JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES, perhaps the greatest economist of the 20th century, gave the government a highly expanded role in the political economy of capitalism, where, before, it had little beyond the promotion, protection and regulation of profit-making.
Initially addressed to mature industrial economies, Keynesian economics can also be applied to underdeveloped economies, as, indeed, it has been. Keynesian economics, in its simplest form, says the government must create or increase demand for goods and services, so that the productive sector will respond by increasing the supply. By doing this over time, the government will not only rouse productive impulses in the economy, but also strengthen them for long-term growth and transformation.
The government can perform this role by increasing its budgetary expenditure on what we now call infrastructural and suprastructural facilities, even to the point of creating a deficit in the budget.
The adoption of Keynesian economics in developing countries created and opened up tremendous spaces for all sorts of people to aspire for public service. But, now, there is a fly in the ointment. The people, after being given the opportunity to help execute this enlarged role of the government in economic affairs, seem bent on proving that they are unworthy of it. The higher one goes up the totem pole, the deeper the ignorance of this critical role of the government. Here, government officials enjoy the privileges of high office without knowing the obligations attached to them.
Unpardonable as this ignorance is, it is just dust in the balance when compared to what apparently preoccupies their minds 24 hours a day, seven days a week: the plundering of billions upon billions of the people’s money to gratify their greed. Whatever it does to their grotesque character, this leaves the government with that much less resources to carry out its developmental function. As a consequence, development is slowed down, if not halted altogether.
This is what is happening in the Philippines. Members of the civil service, as far as can be judged from the records, remain loyal to their mandate. But it is the duly elected officials and their appointees to high government offices, oddly, who are strongly suspected of being guilty of betraying the government’s role in development.
How do we solve this problem? We can begin by blaming ourselves for electing to high office people who are clearly committed to the pulverization of our fundamental interests. Perhaps, we might also wonder about the soundness of an electoral process that allows every Pedro and Maria to cast his or her vote. Are we justified in expecting a justice system that is continuously badgered and bludgeoned by the powers-that-be to make it subservient to their will to dispense justice? These are difficult questions. We leave them to political scientists and other experts to answer.
Image credits: Jimbo Albano