There is a reason why things are the way they are, i.e. why there is hardly any money in the public coffers for anything beyond our civil servants’ salaries, why our tax effort is so low, why the country has to rely on off-budget loans to fund long term infrastructure requirements. It suits the interests of those who fund political campaigns and their hangers on.

That is why our politicians are concerned little with the business of platforms, policies or budgets. They are more concerned with paying off their patrons (by giving them access to off-budget resources) and being perceived as “pro-poor” (by engaging in ill-targeted subsidies) to maintain social cohesion and political stability.

Any so-called “progressive” attempt at reform by introducing Western style democratic rule of law and property rights system (otherwise known as the governance agenda) will be faced with serious constraints and falter unless it focuses on building limited capacity aimed at providing safety nets to the poor while enabling the productive sectors of society to keep their rents and removing the most destructuve forms of rent capture by non-productive agents.

Unfortunately, corrupt politicians have been more effective in the past at doing this. The whole contention of one camp which MLQ3′s sentiment seems to represent is that an honest person can be just as effective at this while introducing newer and better political and institutional arrangements that improve on previous ones. Let us hope that they are proven right in that regard.

It’s always easier to be a conservative since it really means standing for traditional values (whatever those values may be for a particular society). After all, standing for longtime proven values is what conservatism truly stands for. The problem with it though is when those values no longer work. Hence, the conservative begins to look like a philosopher fiddling with concepts stuck in the clouds never really having a grasp of what is happening on the ground.

As for the progressive, the quintessential reformer, his case can only succeed where conservatism fails. And in cases where reform is no longer sufficient, he is to choose between the path of reforming or revolutionizing. It is really harder to be a progressive but you can always be a conservative while also being a progressive as the case with many people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn3lutcfhCI

Some, though, do know their laws and help foreign corporations buy up distressed USA companies to save the local jobs.

A former senior partner of mine, Noli Santos, once told me that it is more glamorous to be a progressive than a defender of the status quo that’s why he’s been one.

Don’t you think Machiavelli’s perception in the regime of tyrannical princes is a bit anachronistic in the age liberalism?

Yeheeeey, WELCOME 2010!

Bert

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.”

A happy new year to all.

Perhaps it’s true, but only to the simple citizens, like me for example. The bright and the smarts can have no problem adapting to the complexities. While me, I’m groping in the maze simply just trying to re-acquire a lost ID. heheh.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, mlq3! HAPPY NEW YEAR to all!

Bert