OF SUBSTANCE AND SPIRIT
As early as the third quarter 2020, still at the peak of the global pandemic, our alma mater, the London School of Economics (LSE), had already launched the “Shaping the Post-COVID World” initiative to debate the direction of post-COVID world. One of the leading universities in the world in social science, the LSE aimed at helping shape the “new normal.”
Such debates were to revolve around several key themes including the macroeconomy; restructuring business, trade and the future of work; health and social care; environmental sustainability and climate change; governance and state capacity; and democracy and rights.
Of particular relevance to the Philippines is the key theme on governance and state capacity. We agree to the observation that “countries where governments are both capable and legitimate in the eyes of their citizens have enjoyed a huge advantage in crafting the policy response.” But in our case, the evidence continues to pile up that we have wasted our advantage in meeting both health and economic recovery challenges. Not once or twice did we falter in health and economic governance, but many times with damning complications.
Our pandemic response was unabashedly corrupted with the partial or non-delivery of health supplies which were either overpriced or spoiled, or both. Governance and state capacity are in question here because even Congress is not one in appreciating the same facts and circumstances surrounding the country’s pandemic response.
For the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, it looks like some people could get away with it. No evidence was said to be strong enough to establish overpricing in the purchase of medical supplies. For its part, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has done a better job in establishing full accountability. It is recommending the filing of charges against Health Secretary Francisco Duque for violations of the anti-graft and corruption law, as well as for plunder of anti-COVID-19 funds. Some others would be charged including officials from the Department of Budget and Management, the Chinese economic adviser of President Duterte and Pharmally officials.
We also witnessed our people’s pivot away from the national government’s anti-pandemic program to those of their local governments, non-government organizations (NGOs) or their own employers who promptly decided to buy the vaccines to protect their own. It’s a tale of public mistrust. Following the US example where anyone could just walk in CVS or Walgreens for vaccine, it is only very recently that walk-ins have been accommodated for inoculation regardless of their place of residence to maximize the rollout.
LSE’s point about “the erratic response to the virus” undermining the trust placed in government and the ability of the state to deliver greater social protection could not be truer in this Republic.
On the other hand, one can argue that NEDA’s 10-point policy agenda to accelerate the country’s economic recovery squarely addresses LSE’s concern about the need for better governance. It’s a very comprehensive proposal.
But the drawback of this initiative is that it came in the final hours. It is perfect for the next administration starting July 2022. An earlier rollout could have made a bigger difference. As a result, in Democracy Perception Index of 2021 conducted by Latana and Alliance of Democracies, the Philippines ranked only 12th out of 13 Asia and Pacific countries in terms of citizens’ perception of their authorities’ pandemic strategy. Only 60 percent of those polled said the Philippine government responded well, as against 80-100 percent for Vietnam, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and Pakistan.
The other key theme that resonates in the Philippines is democracy and rights. LSE, through Pro-Director for Research Simon Hix, accused potential autocrats, perhaps fascists would be more appropriate, of leveraging on the emergency situation to “limit rights and grant themselves enhanced powers.” This is what he called “pandemic of power grabs.” We believe that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 could lead to some seizure of power.
Granting excessive powers to the government, it may even result in “malicious criminal prosecution of innocent rights-holders,” or at least in some chilling effect, at the expense of the rule of law and respect of human rights.
A responsive government thrives in democracy and press freedom, rather than in restricting the use of private data to develop ways, for instance, to regulate exposure to the virus. An open data source allows the whole of society to know the number of actual patients who tested positive for COVID-19, and permits the establishment of contact tracing to prevent another surge of new variants. A closed data source denies the true state of affairs to secure the despots’ hold on power. We need to disprove this closed system exists in the Philippines.
Unless we rethink how we do governance and state capacity as well as democracy and rights in the Philippines, our so-called confirmation bias will always prevent us from thinking outside the box. Worse, that could also keep us away from leapfrogging to the new normal. There surely is a better way than burying our heads in the sand.