For too many years the Philippines was like a drowning man—just able to keep its head above water but not able to swim.
The genuine debt-slavery to Western financial institutions was eventually broken during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. However, even prior to that, as the Philippines entered the 21st century, economic growth had begun to be sustainable. Since the beginning of 1999, the country has posted 81 consecutive quarters of gross domestic product (GDP) growth.
The succeeding Aquino administration carried on with the successful management of government finances. The Duterte administration has done the same and added policies to build on the past. We have now booked 29 consecutive quarters of GDP growth of 5 percent or greater.
The nation and its people are no longer just surviving but have entered the realm of thriving and building a more prosperous future.
But there are problems that need to be solved. The economy is hobbled by a Constitution that was designed to make it hard for the “opposition” to successfully challenge in the legislature or at the ballot box the post-Edsa political powers.
The at-large voting for the Senate and to a lesser extent the Party-List system made sure that political and economic power remained—and expanded—in the National Capital Region. The economic provisions of the Constitution insured that the same groups that dominated the economic life of the country retained their power.
The nation’s land transportation system is a disaster area and, considering the improvements in technology and increased urbanization, is relatively unchanged since World War II. Philippine agricultural production is a Third-World Basket Case, except the basket is always half empty.
The Philippines’s GDP per person adjusted by purchasing power parity is nearly P400,000, but we have not been able to bring that wealth and income generating opportunities to the economically lowest 15 percent of the nation.
However, part of the problem is that our politics seems to be centered on opposition both in word and action. Even the term means “to oppose or resist by a group of adversaries.” What we do not need is opposition. What would help are alternative solutions, and they never seem to come except on what we might call social issues. It is fair and reasonable to “object” to the death penalty, mandatory ROTC training, the age of criminal responsibility and even foreign policy initiatives.
Where are the concrete proposals for creating more local and domestic investments rather than arguing about the constitutional restrictions, which will not be changed any time soon? When will we hear alternative ideas for the next industry that might give us something similar to the call-center boom?
It is said that the dogs only fight over bones. Throw large chunks of meat for all the animals to feed on and they work together. In our case, as the “meat” of the economy gets larger, so also does the fighting. The Philippine economy can enter its next economic boom phase. We are close. But we need more constructive cooperation and less destructive confrontation.