 |
|
CARP: REAPING WHAT WE SOW The Philippine Star
The House of Representatives last week failed to pass House Bill 4077 that sought to extend the 20-year old CARP law for five years and opted for a resolution that called for CARP’s lifespan to expire by year’s end, not June 10. Many have indeed grown cynical of CARP and this brings to mind the oft-repeated question – can there be a meaningful land reform in a democracy? Strong hand Most models we know herald only the upside, but the reality is that agrarian reform needs a strong hand, even a repressive force to some extent. Taiwan was successful in its land reform because at that time, before the 1950s when it was implemented, the ruling class was swept from power. Effectively weeding out the landlord class made it easier for its government, which was central to the process of expropriating and redistributing such assets, to do the job. Taiwan’s strategy was to modernize agriculture first and channel surplus funds to successfully industrialize the nation. But needless to say, the approach wouldn’t have been effective if not for government’s ruthlessness, a dogged determination to look past binding ties among the ruling class and parochial interests guaranteed its feat. A similar revolution of this kind took place in South Korea and Japan. The land-to-the-tiller program in these countries reduced class differences and made for more political stability. The peasant sector provided surplus and cheap labor supply to the industrial areas while government ensured increased agricultural production with innovative technology. This in turn resulted in stable food prices for industrial workers, keeping a lid on pressures to raise wages and allowed these industries to be competitive on the global front. Government is key In all of these examples, government was the key. Their strategies were initially painful to the ruling class, but at the end of the day, the entire nation stood on its feet. Some history scholars point out that timing also played a key role in achieving land reform. In the case of the Philippines, landlords dominated Congress when the institution was revived under President Corazon Aquino. When the law-making body could no longer prevent agrarian reform, they passed a watered-down law. And of course, we reap what we sow. Absence of support Several mistakes were committed in the implementation of the CARP and the different rural development programs meant to emancipate the poorest of our lot from their sorry conditions. After lands taken from landlords and the government were distributed to CARP beneficiaries, all other measures needed to ensure a big follow through were either not enough, or were not given to sustain the livelihood of the farmers and their families. What can farmers do with their land if there is no support infrastructure such as credit, cheap electricity, irrigation, farm-to-market roads, and post-harvest facilities? How do you teach them to become entrepreneurs when they don’t have a clue how to tap markets, and gain access to these markets? Add throwing them to the inequities of global trade without the safety nets. For many of them, they either sold or leased their farm plots individually or as a group to manufacturers or to property developers. Others consider themselves lucky to have found jobs abroad to send money back home to support their families and keep their children in school. But for the greater number, their disappointment and frustration have led to one of utter bitter resignation to their fate. There are of exceptions of course. But in all of these few admirable pocket success stories, sustained provision of support services are evident. Take that away and the whole foundation collapses. Wasn’t that so true of Ka Dante Buscayno’s agri-based cooperative back in the late 1980s? The Aquino government wanted a showcase piece of its CARP, and pulled out all the stops to prop up the cooperative led by the legendary founder of the New People’s Army. The cooperative thrived for years, until government support was withdrawn little by little. Which brings us back to the nagging question: can land reform under a democracy be a win-win situation for conflicting parties? From what we’ve had since CARP was born, it’s difficult but certainly not impossible. The setting in our country maybe unique, but like the success models that we’ve seen in Taiwan, Japan and Korea, the firm hand of the government is required. In short, an unbending political resolve to implement what the law says. This becomes even more paramount in the face of the global food crisis. If our farmers are convinced that staying in their farms is an option, then we also have a better chance of securing food security. Eventually we can leap forward and catch up with our industrialized neighbors. Should you wish to share any insights, write me at Link Edge, 25th Floor, 139 Corporate Center, Valero Street, SalcedoVillage, 1227 MakatiCity. Or e-mail me at reydgamboa@yahoo.com. For a compilation of previous articles, visit www.BizlinksPhilippines.net.
| |||
|