DURING this election season, it would be political suicide for anyone running for office to speak out against the government’s P62-billion dole program, which gives poor families a monthly stipend if they keep their children in school.
A poll in February showed that despite criticism that the dole promotes political patronage and mendicancy, eight of 10 people said they would probably vote for a candidate who supported the CCT, also known as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps. Only nine percent said they would probably not vote for such a candidate.
With figures like these, it is no surprise that not a single presidential candidate has spoken out against the many flaws of the dole program.
First, the program creates no jobs. In fact, because beneficiaries must be “the poorest of the poor,” one must be jobless to qualify for the dole.
Because of this, the CCT encourages a culture of dependence and mendicancy—and reinforces the counterproductive desire for easy money. Would it not be wiser to spend the billions allotted to the CCT to create a jobs program that would enable the poor to become productive members of society instead of a drain on our limited resources and a burden to those among us who pay taxes?
Third, the program is open to abuse at so many levels, from the national government to local leaders. In its 2015 report, for example, the Commission on Audit found that as much as P1.6 billion never reached their intended beneficiaries, and that the Social Welfare Department’s lists of beneficiaries were “riddled with inaccuracies.”
It is a capital idea to encourage poor families to keep their children in school, but throwing money at them may not be the best way of achieving this goal. In fact, we have no idea what the poor families do with their stipends. How much of the money goes to basic necessities and how much of it is squandered on liquor, gambling and other counterproductive pursuits?
But the most germane concern about the CCT in an election year is that the program gives the party in power a massive campaign fund, enabling it to dangle stipends in front of poor voters who will suddenly see the wisdom of voting for the administration candidate.
Indeed, while poll officials say they are worried about the run-of-the-mill vote buying that normally mars our elections, they seem oblivious to the biggest vote buyer in town—the government itself, which is openly using the CCT to bribe voters into giving them six more years.
While it may be politically risky for a candidate to raise these issues so close to an election, an honest leader should address these flaws as soon as he—or she—is voted into office.
