Ad hoc governance
Credit to Author: BEN KRITZ, TMT| Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:20:10 +0000
OBSERVING the uproar that has erupted over the past couple of days as a result of President Rodrigo Durterte’s sudden clampdown on the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office’s (PCSO) gaming operations has been entertaining, for reasons that mostly do not put the government or the vast majority of the population that supports it in a good light.
First, there is the comical way in which the administration handled the decision, from the non-standard method of its announcement to the baduy show of police physically “closing” PCSO outlets, to the managed dribble of news in the aftermath to justify the move, including the traditional promise that the names of PCSO’s corrupt personnel would be provided for public shaming “in due time.”
Second, there are the clear signs that, no matter how much many people would like to give Duterte the benefit of the doubt that there was some planning and a substantial objective involved in the PCSO shutdown, the whole thing really was an off-the-cuff decision untainted by neither forethought nor real goals.
Third, there is the undeniable fact that the PCSO is a legitimate target. The lottery operator has been a bog of corruption for a long time, as evidenced by the number of former PCSO officials and employees who have gone down behind corruption charges over the years, and the PCSO falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President, so there is no legal ambiguity about whether or not his drastic action was allowed.
That reality is the saving grace of the entire drama, which otherwise has alarming implications for the stability of the country. No one is arguing that Duterte is actually being unfair to the PCSO. Even taking into account that a large proportion of the overwhelming majority of the people who support him consider him completely infallible, that is merely a subset of the population that assumes the PCSO is a den of thieves. Shutting it down is universally considered to be the right thing to do; most people’s thought processes lie too close to the surface, however, to consider whether it might have been for the wrong reason, or by the wrong method.
The extravagance of the move – the late Friday announcement via a channel other than the one ordinarily used for such things (a tactic historically perfected by Josef Goebbels, for what it’s worth) and the unnecessary show of force by the police (simply unplugging or seizing PCSO’s computer servers would have been easier) – made it obvious that it was cover for something else, as I discussed in Sunday’s column. What that something is will presumably reveal itself in due time.
The fact that Duterte was obviously wagging the dog, however, is worrisome on two counts. First, it means that neither the PCSO issue nor whatever problem it is masking are going to be fully addressed. When things are done capriciously, details are overlooked, and the results are usually incomplete at best. Second, it damages his and his administration’s credibility in terms of consistency of policy and processes. If the government cannot be counted upon to follow its own rule book, a level of additional risk is added to any sort of investment in the economy, and the risk is certainly great enough to drive some potential investments away.
No matter how much din is raised to keep the public’s attention on the PCSO issue, it has provided an occasion for other sticky questions to be raised, and the government might find itself with more problems after the scheme than before. For instance, with the imminent loss of the PCSO’s funding for indigent medical care, the Palace has offered reassurance that money from the administration’s slush funds and from the revenues of Pagcor were available to fill the gap; what the Palace has not acknowledged at all is PhilHealth, which now supposedly covers all Filipinos.
On a very basic level, the PCSO drama presents a picture of decisive leadership, which is of course precisely the message that the government wants everyone to hear. On a deeper level, however, the image is one of a government that does not quite have a grip on policy and governance, and is increasingly reacting instead of leading. At a time when there are several key policy initiatives that need to be put back on track – tax reform, labor reform, infrastructure development, customs and tariff reforms – the government’s grasp suddenly looks quite tenuous. President Duterte and his advisors may not feel that is the case, and they may be right, but the fact that is now not objectively apparent is a problem in itself, and one that will only get worse the longer it goes uncorrected.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
Twitter: @benkritz