Looks like the Philippines, despite itself, has survived the election without excessive violence, major civil unrest, or untoward People Power eruptions. GMA finally has that elusive electoral mandate, and the air of uncertainty that pervaded Manila in the weeks leading up to the election has given way to (for some) an air of cautious optimism or (for others) resignation that nothing ever changes much in the Philippines and that the strong leadership and fundamental changes needed to save the country are long shots.

Since I've been lax in generating fresh "state of the Philippines" assessments lately, thought I'd throw together a Sunday morning free association about current events. Not meant to be comprehensive, my methodology has been simply to browse through the local rags and free associate a bit. With that caveat out of the way…

One story getting lots of ink involves the raging debate about a recently introduced House bill (the Reproductive Health Care Act of 2004). The bill is being roundly lambasted for supporting a "two child per family" policy, although that's only one of several components and there is none of the coercion of the Chinese model. Instead, the bill encourages smaller family size via positive incentives. But - surprise, surprise - the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has taken an aggressive stance against the bill while the Arroyo administration keeps its distance. The Church backed GMA at EDSA Dos, and as a devout Catholic she has hewed closely to the Vatican line.

Realistically, the chances of the Reproductive Health Act making it into law are snowball-in-hell like.

Which, IMHO, is a bad thing for this country.

I have written elsewhere about Poverty in the Philippines and its relationship to overpopulation. The sad facts speak for themselves:

• Over 13 million people reside in Metro Manila in 636 square kilometers, almost 16,000 bodies per square kilometer. Although UNPD ranks Metro Manila as only the 19th most dense mega-city, it's plenty dense enough for this country boy.
• According to the United Nations Population Fund, even if the projected annual growth rate of 4.5-5% is achieved, it won't be enough to improve quality of life as long as the 2.36% annual population growth rate persists, guaranteeing a doubling of the population in about 30 years.
• The near-total lack of opportunities in rural areas continues to drive migrants to urban slum areas, further building up the lava in the The Social Volcano that will, one of these days and as surely as the sun rolls around heaven, explode.
• Kids in many Manila public school classrooms experience 60:1 student-teacher ratios, lack desks, and have to share textbooks. Poor kids have to make do with one pencil and five sheets paper for a term. The situation is much worse down in the poor areas of Mindanao.

Such demographic trends are like freight trains, requiring concerted braking and a bit of time to slow down.

At a conference in Makati last week, Tabac (AKA Fidel V. Ramos/FVR, President from 1992-1998, and still the only Philippine President who has stood up to the Church and aggressively implemented a population management program), spoke in defense of the House bill. Under FVR's watch, the country enjoyed the most sustained economic growth since independence. That progress was largely attributable to Ramos' liberal trade and investment policies (see Globalization, Part 1), in conjunction with rapid economic growth throughout Asia, relative political calm, and a relatively healthy fiscal position. During the FVR years, reproductive health/family planning programs became more widely accepted, while the percentage of people living below the poverty line (from 1991 to 1997) fell from 45% to 37%. Major progress in historical context.

But now the country is in a downward spiral and, not to put too fine a point on it, things look likely to get worse. Historically, USAID has provided free commodities (pills and condoms), but that type of assistance is being phased out. Needless to say, don't hold your breath waiting for the government to step in; Malacañang has made it clear to the Department of Health that there will by golly be no purchasing of pills or condoms under this particular administration. Public health clinics already lack condoms and pills; even if they have stocks, they often fail to make poor people aware of their contraceptive options.

One would think that GMA's training as a professional economist would include the intellectual recognition that overpopulation contributes, both directly and indirectly, to poverty, malnutrition, stunted growth, and overburdened service networks. However, this would not seem to be the case given her recent State of the Nation address (SONA), in which she stated that she would rather focus on the "social and macroeconomic issues that strike at the roots of these challenges." She has also noted that "we stand by responsible parenthood, enlightened birth spacing, and free choice."

In reality, however, choices are significantly constrained when you are dirt poor, lack accurate information, and have little or no access to services. Such measures as the Catholic-endorsed bead necklace that women can use to count the days of the month are ineffectual. Everybody knows that rhythm is an important element of music that white guys like me don't got; they also know that rhythm is not a very effective birth control method no matter how many beads you count.

As a consultant in the Philippines, I have worked with reproductive health/family planning projects ranging from midwife clinics to matching grants programs for municipalities to social marketing projects designed to educate poor people and provide affordable contraceptives. At the core of these efforts are what folks in the trade call "IEC" (information, education, communication) campaigns. The objective is to penetrate the huge fog of misinformation that exists, especially among less literate, poor populations. Right now, about 50 NGOs active in reproductive health/family planning are kicking off a national campaign backing modern methods (i.e., pills, IUDs, condoms, ligation, vasectomy). Let's hope they can make a difference.

There was a huge brouhaha last week over comments made by Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. They were reacting to the administration's rather precipitous decision to withdraw the Philippines' token humanitarian contingent from Iraq a few weeks early after bad guys nabbed Angelo de la Cruz, an OFW (Overseas Foreign Worker) truck driver in Iraq.

Howard's remarks should be seen in the context of his precarious political situation at home. Indeed, his posturing represents an easily understandable attempt to fend off some of the heavy flak he's been taking for so wholeheartedly participating in the Coalition of the Willing. Downer's more explicit comments, which including unloading with both barrels in referring to GMA's "marshmallow" decision, were part of the same ball game.

The Philippine reaction may seem puzzling given the country's long-established reliance on the kindness of strangers. Australia is a major bilateral donor here, funds numerous development projects through AusAID, and contributes to multilateral funds that benefit the Philippines. Combined with the growing importance of Australia as a trading partner, one would think Philippine bureaucrats and politicos would lay low and let such predictable criticism roll off the turtle's back.

But that's what one would get for thinking.

Indeed - and all too predictably - there was a vocal and politically charged reaction to the Ozzie comments. Activists marched on Ayala Avenue near the Australian embassy, which is well-fortified on a mid-level floor in one of Makati's newest, most high tech, and most secure buildings. The authorities deployed the Civil Disturbance Management Group, comprised of about 50 anti-riot troops outnumbering the demonstrators by at least two-to-one. The demonstrators didn't get near the Embassy, but they did manage to do a heck of a job burning the Australian flag for the evening news.

On the officially pissed off front, the Department of Foreign Affairs called in Ambassador Ruth Pearce to give her a piece of their mind; she was appropriately conciliatory, pointing out the long-term nature of the Philippine-Australia relations. There were also the de riguer calls from politicians for Ambassador Pearce to be declared persona non grata and to recall the Philippine Ambassador to Canberra.

Interestingly, there was much less overt Filipino reaction to similar American criticism of GMA's decision. Admittedly, the Yankee comments were couched in more polite diplomatic language, but still… Ambassador Riccardione had been in regular touch with GMA during the hostage crisis and, of course, had urged her to stand firm. Indeed, the American Embassy was taken aback by GMA's quick reversal; the capitulation prompted the Ambassador to make a quick trip back to Washington. Overall, the US tone has been stern in that great quasi-colonial way and actually relatively subdued given that GMA essentially reneged on a well-publicized international commitment, despite the numerous other countries who have stood firm in the face of similar demands.

Anyway, the motivations for the withdrawal decision are obvious. Virtually every Filipino family has one or more members working abroad as part of the farflung diaspora, with OFW remittances contributing about $8 billion to the Philippines' economy each year. Recent spurts in GNP growth to as high as 5.6% were fueled largely by record OFW remittances attributable to anxieties associated with working in places like Riyadh, Qatar, and Tel Aviv (send it all home!) and by the recent start of the school year (see Leaving on a Jet Plane for commentary about what it means to be always heading off to the other side of the world and living in an imagined community). Simply put, GMA saved Angelo de la Cruz's life to protect her political capital and avoid the daunting prospect of yet another People Power uprising in the wake of an OFW beheading.

Looking back over the last fifty years, one can only ask what might have been. The tremendous promise - and demonstrable advantages - of the Philippines in the post-WW II years have been squandered. Poverty has come to be taken for granted, and the country's elites live in a world far removed from the slums of Tondo. Large corporations have developed sophisticated marketing techniques to sell stuff to Class D-E consumers. The telcos sel text cards as cheap as 20 pesos, while consumer goods companies understand and market to the country's rather amazing tingi (piecemeal) system of retail commerce (the corner sari-sari store carries 2 peso packs of cooking oil, 3 peso shampoo, cigarettes by the stick, etc.)

To show how out of touch people can be, consider the government's recent effort to "reduce" poverty by redefining poverty cutoffs and measures. Specifically, certain government agencies applied the same basic indicators to a different reference point (e.g., a family of five rather than the previous definition referring to a family of six). This prestidigitation had the rather marvelous effect - voila! - of lowering the poverty rate from 40% to 28% in one fell swoop.)

Meanwhile, in the real world, the country's fiscal and debt situation continues to worsen. While everybody knows that pump priming is one of the most effective and easiest ways to get an economy moving (remember the New Deal?), the Philippines has relied far too heavily on borrowing for domestic spending. The Philippines is easily the least taxed, yet most heavily indebted, country in the region.

GMA said many good things in her SONA, which was loaded with references to job creation, economic growth, basic needs, good governance and anti-corruption, social justice, education, and energy independence. The population problem, however, was ignored and assumed to be solvable through economic growth. The speech mentioned eight proposed tax bills and prominently featured disciplined fiscal policy, increased revenue collections, and downsized bureaucracies.

Implementation, as usual, is going to be a lot harder than generating rhetoric. How can GMA create jobs through economic growth - her stated goal per the SONA - while keeping the precarious fiscal situation under control - yet in the face of such runaway population growth? The country is running out of time. Is there any way to bring about real, sustainable economic development?

Complex and difficult questions indeed. If I had to boil it down to the crux of the matter, I would zero in on three points (this being very much in the IMHO category).

First, the revenue generation issue has got to be addressed. Government agencies are chronically short of money, facilities are in an advanced state of deterioration, and government functionaries are poorly paid and demoralized. The BIR and Customs remain among the most corrupt agencies in a generally corrupt public sector, although the administration's recent lifestyle checks and arrests of increasingly higher-up officials represent steps in the right direction. But more must be done. If government workers receive a reasonable wage, it will build morale in the ranks and lessen incentives for corruption. If the educational system can be improved, the disturbing deterioriation in English language skills could be reversed. If public health clinics had more funding, they could reach out to poor families whose kids are now dying of malnutrition. Donor money only goes so far, and if other countries can do it, why not the Philippines?

Second - and this one is even more difficult to address - the Philippines has deeply flawed institutions, particularly in the judiciary and legislative branches. The legal system is opaque and corrupt, and represents a major deterrent to international investors. The Senate has become laughable, and the lack of progress on major legislation that is vital for the country's future is astounding and disturbing. Whether Charter Change (cha-cha) is a solution or not is an open question. However, if the governmental paralysis that has characterized the last three years persists, none of GMA's ambitious reforms are likely to succeed.

And third, echoing the first half of this Pearl, the head-in-the-sand approach to the population bomb must be reversed - or the Philippines is in a world of hurt. But where will the political will to address this core issue come from?

You got me.