By Dr. Dencio S. Acop (Ret. Colonel)
(Keynote Speech delivered on the occasion of Founder’s Day, West Point Society of the Philippines on March 21, 2009 at the Philippine Army Officers’ Clubhouse, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City)
Much of what I am today and what I have done I owe to West Point. It is difficult to imagine what it would have been like to go through life — done the things I did and made the decisions I have – without the well-rounded education and training – the lofty academic and physical standards – and the idealistic and uncompromising moral and spiritual values – that West Point imbibed into my being. And the funny thing is: I never asked for it! Despite having been selected through a rigorous process, I still feel to this day that I am an accidental West Pointer! I once saw a picturesque book on West Point before applying for the PMA but never did I dream about being in that picture! My only dream then was becoming a PMA cadet. And during my growing up days in Baguio, who wouldn’t? Just seeing those snappy cadets in their impressive dress grays strutting around Session Road, made me want to be counted among them. Especially since the young ladies around always seemed to be among those impressed!
There is something about West Point that makes a grad relate to his alma mater more when already behind it than while still in it. The feeling I describe is like those bus trips we took out to spend leave time away from our rock-bound highland home. Somehow during such trips, you’d find the cadets so elated and eager — very spirited and eloquent when speaking about their academy to friends and total strangers alike. But just the opposite on the bus back to the academy – the entire bus is suddenly silent with passenger-cadets slumbering off on somnolent detachment depressed when only a few days earlier, they were proud cadets out to conquer the outside world. How many times have I seen this while riding from Port Authority on through Thayer Gate only to find more cadets rush off to their rooms upon disembarking for more somnolent detachment. No matter that a paper is due the next day! An all-nighter later would readily take care of that aided by frequent visits to the basement vendo for cans of Coke or the company dayroom for cups of coffee.
My pride in my alma mater only managed to grow soon as I started serving in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It did not take too long for me to realize what great responsibility came along with being a West Pointer. Duty-Honor-Country were no longer just a motto but a way of life to be lived daily. In leading men through harm’s way, there was no way for an officer’s character to not become transparent at least to the men he leads and the civilians impacted by his unit’s actions or inactions. It is never easy for a West Point graduate. From day one, I felt the inherent duty to live up to very high ideals and standards. I always felt that if I did not, then I was failing my mission and letting down my superiors, my subordinates, and myself.
If I had been naïve and innocent as a 2nd Lieutenant reporting for duty in mid-1983 fresh from West Point, I quickly outgrew my innocence in the months and years that followed. The communist insurgency we fought and continue to fight in the Philippines is unlike anything that military doctrine, contemporary or traditional, has ready answers for. In fact, the problem is not even primarily military but political, economic, and socio-cultural in nature. Essentially, the problem’s resolution (end-state), including its methodology (ways) and needed resources (means) must be holistic. Profoundly understanding the problem leads one to conclude that the insurgency is a symptom rather than the disease. Still, the soldier finds himself at the center of the conflict when it erupts and is therefore forced to respond with all the resources at his disposal, however limited. In short, the soldier when in the zone is not merely a soldier but a citizen, a governance agent, a bureaucrat, and even a spiritual surrogate. Nevertheless, a soldier’s power in the field can be robust especially if competently led and guided by the right values.
Understanding the insurgency problem is an entire course in public administration. But it is essential to anyone involved in the business of governance and public service especially soldiers and policemen who comprise the sole coercive power of the state although they by themselves are not the sole answer to this multidimensional problem.
Insurgencies will persist anywhere where there is gross disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in society. And in many developing states, this gap is wide and even widening. In today’s context of a very serious global recession not seen in decades, this gap is even more threatening. The national aim therefore of a developing government is to close this gap the soonest it can until a primarily egalitarian society is attained wherein the national wealth is spread among the majority, social equity abides, and abundant quality of life renders the insurgency moot and academic. This end-state may seem like a utopian dream at the moment but it is not unattainable. Public servants, of all people, share this dream since they are perennial optimists.
If the end-state is utopia, the ways and means to this end are certainly not. Although small in number relative to the general population, the national elites control much of the economy of the state. Being in control of the economy has also privileged the elites to dominate politics. Thus, political dynasties are commonplace and well-entrenched. To some extent, colonial history accounts for this whose existence has now reached the 21st century. And the masses? Like it or not, Philippine society has produced an informal and benign “caste system” composed of the majority in the lower economic classes who are a force to reckon with in their number but who are empowered and united only in so far as their patrons allow. For me, it boggles the mind to witness our collective actions toward assertions of democratic space that tend to portray an egalitarian society which clearly, we are not, at least to this day. Our little brothers and sisters are blessed with quantity but not quality of the kind for instance that allows them to discern whom to allow to lead them to the promised land.
What are some of the things that unregulated capitalism does? A non-level playing field allows big businesses to continually get even bigger at the expense of small competitors and entrepreneurs who may not even get a chance to participate at all. The concentration of too much resources in too few hands does not spread the sunshine thereby working to the detriment of many aspiring workers and livelihood earners. Economic bystanders cannot go on much longer the way they are especially with mouths to feed and may eventually join the ranks of criminals and insurgents. We have seen this happen often enough while still in the service.
What about political dynasties? Not all dynasties are bad per se. There are those who effectively deliver public goods and services to their constituents with no or minimal irregularities raised by anyone. As in economics, the concern that is worrisome with political dynasties is the tendency to concentrate political power in just a few who may not truly represent the majority of the population (who are unlike them). Whether in congress or the executive branch, public policy formulation and implementation are profoundly affected by the values of those in power. Negative bureaucratic behavior like graft and corruption also has a tendency to be exacerbated in a climate of competing public and private interests wherein personal stakes are robust. In a developing environment characterized by scarce resources spread out over numerous competing public needs, this is significant because in essence, the common good may not be served in these situations.
There is also the very critical issue of taxes. The issue is critical because without taxes, there would be no government. And without government, there would be no policy-maker and implementor working for the interests of the citizenry especially the marginalized sectors. Taxes comprise the working capital for the various sectors. The more taxes are paid by taxpayers, the more resources there are to be spent for public health, education, social welfare, infrastructure, labor, agriculture, trade and industry, justice, defense, foreign affairs, local governance, science and technology, energy, etc. The problem with our taxation is the existence of certain realities which have practically rendered taxes operating at only around 50% effectiveness. What accounts for this are our automatic external debt appropriations (roughly 40% of the national budget), below target tax collection efficiency (especially income taxes), and some negative bureaucratic behavior (graft and corruption). Even tax-revenue generating measures like the e-vat have only managed to impose regressive tax burdens on ordinary consumption just to make up for the shortfall from progressive income taxes. As we all know, thirty-two percent of all our earnings go to taxes. I am not complaining and in fact cite this as proof that we in the private sector are still in the business of public service.
Graft and corruption breed insurgencies. In an article published five days ago, the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation found the Philippines below the world average due to “pervasive corruption, a weak judicial system, restricted foreign investment, and a limited regulatory environment”. More than the scarce public resources that are misused, graft and corruption undermine public policy formulation and implementation leaving those extremely marginalized open to rebellion. And as we have seen, rebels can come from without as well as within.
What do we do therefore with a problem like the insurgency? First, the insurgency problem cannot be resolved by the year 2010. Second, a predominantly hawkish approach to the problem is not only myopic but has a tendency to exacerbate the problem by alienating people whose hearts and minds we are desperately trying to win. Third, the coercive powers of the state (right hand) which address the acute symptoms of the disease must be subordinated to national developmental programs (left hand) designed to resolve the chronic nature of the illness. The multidimensional nature of the insurgency necessitates the holistic approach of developmental strategists more than the resolute but unidimensional problem-solving techniques of managers of violence. Fourth, there is no more effective way to end an insurgency than to address its root causes and not merely its symptoms. There is more to be gained in correcting the centuries-old dysfunctions in Philippine society described earlier than from unleashing combat power on rebelling citizens whose cause is not beyond reason. The mere fact that we are still talking to the enemy supports this. Finally, the government itself must re-evaluate its position to make sure that it is not fueling the insurgency by its own actions or inactions. It is precisely the role of government to intervene as policy-maker, regulator, provider, or re-distributor to advance the common good. But this must not be abused. Government’s credibility has a tipping point beyond which policy action loses all effectiveness. When this occurs, government finds itself becoming more repressive just to implement policy. But in doing so, it alienates itself from affected policy stakeholders in particular and the population in general.
I read the interesting speech of the defense secretary during the graduation of PMA class 2009 wherein he challenged the newly-commissioned officers to practice the cadet honor code even beyond the academy barracks. Then I also read the succeeding article by Cavalier Ramon Farolan wherein he lamented the gap between that graduation speech and present-day reality. In essence, the rebuttal seemed to point out the irony that if the new officers “do not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do”, they could end up being sanctioned like those currently under detention.
There is a growing uneasiness in our internal environment today. There appears to be too much form but not sufficient substance. There is robust adherence to the letter of the law but not enough discernment of the spirit of that law. Those of us who were schooled in the strictest instructions on leadership have a difficult time understanding how value-free leadership can be the order of the day. The principle of leadership by example alone presupposes a moral model committed to replication by moral followers. Cunning has predominated transparency. Gray over black and white. Clearly, a decent society cannot continue to operate in this manner. To do so would only lead to decay. Right is right no matter what and wrong can never be made to appear right. To me, this is still the universal truth that can set us free.
Life is short and must therefore be lived well. It has its ups and downs. I once read an article which talked about how God intervenes in our lives to bring about his desired character in us. That life is not so much about what we do but how we are – how we hold up when subjected to life’s extreme challenges. It is a good thing we went through a lot of “builds character” exercises as cadets at West Point. But seriously, today we live in times that test our character. Sometimes it is no longer enough to simply acquiesce to the dictates of the majority, to merely go with the flow, to play it safe, or just be indifferent – at least even in our own personal lives. Something inside tells us that to do so would be inconsistent with our values; that to do so is having a life not fully and meaningfully lived.
May God continue to bless us all. Thank you for listening!
