Upload
mary-ronces
View
139
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Roncesvalles, Mary Joyce T. June 20, 2012
GREATWK C39
Solving Poverty by Nationalism
What I have learned from Dr. Antonio C. Hila is a new perspective in the
Philippine History particularly regarding the government and the government
officials. I grew up thinking that former President Marcos is a corrupt leader who
only thinks of himself though he was very smart. I also thought that the Philippines
is a poor country because of corruption and other matters are only consequential. I
did not expect anything in the course, but through the different readings, it gave me
something to really think and be concerned about as a Filipino citizen.
Being a Filipino, I should try to remove my colonial mentality and teach or
tell others to do the same since having this kind of mentality does not help in any
way for the Philippines to have real independence since our country is still a neo-
colony. National patrimony should be protected from imperialist plunder. In order
for foreigners to think highly of the Filipinos, we should think highly of ourselves
first. Not high as of being boastful, but high as how we should be treated as human
beings. The first thing I have learned in the course is the term “nationalism”. The
meaning that came into mind was love for one’s country, which is true but not
completely true since we can love our own country without being nationalists. Being
a nationalist has a much deeper meaning, which is according to Alejandro Lichauco,
both the “power and a philosophy of power”. It is a power that caused movement of
people to forge nations and roused great achievements and a philosophy of power
that is concerned with different strategies, steps and methods concerning the
creation and development of a state as an organic entity. Development is necessarily
internal based on the independence of a state and the growing participation of its
people (Constantino, 1995 p.104). Anyone, or rather from the words of Alejandro
Lichauco, even a fool can love one’s country. The idea now is not about the love for
one’s country but for the nationalists, the real concern is the strength of the state
and the will to fight of its citizens for independence. The world, in the view of
nationalists, is a “community of nation-states who must live as well as compete
constantly with each other” (Lichauco, 1988 p.3). There is struggle and competition
wherever and whenever that is why they are considered as a fact and law of
international life, which is just exactly as Darwin’s Theory of “Survival of the fittest”.
However we think that another state can help us, well, we should think again
because there are no permanent friends in international relations but rather, there
are permanent national or self-interest and transient allies who can turn into
adversaries overnight.
Since the Philippines is a neo-colony, it is acceptable to think that she is weak
and powerless considering that we are highly dependent on America and she is
unable to provide even the basic needs of the citizens including employment,
security and livelihood. Alejandro Lichauco even sees the Philippines as the only
state that “seeks the abolition of our nationhood and works for our incorporation
into the federal structure of the very state, which had colonized us” (Lichauco, 1988
p.4). The Philippines need to have real independence first before being considered
as a strong and powerful state since independence is necessary to power and vice
versa. It is not realistic to think that a country is strong when there are others ruling
the country. We, Filipinos, should assert our independence so that we would not
have to be dependent on any other country and we would not need answer to
anyone not just on how the government rules the land but also on how our country
would use the resources that is beneficial for the Filipinos. According to Renato
Constantino in The Nationalist Alternative, “All forms of neocolonial domination and
all the self-serving demands of transnational corporations should be regarded as
instances of national oppression… oppression of an entire people whose resources,
labor and life itself have been commandeered in the service of foreign corporations
and foreign governments” (p.91). With this said, there is a struggle for the need of
restoration and enhancement of individual Filipino rights.
In knowing what nationalism is, it is clear what the Filipinos should do and
what the state should have, which is strength and power. Now that I am more
aware, it is now time to know what we can do in order for us to have the real
independence that we deserve. Nationalism should not be the sole goal of our
country but also industrialization. The reason is because no country is strong and
powerful without being industrialized. As written by Renato Constantino from the
speech of Claro M. Recto, “Nationalism cannot be realized and brought to full
flowering without a thorough-going industrialization of our economy by the
Filipinos themselves. And you cannot have an industrialized Philippine economy
controlled and managed by Filipinos without the propulsive force of a deep and
abiding spirit of nationalism.” This is not what we are usually taught in school since
the basis of what we studied are mostly from American books, which made me
realize how I was looking at the world thinking that I already know both sides,
which I now know that I do not. I saw foreign investments as the way to solve the
poverty, but little did I know that they just hurt the Philippine economy even more.
Because of the readings, my mind and eyes are opened, which made me to believe
that there is really a need for an economic independence.
According to Renato Constantino, the Philippines is free politically but still
far from being free economically for the reason of having past administrations
clinging to the old system wherein we are under the control of foreigners.
“Nationalism in the economic field is the control of the resources of a country by its
own people to insure its utilization primarily for their own interest and enjoyment”
(Constantino, 1965 p.31). It is apparent that our resources are not only utilized
primarily in the interest of the Filipinos because we are an agricultural nation that
exports raw-materials cheaply since they have no use yet until the industrialized
nations make our raw materials into finished products that we import at high prices,
which we tolerate since the products are needed for our daily living. With this said,
it is clear that Filipinos are not in control of our own resources for our best interest.
This kind of relationship has a gainer and a loser, and unfortunately, as an
agricultural nation, we are the loser. An industrial nation is prosperous, strong and
dominant while an agricultural nation is poor, weak and dependent. If we want to
turn the table and be in control, we need to industrialize so that we are not
dependent on the imports since we can produce our daily needs ourselves. We
should have the “dominant and ever-present will to achieve the enhanced well-
being of the large community, rather than merely one’s own selfish interest”
(Constantino, 1965 p.34). If all Filipinos set aside our differences with the dialects,
social status or whatsoever, I know that we may be able to achieve whatever we
want to achieve.
Being an agricultural country does not only make us dependent on other
countries but it is also one of the reasons or factors of why the Philippines is a poor
country. Another reason is because of foreigners dominating the Philippine
economy. These factors are from our former statesmen who are Claro M. Recto and
former President Ferdinand Marcos. They saw what really was and still is
happening to the Philippines, which was not a hit to the masses since they have seen
their arguments negatively. This is visible in the Marcos regime wherein most
Filipinos thought that he was corrupt, while in fact in his time, we are rich as a
country then. I also believed that I would not ever want to experience the Marcos
regime since all there was violence and corruption, which I now understand that it
is not true. At this point, I admire the leadership of former President Marcos, and I
even hope to have someone just like him in position because I know that with the
hands of nationalists, there is a great room for change and improvement for the
betterment of the country.
I used to think that corruption is the cause of poverty, but from what I have
learned in class of Dr. Hila and from the readings, it is just the effect of poverty.
Having a poor country where our social structure is “marked by an extreme
disparity in income distribution, with wealth concentrated in the hands of a thin
elite” (Laurel, 1969 p.4), causes a lot of people to do crimes including theft, robbery,
kidnapping and even killing for the sake of having money. But those are not the only
effects of poverty, as I have mentioned, corruption is also an effect. I have always
heard from my professors in DLSU that anywhere in the planet, there are corrupt
government officials or a corrupt government but our country is severely affected
not because our government is worse but because our country is poor to begin with.
With having an agricultural economy, as stated by the UN, “for the greatest efforts
gives the least returns to the workers” (Constantino, 1965 p.43), which means that
we give more and we receive less and that we are allowing subsidizing foreign labor
at the expense of local labor. There is really no agricultural nation that is rich
because industrialization is where there are high returns. We are only the
agricultural adjuncts of the industrial economies, which is much beneficial for them
than for us because even if we export numerous goods or raw materials, the amount
that we pay for our imports of their finished products are much greater. In solving
the problems of underproduction, poverty and unemployment, we should have
economic nationalism or a systematic and organized pursuit of industrialization
because it would help to increase opportunities for employment, give us higher per
capita income and increased demand for diversified agricultural by-products and
products that our local industries would need (Constantino, 1965).
Industrialism is “a state of culture and manner of producing and consuming
goods of a national society wherein industries and industrial processes
predominate” (Constantino, 1965 p.52). The industrialization that we should have is
not just industrialization but nationalist industrialization, which is industrialization
of the Filipino economy. With having this in every part of the country, not only do
we solve poverty, but we also help Filipino citizens to stay in their own rural areas
because they would not need to look for a job in the urban areas. But this does not
mean that we have to do away with being an agricultural economy because we need
both. As stated in the Joint Resolution No. 2, “The government shall actively plan and
promote the development of the agricultural sector in harmony with the industrial
sector.” In having rich resources, we can industrialize and be agricultural at the
same time so that we would not need to get any raw materials from other countries
and we would produce the needs of the citizens on our own that would emanate
progress in all directions with the type of industrialization that Claro M. Recto
advocates, which is heavy industrialization.
Aside from nationalist industrialization to solve the problem of poverty, we
should also have nationalist entrepreneurship wherein we assert our independence
removing the foreigners to dominate the Philippine economy. Currently, alien or
foreign-owned industries are dominating our land and because of this, much of the
wealth created would have to leave the country. It is not their fault that what they
are doing causes our country poverty because Filipinos allowed it to happen. It is
rational to think that foreigners have their own economic welfare to think and
protect and considering that national interest is supreme, we should not expect that
they are thinking of our benefits or we are their primary concern because it is not in
the nature of things. It is important to keep in mind that, aliens or foreigners who go
to any country for conquest or business do not do so to serve the interest of their
host-nation, but rather, they go because they see that they can gain resources or any
advantage from their host-nation. That is why our “common patrimony must always
be defended and safeguarded with all the care, awareness, dedication and vigilance”
(Constantino, 1965 p.36), which I do not think that we have done well. Most
Filipinos grew up thinking that we need foreigners for our country’s success as what
our presidents always do, which is ask other countries to invest in our country. Even
what we are taught in school only pertains of having our people’s desire for political
liberty and not inculcating ideas of economic independence on America. Filipinos
are conditioned to become avid and insatiable consumers of Western finished
products that is why local producers or entrepreneurs are discouraged to create
quality products that is equally or even better than of the foreigners because of our
colonial mentality and also because the government does not protect the Filipino
entrepreneurs and local products well.
There is also a need for economic planning, which should be the
government’s special concern, because if we let things to continue drifting, it is
possible that we will soon fall prey to communism. Communism shall be fought not
on legal and parliamentary stage but economically. We need government initiative
and intervention in the form of aids and incentives that would provide employment
and bring economic security and welfare for all the people. But as a democratic
country, we do not want any government intervention since we only see the
negative extreme of it. We should see how systematized and better it would be
when the government plans and intervenes for our economy, which is the term of
socialism for others. Its philosophy is what to do with the economy not for the
government leaders’ sake but for all the citizens. We are blinded by laissez faire
capitalism because there is no government control and intervention and there is
free economy. But the people do not see that without government planning, there
would be scarce resources since capitalists only assume that there is no resource
exhaustion because the only thing in mind is to produce more for more profit. An
essential ingredient of effective planning is the controlled and purposeful use of
scarce resources, and we may be able to do this by protection through tariff, import
and exchange restrictions as instruments of savings and development. Surtax should
also be imposed on foreign brands. With the protection against foreign imports, the
Filipino entrepreneurs are assured to have control over the domestic market. The
government may also give incentives to Filipino entrepreneurs through extension of
financial support. The aid of the government for the success of the Filipinos are
really important because there is no one else to help them but their own citizens.
But this is easier said than done because many nationalists have tried to reform the
government but failed to do so. The help and support of all the people are needed
and in the process of industrialization, there should be a joint responsibility
between the government and the private enterprise.
An economic policy must respond to basic economic problems such as the
kind of economy that we must have and the proper approach to foreign investments
and financing (Constantino, 1965). From the speech of Jose B. Laurel, Jr. on the floor
of the House of Representatives on May 15, 1969, to have social justice and
economic freedom, they created the Joint Resolution No. 2 that declares that the
paramount objectives of the economic policy should be “basic and integrated
industrialization, maximum employment, the promotion of technology and the
growth of per capita real income”. The Resolution also proposes an effective
government development institution that will vigorously push through a program of
industrial pioneering. As said by Manuel L. Quezon, "I would rather have a country
run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans, because
however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it." This is a
good quote to live by, but the only problem is that, there are other leaders who do
not even bother to look at how we are being manipulated for the benefit of the
Americans. One good example is the creation and implementation of the “Parity
Rights” clause under the leadership Manuel Roxas. It is “the first instance in history
where an independent nation has granted to citizens of another rights equal to
those who enjoyed by its own citizens” (Constantino, 1965 p.54). However we look
at it, Filipinos are the ones who are disadvantaged because it only opens the door to
foreign investments that only causes more harm than good. There is no nation in
their right minds to give equal rights to people who are not citizens of their country,
but because of our fear of untying ourselves from Mother America’s economic
apron-strings, we submit to it. We also do not see that America prevents the
Filipinos from developing more profitable trade relations with other countries
where we can have greater opportunities.
What we can do now to prevent more foreign industries to come and take
over is prefer foreign loans rather than foreign investments because when we
borrow money from abroad, the Filipinos become the capitalists and the profits that
will be gained would be well above the interests that will have to be paid. If we favor
foreign investments, surely there would be jobs for Filipinos, but the income of the
alien company would not be within and for the Philippines. We need to live by the
slogan of every true Filipino, which is “Filipino First” where we can enjoy political
and economic independence and get away with foreign pressure. The “Filipino First
policy, by Carlos P. Garcia, is not aimed at discriminating among aliens, but solely at
safeguarding Filipino interests” (Constantino, 1965 p.62). We should not allow the
slogan to be “Philippines First” because it would only grant concessions and
privileges to alien residents since they have rights equal to us. We should look at the
livelihood of the Filipinos and not just focus on being rich on paper. We should stand
against any form of dominance to have real independence, which can solve poverty
of the Philippines.
The last proposal or solution to solve poverty in the country is to have
democratization of wealth or social justice where the undue concentration of wealth
in the hands of a few, which among the few are aliens, will be eliminated. Social
justice, according to Jose Laurel, Sr., is “the humanization of the laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational
and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated” (Laurel, 1969
p.11). It is promotion of the welfare of all the citizens. We should strive at a
consensus where there is a win-win situation causing the Filipinos to have an
equitable distribution of wealth and income. The key for this to be successful is the
development of a large middle class to prevent the domination of the economy by
big businesses creating undue accumulation of landed wealth. “Nationalist austerity
should become a status symbol” (Constantino, 1995 p.105). It means that we should
have a strict economy.
The country needs nationalist leaders who can make all these happen with
having all the Filipinos to back them up, especially the masses. We should always
keep in mind that “foreign capital is necessary to assist in the country’s
development, but it should never be permitted to dominate the economy” and we
should also have “Filipino control over financial institutions as well as the
distributive trade and strategic industries” (Laurel, 1969 p.15). The strategic and
lucrative sectors should be in the hands of the nationals because when the firms of
the non-residents remit substantial portions of their earnings and avail themselves
of local funds, they deprive Filipino entrepreneurs of credit opportunities and create
a leak in the savings mechanism. We should also have a foreign policy since it is a
fundamental instrument of economic development. Credit and banking must be
Filipinized and foreign trade must be paced in the hands of the Filipinos. This does
not mean that we would not anymore collaborate with other countries because
globalization is everywhere and if we want to be part of the healthy competition
between nations, we should start collaborating with our fellow Asians so that we
can “maximize our trading options, avail ourselves of the cheapest sources of
imports, and stimulate external demand for our exports” to increase the income and
improve the living standards especially for the Filipino masses (Laurel, 1969 p.17).
The masses are the “biggest gainers in any struggle to liquidate the country’s
neocolonial status” (Constantino, 1995 p.90).
What we need are people-oriented policies where leaders do not serve own
narrow personal ends but respond to pressure and think of the well being of the
citizens. The support of everyone is needed and we can be able to do this if there is
unity in diversity, which can be achieved only through constant dialogue. It is a new
type of democracy where people will have effective participation. We should be
Filipinos who are united and aware of the dire consequences of foreign economic
domination. Every Filipinos should also have a concrete vision of real independence
and we should remove our subservient attitude to the imperialist power. We need
“a strong mass nationalist movement determined to end the dominance of
imperialism that will make possible the conscious selection of an alternative path of
development” (Constantino, 1995 p.102). If Filipino businessmen become an
impediment to social change, they would be regarded as enemies of the people.
“Patriotic Filipino capitalists cannot assert themselves against international big
business without the support of a strong and dynamic anti-imperialist movement
built on real mass participation” (Constantino, 1995 p.95). Just like economic
independence, where Filipinos control the economy, it is also the general objective
of the nationalist alternative, which we should support.
According to Alejandro Lichauco, in “Hunger, Corruption and Betrayal”, the
Philippines has already ceased to be an agricultural economy but what we are now
are low-tech, low-wage service economy, which is far worse than being an
agricultural economy. There is indeed a great need for change and we may be able
to do this by following the proposals of the nationalists, which are discussed in this
paper. These proposals are: industrialize, nationalist entrepreneurship, planned
economy and democratization of wealth. Just like Marcos and Recto, we should
remove Free Trade and we should get rid of our colonial mentality and the
dependence on foreigners. With regards to the way Filipino thinks of imported
products, I know that it will not be easy to remove that kind of thinking immediately
but little by little, we can do it by supporting our local products. There is a need for
mercantilism or protectionism so that Filipino entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
put up businesses that would help the country and themselves. Resources should be
given back to the Philippines for the benefit of the Filipinos. I believe that
nationalism is really what we need to not only solve poverty but also uplift our
economic situation from being a 3rd world country into hopefully and probably a 1st
world country.
As of now, what I can do as a Filipino citizen is to vote, in the next year’s
election, a nationalist leader who would hopefully help change the situation that we
are in now. I know that my single vote would be a great part of what could happen
in the years to come and I would not just stop there, I would try to share what I
know to everyone I know and ask them to share them to. Even little things can make
big things happen and with the information and knowledge that we had because of
the course, I know that being informed would create a big change like it did for me.
Reference:
Constantino, R. (1995). The nationalist alternative. Quezon City: Foundation for
Nationalist Studies.
Constantino, R. (1965). Recto Reader: Excerpts from the Speeches of Claro M. Recto.
ISBN B0006E72Z6.
Laurel, J.B. (1969). Magna carta of social justice and economic freedom. House of
Congress.
Lichauco, A. (1988). Nationalist Economics: History, Theory, and Practice. Quezon
City: Institute for Rural Industrialization.
Lichauco, A. (2005). Hunger, poverty and betrayal. Citizen’s Committee on the
National Crisis (CNCC).