Economic development as a presidential platform

The cliché derogatory line about the importance of the economy to political realities and to fiscal governance was once eloquently encompassed in the single, rather crude declaration, “It’s the economy, stupid!” The term, uncouth and rather degrading to those it is addressed, those being a government official on one end, and the public on the other, in a good number of instances, simply declares that one of the most significant factors or measures of political governance is a well-functioning, productive, equitable and growth-inclusive economy.

Setting aside all other aspects or measures of political governance, the cliché declares that it is the economy that counts. While those who probably find economics, or even capitalism, a bane, such declaration might, indeed, be doubly insulting if not brazenly materialistic.

Allow us to simply define our terms.

In its lowest common sense, well-functioning can simply mean coordinated. For instance, investment incentives attract foreign direct investments (FDI) and taxation bureaucracies are cognizant of granting FDI such seeing that there is a bigger picture involved. Picture, for instance, the Cabinet of President Benigno Aquino III. Productive can simply mean that there is growth in gross domestic productivity (GDP) from one period to the next. Equitability can simply refer to the classic economic Gini Index, where the gap between the rich and the poor are measured. And finally, inclusive economic growth can simply mean that the benefits of positive results in each and all of the previous measures redound to all, and not merely to an exclusive economic clique.

There seems to be a great disconnect. If, as the derogatory declaration states, the economy should be one of our most critical benchmarks, then, as if to debunk the paradigm, economic governance does not seem to be one of the top priorities that the greater Filipino voting public seeks in a president who will be helming the economy for the next six years.

The criteria they often come up with are rather simple, if not downright simplistic, especially where the constituencies from the D all the way up to the lower B markets are concerned. Net out the academics and the voters with college degrees. Count only those who comprise the greater part of the societal pyramid. Simply look at the leading choices in the pre-election polls and the question of economic governance does not seem to be a criterion at this early stage of the electoral games.

The voting public goes by stereotyped models and abbreviated measures when it comes to selecting their leaders. Using that as a starting point, let us simply look at the shortlist for the presidency simply to prove that economic governance is not a priority in the greater public’s choice.

From the laggards and tail-enders, we have at least two. One is a mayor from the south whose supporters spin and brand as the Philippine Lee Kwan Yew in an effort to cleanse a prevalent image of a ruffian with no economic competence whatsoever. For most of the public, however, he is nothing but a brash bullying Wyatt Earp whose upside is that he has durian-sized balls where the ruling party’s bets have tiny garbanzos. The other is a pathetic ill-tempered egocentric born loser with nothing to show for competent economic governance.

The frontrunners are our best hopes, if it is economic development we seek. Unfortunately, only one has shown any kind of economic competence. One is a professional movie critic whose popularity stems from a halo inherited from an iconic parent. Both father and daughter are not known for any kind of relevant competence, save for the fact that both are loved for their perceived kindness. The other is a seasoned official whose upsides are based on the exemplary social and economic growth of an urban municipality he shepherded into the millennium.

Discern these choices. If economic development is to be a critical issue, then res ipsa loquitur.