HUMANITY faces a singular challenge: how to share the planet with all peoples of the world and meet the basic needs of everyone. Is this doable?
Mahatma Gandhi has long ago given a forthright answer: “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” In brief, what he was saying is that humanity possesses all the means to create and reproduce the necessities to sustain a decent life for everyone as long as these means and the resources of planet Earth are equitably shared.
As we all know, this is not happening. As per study by Oxfam, eight persons have wealth equal to the wealth of the 50 percent of the world’s population. The value of the top 50 global corporations is equal to the GDP of 100 nations. And in almost every country, in the Philippines and in the Asia Pacific in particular, the top 1 percent of society controls 99 percent of the national wealth.
This is why the social movement called “We are the 99 percent” ceases to wane and keeps proliferating in new forms in various countries across the globe. The movement started in America in the aftermath of the 2007-2010 global financial crisis (GFC), which displaced millions from their jobs and which revealed the financial and other abuses committed by the big banks and corporations in a deregulated free market environment.
However, the post-GFC period has also witnessed the rise of political demagogues and right-wing “national saviors,” who try to seize on the economic grievances of the 99 percent by making empty promises on job creation and welfare advancement without altering unjust social and economic structures which are at the roots of social and economic inequality. In the United States Donald J. Trump has even transformed his “America First” campaign into a hateful and white-race-based movement that tries to pin America’s economic problems on the migrants coming from US southern neighbors and the crisis countries in Africa and the Middle East. Somehow he has forgotten that America is a migrant nation, built by the collective labor of migrants coming from virtually all corners of the globe.
In the Asia Pacific a number of CSOs and trade unions have focused their efforts to promote the interests of the 99 percent by intensifying the campaign for a stronger and comprehensive system of social protection (SP), which is woefully underdeveloped in the region despite the endless pro-SP rhetorics being spouted by Asia’s strongmen, such as Duterte, Modi, Hun Sen and so on. In the developed countries, the budgetary spending on SP is equal to 20 percent or more of the GDP; in contrast, in Asia, with the notable exception of Japan, SP spending is less than 6 percent.
In the Philippines SP spending has increased, from 2-3 percent to 4-5 percent of the GDP, obviously due to the expansion of the CCT program and the new social protection programs such as pension for the elderly and subsidy for transport workers. Such expansion is obviously not enough given the magnitude of poverty and unemployment/underemployment in the country, not to mention the extreme level of inequality in our society. Worse, the new tax law or TRAIN, which has fueled an inflationary situation, has eroded the purchasing power of the masses and has rendered the government promises of greater SP under TRAIN truly contradictory and illusory.
In a recent seminar organized by the Asia Monitor Resource Center (AMRC) of Hong Kong and Oxfam in Cambodia, the trade unions and CSOs across the Asia Pacific not only lamented the weaknesses of the SP programs in place in their respective countries but also denounced the failure of most governments to secure the “commons” in the service and enjoyment of the populace. As explained by Francine Maestrum, a sociologist, the commons consists of the following: a) “natural commons” such as the planet, oceans, forests, land and seeds; b) “cultural commons” such as cultural heritage, Internet and human knowledge; and “social commons” such as the human rights, public services and social security. In short, the commons such as fresh air, clean water, public spaces and scientific advancements of all kinds belong to all of humanity and should be treated as such. They should be used for the enjoyment of all for they are a common inheritance of humanity.
And yet, tragically, this is not happening. In the name of economic growth and efficiency, neoliberal economists are trying to promote the all-out commercialization and even privatization of these commons. Example: during the opening of classes in June, the secretary of the Department of Education was quoted as saying that the Department was prepared to help the LGUs of Metro Manila to build more schools but the problem was the lack of public lands in the metropolis to build such schools. And why are there no such lands? Well, the answer is obvious to watchers of the real-estate industry: all high-value urban and agricultural lands are now in the hands of the big land developers, which are competing with one another not only in building new malls and condominiums but also in accumulating lands for “land banking” purposes. Such a process is aided by the government’s unchecked privatization program, absence of a just land-use policy and a taxation system that tends to support the land accumulation by the rich. The outcomes: no land for the schools and no land that can be transformed into public parks.
Thus, in the AMRC-Oxfam seminar on SP, representatives of the trade unions and CSOs embraced the idea that one cannot push for a stronger net of social protection for all without asserting the need for just and equitable policies on how to protect the commons for the benefit of society’s majority. As Francine Maestrum explained, social protection is not a question of charity. It is a social justice imperative. And, thus, it is inextricably linked to the struggle to build a just, inclusive and humane society.
Along this line, a proposed “Global Charter for Social Protection Rights” declares that “States should organize their social protection mechanisms in such a way that they lead to social and economic transformation, leading to just, fair and sustainable societies, preserving human and natural life.”