While the President is almost single-mindedly focused on the war against illegal drugs, there are other issues that the administration should be working on. These are what we often refer to as “gut” issues.
Latinos call it “politica del estomago,” the gut being the human digestive system, or more precisely, that system through which the human body transfers food to its digestive organs.
There was a time, prior to Martial Law, when the single most defining issue in national elections was the price of rice. In Carlos P. Garcia’s time, it was 80 centavos per ganta (salop in Tagalog), which was a little less than 2 kilos if weighed. This was for the most basic quality of rice, but nonetheless, the good varieties would cost no more than P1.20. Beef was P2 per kilo in the late 50s! (Ah, what one would give for those good times which our mothers waxed about!) And most of the rice was locally produced except for donations from the US of A for calamities and charity, through Public Act 40.
When there was a lack of 80-centavo rice, people howled, and aside from the issue of graft and corruption (which was a political issue since Methuselah I guess), Garcia’s reelection bid was defeated because of rice. “Politica del estomago”—gut issue.
When it was Diosdado P. Macapagal’s time at the bat, the price went up to P1 per ganta, and in 1965, Ferdinand E. Marcos pilloried him at the polls for that. Marcos won over Macapagal, but years later, the system of weights and measures went metric, and so we had rice at P1.20 per kilo, which would have meant P2 per ganta. Ironic.
These days however, with rice imports a cheaper alternative to price stabilization, the “gut” is oft benchmarked on the price of gasoline. The world and the country has progressed (if progress is to be defined in terms of material conveniences) through the years such that aside from the cost of transport being a function of the price of fuel, it also impacts on the price of electricity which households cannot do without. Can you imagine the howl if the masa is unable to watch telenovelas?
Which is why the plan of the Department of Finance to increase the tax on gasoline and derivatives is one “gut” issue that may need some re-calibration.
Everyone is in favor of rationalizing our income-tax structure, making it more “pro-poor,” in keeping with the principle of progressive taxation. Inflation has obviously caught up with our antiquated tax structures, and a redo of the “escalapon” is certainly in order. This space has also batted for the increase of excise taxes on “sin,” add to that sugar-based soft drinks principally to help abate the nation’s epidemic of diabetes.
But a hefty tax increase on gasoline and fuel products can be a hot “gut” issue, and one wonders if the same will pass the House, or the 24 republics in the Senate at that. Compromises may be necessary, or perhaps indexation of the tax to the world market price may be an idea whose time has come. If, as expected, global oil prices remain low over the next five years (not over $60 per barrel) save for a major political upheaval, then the thought that tax increments can be adjusted downwards should prices go northward is a comfort—properly communicated of course.
But since oil is a cartelized commodity, as most major commodities are, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries can always reduce their supply to increase the price, as they have done recently, albeit in cautious market-realistic manner.
“Politica del estomago” is always “the” major determinant of political stability. And there are so many ways to upset the applecart, especially in a country which is hardly abundant in food, or oil, or most anything except population.
The obverse to the price gut issues are providing jobs and increasing incomes. But that is easier said than done, even in an environment where government spending is the major driver of economic activity.
It is not easy to simply increase salaries. For government employees, there is a budgetary constraint to consider. For the private sector, more so, because decreeing wage increases can force marginally-profitable enterprises to simply close shop.
So even the foreign policy decision to attract China by warming up the bilateral relationship and putting territorial issues in the backburner has economic rewards as rationale. For if China decides to fund major infrastructure in the country, jobs will be created and a major constraint to continued growth will be remedied.
If Chinese tourists are enticed by their government to visit, thousands of jobs will be created. This should perk up the economy of the islands.
For China, investment directions are still largely state-decided, unlike other countries, particularly in the West, which are private sector-driven. With China, good political relations could mean good economic benefits for the country. One would just hope that our bureaucracy has the proper absorptive capacity to implement such aid and investments quickly enough to address the public’s “gut” expectations.
Still, for the Duterte administration, finding the right “balance” in foreign policy and directions are critical. In economics, equilibrium is optimum. In politics as much, balance is always the desideratum.
Even if the Western powers are currently not in a position to assist us massively in terms of loans and investments, they can throw monkey wrenches at our economic growth. They can influence the investment ratings agencies and international media, the perceptions generated by which can be damaging to the country.
While it is right for the country to assert its sovereignty and pursue an independent foreign policy, and that has been a long time coming, still must we pursue these while being mindful of the need for balance. Even the friends we have alienated in the last administration, such as China, and to a remote extent, Russia, understands that balance is essential.
Politics after all, whether domestic or international, is the art of the possible and possibilities are always balanced by the needs of the moment in pursuit of the larger goals.
