theology, Fr. Ramon Echica, protesting this claim. Estrada exploited the poor by misrepresenting them. None of the tens of millions of poor Filipinos ever tasted Johnny Walker Blue.

Social opportunities in the country are limited. Nothing can be more maddening than not having enough food on the table. The poor are often blamed for their condition, but one needs to ask if real choices are actually available to them. The quality of one’s life depends on the availability of those choices without which the income space for people would be severely restricted. It diminishes not only the standard of living in the country but also the social solidarity that defines us as a nation.

Political maturity is integral to any true democracy. It requires, as a matter of principle, that citizens understand why their choice matters and why not choosing wisely is madness. But people are just being realistic—the other word for pessimistic—in being pragmatic about their choices. While a president is expected to offer some vision, ordinary people will not believe him or her unless he or she reaches out to them by being with them. We are in the 21st century, but the poor masses in the country still believe that it is madness to pursue any ambition. This madness is made manifest in the experience of a young girl who is sent to a landlord’s mansion in order to pay for the debts of her parents.

The next president, in this regard, should be able to provide that bridge between Malacañang Palace and the marginalized in Philippine society. Vice President Jejomar Binay plays to this tune by emphasizing that he lived a much harder life than Sen. Grace Poe. What is so banal in such a claim is the nefarious intent to link the happy lives of our leaders to the perpetual despondency of the vast majority of our voters. The problem of Interior Secretary Mar Roxas is his seemingly languid image as a leader. For this simple reason, the majority of our voters, especially the youth, do not think Roxas can lead them. Mayor Rodrigo Duterte transformed Davao from an insurgency-wracked city into the orderly and progressive place that it is now. What remains unanswered, though, is how this success can be translated into the national level.

Change begins with the choices that we make. Millions of lives depend on this motherhood statement. In point of fact, we no longer have enough democratic icons in the country for God to take from us in order to give us a sign who to vote for come 2016.

Christopher Ryan Maboloc is assistant professor of philosophy at Ateneo de Davao University. He is a former secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Centrist Democracy Political Institute.