I hope these things are just coincidental. But I have been noticing that in areas where the current Administration is weak, like the economy, its officials are quick to condemn the Bush Administration (which, to be fair, had its share of bad decisions that had contributed to our current economic woes). But in areas where the Administration thinks it is gaining ground, like the Iraq war, it is quick to claim credit, regardless of what the Bush Administration has done early on during the war, especially in 2006 when Iraq was slipping into a quagmire, amidst a spiraling ethnic-driven civil war.
Indeed, the Obama economic team is on the defensive these days, in light of disappointing news about the country’s economic recovery this summer, which, according to this WSJ article, is a result of current bad economic policies. Their line of defense hinges on blaming the economic mess they believed they inherited from the previous Administration. In today’s CNN interview, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development said that at the onset they did everything they could to address the housing crisis that was at the core of the financial crisis, with good results, but did add that the economic recovery is now being slowed down by a new challenge that has cropped up since, namely, unemployment. However, the job problem is now on their watch. It was a problem pleading attention as early as middle of last year. But instead of focusing on how to bolster the job market, the Administration spent a significant amount of its political capital persuading Congress to pass a health care legislation.
Come Tuesday, when US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq, I anticipate that the Obama speech will take credit for and claim victory over the Iraq war.
While governing involves being wise and decisive in decision-making, it also entails being responsible for the consequences of its decisions, of owning things up, be they good or bad. It is giving credit where credit is due and admitting mistakes if mistakes are made. If a regime makes decisions based on what is politically expedient, it is not governing. It is campaigning for that political power to remain in its hands.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Political Stalemate in Iraq
In his recent trip to Baghdad, Vice-President Joe Biden urged Iraq’s political leaders to get on with the business of governing as the post-election deadlock has prevented elected officials to form a new government. Biden’s message is urgent particularly because U.S. combat operations are winding down and a significant number of U.S. troops are set to leave Iraq soon. Biden recommended that all sectarian groups play a meaningful role in the formation of the new government, although Ayad Allawi, one of the contenders for the prime ministership, said that Biden did not really offer specific proposals on how to break the stalemate. His answer was, “well, it’s up to the Iraqis.”
Well, it seems it’s not up to the Iraqis. They couldn’t do it. If they could, we would not be witnessing such political wrangling and blatant display of power-grab among elected officials. Perhaps no one is giving in because to do so would be tantamount to political suicide. Perhaps they are afraid of each other. Perhaps Iraqi institutions are not strong enough to overcome Iraqi factions’ fractious self-interestedness.
And perhaps the solution lies outside, far from Iraq’s toxic political climate. Why not form a 10-man international commission of decent and thoughtful human beings (whether they be former leaders of nations or technocrats or academics or businessmen, or all of the above, combining from within themselves knowledge and practice, philosophy and politics, vision and strategies) to act as a caretaker government for one year to lay down the fundamentals of a functioning, free, and prospering Iraq with complete objectivity, professionalism, a sense of justice, and a genuine disinterestedness for the well-being of all Iraqis? I’m sure reasonable and fair Iraqi officials will not find the idea too far-fetched.
Well, it seems it’s not up to the Iraqis. They couldn’t do it. If they could, we would not be witnessing such political wrangling and blatant display of power-grab among elected officials. Perhaps no one is giving in because to do so would be tantamount to political suicide. Perhaps they are afraid of each other. Perhaps Iraqi institutions are not strong enough to overcome Iraqi factions’ fractious self-interestedness.
And perhaps the solution lies outside, far from Iraq’s toxic political climate. Why not form a 10-man international commission of decent and thoughtful human beings (whether they be former leaders of nations or technocrats or academics or businessmen, or all of the above, combining from within themselves knowledge and practice, philosophy and politics, vision and strategies) to act as a caretaker government for one year to lay down the fundamentals of a functioning, free, and prospering Iraq with complete objectivity, professionalism, a sense of justice, and a genuine disinterestedness for the well-being of all Iraqis? I’m sure reasonable and fair Iraqi officials will not find the idea too far-fetched.
Citizen Watch in Mexico
President Felipe Calderon’s call for citizen participation in his campaign against the cartels is a smart move, especially because the nature of the game is changing: the cartels are no longer just trafficking drugs, they are usurping the powers of the state. In today’s Washington Post article, Calderon said, “The behavior of the criminals has changed and become a defiance to the state, an attempt to replace the state.” Indeed, there is an atmosphere of fear in the country, and the criminals seem to be gaining the upper hand, ruling like warlords, Mafia-style. In this campaign, Calderon is asking the public to be vigilant and to report to the authorities anyone who may be involved in protecting the cartels, whether they are prosecutors, judges, police, mayors, or governors.
At stake is nothing less than the sovereign will of the Mexican people. In a republican setting, a people’s sovereign will gets translated into a vote for a government that rules by people’s consent. The usurpation of state powers by illicit criminal organizations threatens this democratic arrangement, where the rule of law is replaced by the rule by men, and the constitutional order by force and intimidation.
“We have an organized crime and a disorganized society,” said Calderon. For a respectable country with a great historic past, Mexico cannot allow the mob to gain the upper hand. As it is, the mob is making the country move backward instead of forward. A strong yet responsible government co-opting an enlightened citizenry can put an end to it.
At stake is nothing less than the sovereign will of the Mexican people. In a republican setting, a people’s sovereign will gets translated into a vote for a government that rules by people’s consent. The usurpation of state powers by illicit criminal organizations threatens this democratic arrangement, where the rule of law is replaced by the rule by men, and the constitutional order by force and intimidation.
“We have an organized crime and a disorganized society,” said Calderon. For a respectable country with a great historic past, Mexico cannot allow the mob to gain the upper hand. As it is, the mob is making the country move backward instead of forward. A strong yet responsible government co-opting an enlightened citizenry can put an end to it.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
“Why the Left remains politically insignificant”
William Esposo of Philippine Star reproaches the Philippine Left for being ineffective in selling their ideology to the Filipino people. In his attempt to explain why Filipino communists remain politically insignificant, aside from the influence of the Catholic faith in Filipino thinking, he also argues that Filipino communists have not really succeeded in branding and selling their product effectively:
With their decision to participate in the electoral process, we had hoped that the Extreme Left will finally evolve to something more palatable to Filipino political sensibilities. Alas, they still behave like the proverbial old dog that is already incapable of learning new tricks. They’ve not changed their rhetoric. They’ve not changed their venue, the streets. They’ve simply refused to change and try to be acceptable.
. . . What makes our Leftists most pathetic is that they’ve become anachronistic and they do not even know it. If they had an iota of marketing sense, a grasp of strategy, they should have evolved already into a new and acceptable political brand and product.
. . . The best marketing organizations will not even attempt to repackage what is already perceived as a bad product. That would be wasting good money in trying to salvage something bad. They would rather create a new brand and get a fresh start that will be unencumbered by a negative association.
But it’s not the branding that is marginalizing the Left. It’s much, much more than that! It’s the nonsensical worldview of the communists and the futility in their argument that simply cannot pass the scrutiny of reason. For any commonsensical, hard-working Filipino, these communists are the ones causing enormous sufferings to the Filipino people.
Their typical argument revolves around their messianic mission of liberating the Filipino people from “the shackles of U.S. imperialism,” regardless of the means to achieve it. Indeed, its leadership, Jose Ma. Sison, has repeatedly argued that the root cause of all the problems in the Philippines could be traced to its long history of foreign dependence on America’s imperial domination, and, as a consequence, to the plunder of the country’s resources and the exploitation of its cheap labor by greedy American multinational companies.
But where is the evidence for this? In fact, study after study indicates that global trade (yes, via those greedy MNCs) contributes to Asia’s economic growth. While multinationals reap profits in the Philippines, as any corporation should, they provide jobs and technical assistance to hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers, thereby contributing to the country’s economic growth.
Rather, as Third World scholars would agree, the factors that cause Third World underdevelopment are the following: endemic graft and corruption among local politicians, ethnic wars, lack of capacities, skills, and attitudes that encourage individual responsibility, lack of strong institutions and the rule of law, and the pervasive influence of certain cultural values and religious beliefs that are anathema to progress and prosperity.
Filipino communists have nothing to offer but their long record of crimes committed against the Philippine government, the Filipino people, and foreign nationals caught in their ideological war. At least during the three decades of war that they have waged against the country, they are responsible for, among others : a) the loss of thousands of civilian and military lives killed in one way or another during this insurgency; b) the political instability that has disrupted the country’s economy through loss of investor confidence (Philippine economic growth has been one of the slowest among Southeast Asian countries), and, consequently, to loss of jobs and government revenues; c) the diversion of tremendous amounts of government resources designated for social services (such as education) towards supporting anti-insurgency military operations.
Instead of asking why the Philippine Left has remained politically insignificant, I think the proper question to ask is why the Philippine Left continues to exist. It should have been banished from the intellectual, moral, political, and economic landscapes of the country a long time ago.
With their decision to participate in the electoral process, we had hoped that the Extreme Left will finally evolve to something more palatable to Filipino political sensibilities. Alas, they still behave like the proverbial old dog that is already incapable of learning new tricks. They’ve not changed their rhetoric. They’ve not changed their venue, the streets. They’ve simply refused to change and try to be acceptable.
. . . What makes our Leftists most pathetic is that they’ve become anachronistic and they do not even know it. If they had an iota of marketing sense, a grasp of strategy, they should have evolved already into a new and acceptable political brand and product.
. . . The best marketing organizations will not even attempt to repackage what is already perceived as a bad product. That would be wasting good money in trying to salvage something bad. They would rather create a new brand and get a fresh start that will be unencumbered by a negative association.
But it’s not the branding that is marginalizing the Left. It’s much, much more than that! It’s the nonsensical worldview of the communists and the futility in their argument that simply cannot pass the scrutiny of reason. For any commonsensical, hard-working Filipino, these communists are the ones causing enormous sufferings to the Filipino people.
Their typical argument revolves around their messianic mission of liberating the Filipino people from “the shackles of U.S. imperialism,” regardless of the means to achieve it. Indeed, its leadership, Jose Ma. Sison, has repeatedly argued that the root cause of all the problems in the Philippines could be traced to its long history of foreign dependence on America’s imperial domination, and, as a consequence, to the plunder of the country’s resources and the exploitation of its cheap labor by greedy American multinational companies.
But where is the evidence for this? In fact, study after study indicates that global trade (yes, via those greedy MNCs) contributes to Asia’s economic growth. While multinationals reap profits in the Philippines, as any corporation should, they provide jobs and technical assistance to hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers, thereby contributing to the country’s economic growth.
Rather, as Third World scholars would agree, the factors that cause Third World underdevelopment are the following: endemic graft and corruption among local politicians, ethnic wars, lack of capacities, skills, and attitudes that encourage individual responsibility, lack of strong institutions and the rule of law, and the pervasive influence of certain cultural values and religious beliefs that are anathema to progress and prosperity.
Filipino communists have nothing to offer but their long record of crimes committed against the Philippine government, the Filipino people, and foreign nationals caught in their ideological war. At least during the three decades of war that they have waged against the country, they are responsible for, among others : a) the loss of thousands of civilian and military lives killed in one way or another during this insurgency; b) the political instability that has disrupted the country’s economy through loss of investor confidence (Philippine economic growth has been one of the slowest among Southeast Asian countries), and, consequently, to loss of jobs and government revenues; c) the diversion of tremendous amounts of government resources designated for social services (such as education) towards supporting anti-insurgency military operations.
Instead of asking why the Philippine Left has remained politically insignificant, I think the proper question to ask is why the Philippine Left continues to exist. It should have been banished from the intellectual, moral, political, and economic landscapes of the country a long time ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)