THE Left has characterized the Philippine state as semi-feudal. I think this is an apt description.
Marxists characterize feudalism as a system where there is no separation between politics and economics. The lord in a feudal society, by virtue of being the head of the fiefdom, also owns the dominant mode of production, which is land. He governs, dispenses political and economic favors and everyone under him should pay tribute.
Capitalism distinguishes itself from feudalism by the separation of the economic sphere from the political domain. Economic rewards are attained by working hard and innovating and not through entitlements or concessions awarded by the head of state. Merits play a major role in improving one’s career or business venture. There are no tributes to be accorded the leader, outside of compensation for rendering public service, because the determination who should be rewarded is made through the workings of the market.
Those who adhere to Western-type of democracy characterize our system as a democracy given that it is practically copied from the United States. They point out that key government officials are chosen through an electoral system where those who garner the highest votes assume key government posts. The winners are supposed to represent the interest of those who voted for them.
In reality, however, because the greater part of our electorate lives a hand-to-mouth existence, are poorly educated and are relatively uninformed of the real situation, them voting wisely has proven to be a frustrating goal. With the advent of social media, corrupt politicians also manipulate public opinion through systematic misinformation and disinformation.
They hire people to engage in both social and conventional media in so-called “AC-DC” operations, which stands for “attack-collect, defend-collect.” These hired trolls viciously attack the critics of their financier and then collect a fee, and then aggressively defend whenever exposes are leveled against their sponsor and then collect their fee again.
Maintaining oneself in power has become the overarching objective of our politicians. The simple reason is that like in a feudal society, the lord corners all the economic benefits and privileges within the territory under his control. He expects that any economic transactions made in the fiefdom should come with a tribute for him — rent in economic parlance.
Similarly, in the so-called Western-type democracy that we have, leaders exact tributes from any economic transactions conducted within their jurisdiction. Private contractors building public infrastructure such as roads and schools will have to set aside tributes to various officials, from the national level down to the barangay where the project is taking place. Securing business permits, licenses, clearances, etc., entail the payment of “facilitation fees” because the head of the institution, acting like a feudal lord, expects his constituents to accord respect by paying tributes.
Sadly, this feudal thinking has permeated even the smallest organized units in the community. For instance, heads of transportation cooperatives expect members to shell out funds as a guarantee for protection against authorities enforcing traffic regulations. Heads of farmers cooperatives or associations decide who among the members will receive subsidies (e.g. seeds, fertilizers, etc.) or be prioritized in the use of farm machinery or equipment.
The semi-feudal nature of our governance system means that the concept of “nation-building” is alien. If the main goal is to maximize rent to the leader, nation-building becomes a joke to the people who are immensely benefiting. This explains why there are no long-term visions provided by our leaders who are just interested in maintaining themselves in power. Their planning horizon does not go beyond their three-year tenures given our electoral cycle.
As such, I believe that a Western-type democracy will not serve our development needs. It has actually resulted in the installation of a semi-feudal state where economic benefits can best be enjoyed not through hard work and creativity but by just securing political power.
It is also the reason why I am bit cynical with regard to valued friends who think that electing leaders who are honest and professional will result in the country’s economic development. Noynoy Aquino’s administration was relatively honest and it partly strengthened our financial and economic position. But the core of governance, which was semi-feudal, remained intact and returned with a vengeance after his term ended.
The reality is that the development process is a long-term endeavor. In agriculture, because of the workings of nature, one can only harvest mangoes or coconuts five years after planting. Varietal improvements take time to provide positive results. It will take more than four years before aquaculture or mariculture investments hit break-even and generate profits. The same is true for energy investments and the provision of critical infrastructure that will be able to transport people, goods and services faster and cheaper.
The country needs continuity of vision, programs and projects. Neighboring countries like China, Malaysia and now Vietnam have shown us the critical importance of governance continuity driven largely by universally agreed targets. Non-attainment will either trigger removal or replacement of nonperforming political leaders.
In “The Prince,” Nicolo Machiavelli exhorted Cesare Borgia, the strongest feudal lord in Italy, to conquer all other lords to be able to pursue a nation-building agenda. Machiavelli knew that divided into small fiefdoms, there was no way that Italy could become a powerful nation.
Our failure to fully develop our economy, which is increasingly becoming an economic laggard in the region, is a direct result of the semi-feudal nature of our political system.