The first 100 Days

two Cabinet positions have been questioned by different sectors of society. Environmentalists, for one, have questioned his choice of Environment and Natural Resources secretary. Then there was the appointment of a Martial Law era official to the post of National AntiPoverty Commission head.

Apart from pointing out the President’s lapses in protocol, the press has sold copy on its “return- of- Marcos- loyalists” scare. Government’s alleged support — be it simple inaction or explicit endorsement — of Danding Cojuangco’s takeover of San Miguel Corp. and Lucio Tan’s proposed settlement of the Philippine Airlines row were largely viewed in the press as symptomatic of this supposed “return” to crony capitalism.

And it did not help that government, during numerous occasions, issued statements that it withdrew and worse, reversed, afterward. All of which made everyone wonder whether the president was rehearsing or playing the part.

POLITICAL MANAGEMENT

What has hounded the present administration during its first 100 days, say pundits, is the problem of political management.

For his first six months in office, the President laid down at least three priorities: continue the Ramos government’s economic and foreign policies, maintain peace and order, and ensure that the poor would not be left behind in any government decision.

While no one expected him to solve age-old problems like poverty and crime during his first 100 days, the matter of policy continuity seemed more likely with his retention of two Ramos administration officials, Bangko Sentral Governor Gabriel Singson and Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon.

Everyone seems to agree that President Estrada took over the reins of government at a very difficult time in the nation’s life. With the economy in recession, government is faced with tough choices as to how it can assure everyone that the Philippines is not going down the drain, and that it can actually attain positive economic growth by yearend.

With his commitment of economic policy continuity, vocal segments of the business community that had supported presidential candidates other than Estrada, have since given the president a chance to prove himself. Fears as to his populism have been proven wrong so far following his decision to act in quite unpopulist ways.

When Malaysian Prime Minister adopted capital controls to address the financial crisis engulfing the region, for example, businessmen feared President Estrada would resurrect his protectionist line and follow suit. But to their satisfaction, government has brushed off suggestions of capital controls.

In the matter of foreign policy, the President even went beyond the call of duty and endorsed the Visiting Forces Agreement ( VFA), which long-time classmate Siazon negotiated for during the previous administration. But his endorsement of the VFA, which extends criminal jurisdiction to the United States in cases where its military personnel commit crimes on Philippine soil, has earned the ire of an anti-US bases constituency with whom he had worked as a senator several years ago.

Yet, government, according to pundits, could have done more. Apart from civil society’s opposition to certain proposals like the passage of the VFA and the Marcos burial, the President was lucky to have faced little or no opposition, particularly from Lakas-NUCD and other opposition political parties, especially with regard to addressing the economic crisis.

“There has been no opposition. So he could have done a hell of a lot more,” said political analyst Joel Rocamora. “In this situation of great uncertainty in the international economy, one of the key resources is confidence.”

LACKING FOCUS

Given his tough talk during his inaugural speech and state-of-the-nation address, the President was expected to take the bull by the horns. But so far, government apparently has lacked focus.

While recognizing that the present economic crisis was not of Estrada’s doing, Mr. Rocamora said the President meanwhile has not given a clear signal of how government views the crisis and where it intends to go about addressing it. For a successful movie star, the President ironically seems to have communicated to his public quite badly.

“Most of what he’s saying is ‘ hey guys, don’t expect too much from me because the situation is really bad.’ Yet he follows this up with ‘our condition is not as bad as those of our neighbors, so we should just continue the past administration’s policies,’” he explained.

While the first spiel regarding accountability for the crisis is fairly accurate, Mr. Rocamora said the present administration should be blamed for, first, “not showing recognition of how deep the problem is, and second, not initiating public discussion of how to deal with the problem.”

Whatever passed for public discussion, particularly in the press, involved not economics, but the latest presidential blooper.

Until recently, the press has not let up its criticism regarding the president’s lapses in social graces. Part of the criticism, said Mr. Rocamora, has come from opinion- makers who had cast their lot with losing presidential aspirants during last May’s elections.

“Some people have staked their journalistic reputation on the opinion that (Estrada) is not going to win. Since they could not admit that they erred, they are going out of their way to show why (Estrada) should not have won,” he explained.

Nevertheless, Mr. Rocamora said most of the criticism stemmed from differences in political culture.

“Most media practitioners never liked Estrada, and still do not. (This is because) media political culture is rational, reform-oriented, modernizing, Western. So, the press prefer restrained, balanced, well- educated politicians,” he said.

On the other hand, he said the President is “a flamboyant political personality. His penchant for off-the-cuff statements and his preference for radio are consistent with this personality.”

But while the President’s antics have been effective as a campaign strategy in drawing support from the masa, he said the campaign has been over more than three months ago. “President Estrada does not seem to understand that he is no longer mayor of San Juan or a vice-president that nobody paid attention to. He has to find a balance between the political personality that enabled him to become popular with the masa — someone who is spontaneous — and being the president of the country,” said Mr. Rocamora.

Much of the blame for this seeming lack of distinction on the part of the President, he said, lies in the President’s men. “President Estrada’s skills lie in campaigning and wooing the masses. So, what are his men doing?”

He said the President’s men have so far been a source, not of direction, but of confusion.

“Publicly fought-out disagreements among key officials have been even more damaging,” said Mr. Rocamora, citing the tussle between the President’s spokesperson and his legal adviser, and the “more damaging” fight between his former Health secretary and an undersecretary.

While recognizing that some of Estrada’s appointments had clean records, he said some, particularly the Environment and Justice secretaries had questionable past records.

Some of these appointments, not to mention some of his actions — official or otherwise — have bred suspicion that he was inaugurating the return of Marcos loyalists and cronies.

In an analysis he wrote a month ago, Mr. Rocamora downplayed the so-called return of Marcos cronies. He wrote back then that Marcos’s cronies have staged a comeback long before Estrada assumed the presidency. Following the election of Fidel Ramos to the presidency, other members of the elite who in one time or another cast their lot with the late dictator had moved to major centers of power. Among those he cited were former Senate President Edgardo Angara and former Speaker of the House Jose de Venecia.

PAL

But given the way the new administration handled the standoff in Philippine Airlines, Mr. Rocamora is giving the “return-of-Marcos-cronies” issue a second thought.

“He (President Estrada) let himself be used by Lucio Tan to squeeze the workers. It put the workers into a bind,” he said. “As if that was not bad enough, the President seems to favor a strike moratorium proposal coming from the Lower House. What happened to his ‘ para sa mahirap’ stand?”

“It smacks of contempt for the workers,” said Josua Mata, secretary general of the Alliance of Progressive Labor, in reference to the strike moratorium filed at the Lower House.

Mr. Mata said workers, no less than the public, would rather not strike. But in the case of PAL, he said the workers had no choice but to respond to management’s threat of laying off people. So, government is to blame for endorsing the PAL management’s plan.

Segments of the business sector likewise fear a return to crony capitalism, which has been proven inefficient in the past.

“Not many companies would have been allowed to proceed in a lock- out situation and then have a vote. Yet government allowed this to happen in PAL. So, people naturally are worried whether cronies are coming back,” said Bill Luz, secretary general of the Makati Business Club.

He said Filipinos had a terrible experience with crony capitalism, so government should think twice about letting it happen again.

While the business sector did not expect the President to solve all the nation’s problems within his first 100 days, Mr. Luz said it wants to see a decision making process, so “we will understand how we will arrive at a solution.”

The problem with government, he said, is that “we have situations wherein statements made were contradictory to each other. And when that happened, they were due either to a lack of teamwork or analysis. And they happened so often that it is understandable if people are worried.”

He cited government’s decision to drop the hosting of the World Exposition in 2002.

“As of now, no one knows the exact basis of why we are hosting or not hosting the Expo because there has been no comprehensive study made,” he said.

Another source of conflicting signals, say analysts, concerns government’s policy on interest rates.

“There is contradiction in terms of policy bias between the two (i.e., the Bangko Sentral governor and three other economic managers),” said Jude Esguerra, policy analyst at the Institute of Popular Democracy. He identified the other economic managers whose position with regard to interest rates is opposed to that of the BSP governor’s to include the NEDA secretary general, the Budget secretary and the National Treasurer.

For while the BSP governor favors high interest rates to keep investments coming in, Mr. Esguerra said the latter three considered lowering interest rates “a crucial policy if the long-term goal is to bring interest rates below world rates.”

“In part, that is your way of preventing those investors who come over only because interest rates are high. Short of capital controls, that is your way of making the investors who come here to want to look at production in the long-term,” he explained.

Until now, Mr. Esguerra said this “policy tension” remains, and is contributing to business uncertainty. So for him, President Estrada’s first 100 days has been marked by “continuity at its worst.”

MBC’s Mr. Luz said a lot could be achieved if government took to “communicating more clearly what it wanted to do.” Only then would people know where government stands, he said, and whether they would agree with it or not.

“It’s better to have clarity, then ensuing debate among the different sectors of society that lack of clarity and people just sit back and take a wait and see attitude,” he said.

Mr. Rocamora said the President’s laidback management style has important implications on how the country would weather the economic crisis, which is foremost in the minds of many Filipinos. This means that from now on President Estrada should show all the more who is actually in charge.