Digression. (vi). To turn away from the main subject geing talked or written about and consider something else, especially for just a short time.

	Past entries Sense of country Late for School Shyness is Golden What half a century can do Anything Less Than Mad Love Is A Waste Of Your Time Enough impeachment already! The cat that loved chicharon The cuisine that's a blur The Sword Over Our Heads Update : I've been had! The Hunger Site and The Rainforest Site Save the Jai-alai building! Why I Love Black The art of doing nothing Mental colony My response Hate mail

IMPORTANT:
If you've come here to read the anti-Filipino chain e-mail,
please be informed that it turns out to be a hoax!
For more info, vist this site: Philippine Urban Legend Archive.

   

13 August 2001

Escape hatches

by Conrado de Quiros
"There's the Rub", Philippine Daily Inquirer
20 July 2001

A foreigner asked me recently how it was possible that the elite of this country could not see that it would be in their interest to part with at least some of their wealth to ease the gap between the rich and the poor. Surely, he said, they must realize the chasm between rich and poor in this country is awesome, which is the one thing that is roiling the magma in the social volcano, and constantly pushing it up its throat. Threatening to spit it out anytime.

I said I could think of three reasons why the elite could not care less about the gap between rich and poor, and why they would find it unthinkable to part with even an iota of their wealth to prevent the social volcano from exploding.

The first is that it is never easy for people who are used to privelege to see what lies out there. Privelege is a formidable insulator. It is not easy to smell the smog or the stench of the pavement when you are sailing by potholed roads in an air-conditioned Mercedes-Benz. You know there's a rotten world out there, but you have no sense impressions to go with that abstract concept. The poor are not easy to see for most of us, even if they are all around us. It is even less for the priveleged few.

Looking back, it seems almost impossible to believe how France's aristocratic class could not see an impending revolution in 1789. And France's condition at that time, incredibly enough, is not unlike the one we have in the country right now. The same spectacular divide between rich and poor is there, not least in Metro Manila. Somebody told me recently the population here can now reach up to 15 million, half of whom are squatters: that is a veritable powder keg. That spectacular divide is characterized by a wasteful few that enjoy the most unbelievable priveleges -- you read about them in society pages -- and a teeming poor that endure even more unbelievable deteriorations -- you see it in Payatas.

Why did France's artistocratic few refuse to part with some of their jewels, lands and presumed God-given rights to save themselves? Because they knew no better. Enlightened self-interest is the hardest thing to see -- it is often a contradiction in terms. The result in the case of Marie Antoinette et al. of course being that they parted with their heads instead, courtesy of M. Guillotine's famous invetion.

The same is true on a global scale today. The same spectacular divide exists between a privelege few, which are the North countries, and deprived many, which are the South countries. You have one-fourth of the earth's population using up three-fourths of the world's wealth, you know you have a problem. That is a veritable powder keg. Yet none of the American and European banks can think to condone some of the loans they gave out to the poorest of the poor. Famous personalities have joined the campaign for debt condonation, like Muhammad Ali and Sting, but so far, nothing. The repayment of those loans won't make the banks richer -- they've more than gotten back their money in interest payments -- but they won't let go. And yet they feel free to lecture others on the virtues of enlightened self-interest.

The second reason is more unique to the Philippines, which is that the Filipino elite, quite unlike their Asian counterparts, feel no great stake in their country. Other Asian elites invest in their country and resolve to make the economy grow because that is the country they want to live in. Not so our elite. Their children study abroad and work abroad. They themselves buy houses abroad, invest abroad, and put their savings abroad. Notably in San Francisco, where they left their hearts in, or in other parts of the East and West Coast. It is not that they do not want to invest here, it is that they do not want to invest in the country's future. They are ready to pull out anytime, having prepared for a life abroad, when things get rough.

You have an attitude like that, you will not wish to part with an iota of your wealth to defuse an impending explosion. On the contrary, you will want to hang on to every iota of your wealth, the better for you to start anew elsewhere. Though probably exaggerated, our situation is not unlike that of Cuba before Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra drove the Cuban elite to Miami. At least in the sense of having a carpet-bagging and frivolous elite, with their huge suitcases all packed up and waiting to be delivered to the airport, at the first sign of gunfire. The country is not a permanent home, it is a temporary inconvenience. The only difference in this comparison being that the possibility of a Castro or a Guevarra taking over the country has become a most unlikely one. But "EDSA III" and its ensuing riots are writing on the wall.

There is one last reason why the elite would not think to part with their wealth to prevent an explosion of the social volcano, though it is probably a derivative one. It is the belief that you can always "enlarge the pie," which is the hallmark of the International Monetary Fund-World Bank prescriptions and the cornerstone of the philosophy of what passes for "globalization" today. I say what passes because it is globalization that compels capital and goods to freely cross borders but not people: immigration laws remain formidable barriers to labor movement. But that is another story. You are blinded by privelege and have an escape hatch abroad, it is so easy to beguile yourself into believing the pie can always be enlarged, which precludes the need for distributive justice. You get a philosophical justification for what you want to do in the first place, which is to hoard.

What makes the philosophy curious is that the pie is never sufficiently enlarged. During good times, the poor stand last in the waiting line. The workers who are asking for higher wages and the farmers who are asking for cheaper inputs are told to wait because the pie is still too small to be cut up. During bad times, the poor stand first in belt-tightening or austerity measures. That is so because to make the rich sacrifice as well would presumably be to close down factories and make people jobless. So when will the poor get their due? Only God and government know. And God has been known to don the robes of the elite in this country.

Mayon has been spewing violently over the last 10 years, which has pretty much wrecked its perfect cone. I don't know that the state of our Nature isn't telling us something about the state of our Society.

Questions, comments, violent reactions?