Thinking and doing beyond the May 12 midterm elections

This is not Monday-morning quarterbacking.

True, the May 12 midterm elections are over, but no one for sure could expect real change, even when some political dynasties were scorned, movie entertainers rejected, popular plunderers and corrupt incumbents repudiated. Well, that could amount to some reawakening. Others would prefer to call it a meritocratic renewal.

But only a couple of those in the list of progressive senatorial candidates generated by ChatGPT and by some concerned non-government organizations — Bam Aquino, Kiko Pangilinan, France Castro, Arlene Brosas, Leody de Guzman, Luke Espiritu, Teodoro Casiño, Liza Maza, Amirah Lidasan, Sonny Matula and Heidi Mendoza — made it to the winning circle. ChatGPT practically endorsed a new politics of vision and serious political platform.

Only former Senators Aquino and Pangilinan on the list managed to win, with the other 10 successful candidates endorsed by either the Marcos or Duterte camps. ChatGPT’s criteria — a clean public record, pro-people and sectoral advocacy, democratic and transparent governance, a track record of action and independence from dynasties or political machinery — were mostly set aside by many among us.

These more progressive candidates ran on the basis of political platforms that could translate into actual serious discourse in the Senate and possibly result in some change, no matter how feeble in the beginning.

Many of their opposite kind would continue to thrive in this highly dysfunctional environment. Their names will remain a fixture in future electoral exercises. Whether we would see a rerun in political governance, or more of the same soft leadership, will depend on how the people would translate their political choices into public policy. Democracy thrives in a body of laws and public policy that promotes rather than subverts public interest.

It is rarely sensible to just entrust the destiny of this Republic to the elected leaders. Mitigating our wide democratic deficit should not stop there. The people should take the additional responsibility of monitoring their performance, assessing their policies and their implementation, and demanding receipts for accountability.

The winning candidates should be constantly reminded of the people’s major concerns and needs. It is more than a compelling cause to impress upon the incoming public officials the importance of why they were elected in the first place. It’s not about giving them access to the public treasury and spending every which way. It’s not about pursuing their private business, whether as an athlete, contractor, movie star or talk show host, and attending to their constituents on the side.

Public service is a full-time job.

It’s about doing their homework, studying with their technical staff what is wrong with our economy and politics, and what needs to be done. They don’t have to reinvent the wheel; they can start with the Philippines’ long-term and medium-term development plans. Then they need to progress by assessing if we need to shift from our fundamental model of economic growth to one that favors progressive taxation, one that is more people-focused and therefore more inclusive.

The point is not so much to transform the Philippines overnight — this is impossible — but to avoid exacerbating the problems of governance and corruption, the dissipation of public money and stealing the future of the next generation. What is possible is producing incremental changes as what the May 12 elections demonstrated we are capable of. They are more realistic, they are more promising. The point is to duplicate these small victories and multiply them a hundredfold.

That should define the presidential election in 2028.

In December 2024, Pulse Asia Research showed in no uncertain terms that seven out of 10 Filipinos were concerned about inflation. Lower percentages of those surveyed chose, in decreasing order, the next key issues: increasing workers’ pay, reducing poverty, creating more jobs, fighting graft and corruption, and, finally, involuntary hunger.

Although fifth in the order of importance, the issue of governance inarguably lies at the very core of the other issues. We have seen how incompetence and corruption in many public agencies in charge of the supply side of inflation management led to pricing of rice, onions, garlic, meat products beyond the reach of ordinary Filipinos. With price levels remaining elevated, the periodic increases in the minimum wage have not improved the buying ability of ordinary households. The minimum wage in 2019 and today, although five years and P108 apart, can only buy the same little basket of goods and services.

Reducing poverty is elusive because political and social governance is bad. Viable instruments of escaping poverty through quality public education and robust public health are not priorities in the budget. Economic growth remains weak compared to what is required to regain ground lost during the pandemic, and establish greater equity and social mobility. Creating more jobs could have been easier if budget allocation has been more conscionable to improve our infrastructure and human capital. Enough of pork barrel funds, enough of unconditional cash transfers, enough of intelligence and confidential funds.

Poverty in the Philippines is quite different from that experienced in other countries. We have the richest of the rich here, but we also have a lot of the most impoverished among the poorest. Pagpag is what many among the poorest eat — they scavenge the dregs of the earth and whatever food is found from the rubbish is cleaned and warmed for their lunch or dinner.

Don’t get me wrong. This condition is not unique to the Philippine experience. The more prosperous countries in the ASEAN were once upon a time in this situation, too, even Korea in the 1950s. However, a liberal dose of good dedicated governance and strong institutions managed to bring them out of abject poverty. Their per capita GDPs have outstripped the Philippines’ which had recorded much higher levels in the 1950s and 1960s. Good governance unleashed market forces in their economies and exposed them to global competition that incentivized higher levels of productivity and economic efficiency. More of their social capital went to economic growth, rather than to non-productive consumption and theft of public money.

Job creation is faster when economic growth thrives. Implementation by competent and responsible government should work wonders in a society where good economic development plan exists with a corresponding blueprint for the labor market. No matter what some economists would say, industrial policy is critical in charting a more balanced growth in the economy, one that optimizes the use of the country’s natural and human resources with a global context and perspective.

If involuntary hunger exists here, that could only betray government incompetence and apathy. Likewise, it also speaks volumes about the private sector, including those with corporate social responsibility programs. Hunger and bad nutrition plus inferior public education are behind the country’s dismal performance in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Program for International Students’ Assessment. We can arrest our students’ poor performance in mathematics, reading, and science as well as in critical thinking, if hunger, among others, could be minimized if not eliminated.

It might be too much to expect, but there seems to be no alternative, that our few but strategic members of Congress and the Executive recognize that there is a need to innovate policy thinking and doing beyond the May 12 midterm elections.

We don’t have to debate that the Philippines should ensure that growth is accelerated, sustained, and inclusive. This can be achieved by promoting growth outside key cities and highly urbanized areas, and expanding economic activities that contribute to the country’s long-term growth. However, a new model is required as the Philippines aims to achieve and sustain upper-income status while adapting to a rapidly changing external environment. Underpinning this new approach is the need to embrace technology-driven innovation in various sectors to give economic growth broader basis and greater momentum, while simultaneously protecting the people and the environment.

Given all these summit conferences and seminars on AI and innovations, our politicians should know by now that the use of modern technology jacks up productivity and amplifies efficiency.

Once in midstream, innovation raises the economy’s capacity to break the current mold of economic growth. It entails changing the nature and quality of growth, achieving economic dynamism through new ideas and technology. It helps eliminate the so-called productivity drag to higher growth. This requires strategic investment in human capital, as ultimately, it is people who will strategize, plan, and execute these innovations. Additionally, infrastructure is critical for innovation to drive durable economic growth.

If we have an increasing rank of enlightened legislators and executive officials, our budget can further push for innovation through better schooling and medical facilities for our young students. More social services can be launched.

Finally, innovation itself can also help streamline the bureaucracy and all administrative processes in public agencies. In fact, when repetitive processes like processing of government permits, licenses, and certificates of registrations are automated, there could be inordinate gains in efficiency and productivity as well as in reduction of errors. Most importantly, it bypasses personal interaction that could promote graft and corruption.

The only risk to this first best scenario is that it would threaten the status quo which has benefitted political and economic vested interests, the culture of impunity and patronage, and the scourge of poverty and social inequity.