I’d like to start this reflection on presidential leadership by saying that it is disconcerting that President PNoy is constantly defamed by pundits from all directions of the political spectrum - right, center, or left.

He has been called ABNoy, retarded, lunatic, and autistic.

These attacks on him are not only highly disrespectful but irrational and extremely personal. I know many will say that's Philippine politics and it’s dirty.

I hope not. And it doesn’t have to be that way.

I believe that unlike other leaders, PNoy is an honorable person who speaks against corruption and is committed to bringing perpetrators to face the bar of justice. I also believe that his leadership does not deserve the unfair and vicious ill will of others.

Perhaps, this is wishful thinking on my part. But if I had my way, I wish our country possessed a stronger defamation law, maybe, something similar to the Defamation Act of Singapore.

If that happens, it’ll make many of the pundits who are not paragons of responsible journalism themselves to have second thoughts about freely slandering the president or other public officials in media.

Well, since my wish will not come true, I decided to express my reflection on presidential leadership differently.

Here it is.

A few years ago, two of my students in a graduate seminar on urban and regional planning and development were aghast when I told them in an after-class chat that whoever takes on the presidential job of running a developing country like the Philippines will have to be part Social Darwinist, part Social Democrat, but with a Zen-like calm as an enforcer.

I can understand their spirited reactions because we just discussed a variety of perspectives that view the causes and consequences of third world planning and development in terms of modernization, dependency, world system, and new international division of labor theories.

I still recall how they were particularly animated and impressed by perspectives that drew their ideas on the impact and outcomes of colonialism and neocolonialism to urbanization.

Over the course of our exchange, I found out that one student ascribes to a left-wing utopia, and the other, to a neo-anarchist dogma. Indeed, our world views were just too far apart and could not be reconciled.

In my case, I had to explain to them that the Philippines like any developing country had urgent real-world problems to solve and could not afford to be circumscribed by utopian thinking or dogmatic assertion.

Needless to say that the president’s tenure is only limited to six years. In reality though, he has less than five years left, after filling in vacancies in its bureaucracy and division of labor.

Seriously, what can the president really plan and do in five years that will have strategic, dramatic, and sustainable multiplier effects? I think, not much.

Perhaps, it’s the construction of world-class transportation networks to spur new growth areas? Maybe, it’s the building of more geothermal plants to secure reliable and competitive rates of electricity? Or possibly, it’s the establishment of more freeports as relocation sites for foreign companies?

I know one thing. If there is something immediate to be done, the president does not have to reinvent the wheel nor be bogged down by ideological constraints.

That is, to move forward and quickly, he or she has to find the merits of existing successful planning models to emulate.

I am not sure that I convinced and changed my students’ theoretical positions. Still, despite our disagreements, we remained civil for the rest of the quarter.

Why part Social Darwinism?

A Social Darwinist has one simple guiding principle---survival. The Philippines must be more competitive, more efficient, more secure, more peaceful, and better organized legally than other countries in the region, if it is to survive.

If we are only as good as the others, that won’t cut the mustard for us. For what would be the reason for investors to choose our country?

Why part Social Democrat?

A Social Democrat has one basic guiding trajectory ---welfare provision. The Philippines must proactively pursue welfare state measures to promote and protect the economic well-being of our citizens.

Since the former is regarded as allied to the principle of non-intervention and rugged individualism, and the latter, to intervention and socialism, they are structured as antithetical and contradictory to each other.

For example, in the U.S. the cognitive divide is so intense, if not, highly toxic that it perpetually sends the two traditional parties (the so-called non-interventionist Republicans and interventionist Democrats) into a warpath.

Advocates of Social Darwinism argue that the welfare system undermines the principle of meritocracy. Thus, it makes people more dependent and less inclined to work.

Critics of Social Darwinism, on the other hand, contend that doctrines such as survival of the fittest and natural selection are simply ideologies used to justify class, race, age, and gender inequalities in society. But most importantly, it rationalizes indifference and inaction against the least-privileged members of society.

After all, when asked about the responsibility of the rich for the poor, the Social Darwinist unmistakable response: NOTHING!

And yet, studies have shown that there is no negative association between economic performance and welfare expenditure and vice-versa.

Successful modern welfare states such as Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and Singapore have provided their citizens with a high level of social insurance.

In fact, these states are ranked at the top by all measures of economic and quality of life indices. For example, the GDP (PPP) per capita of these modern welfare states ranges from $31,000/year to $82,600/year which is approximately nine times or twenty eight times higher than let us say, the Philippines GDP (PPP) per capita of $3,500/year (CIA World Factbook, 2010).

Why a Zen-like calm?

The leader must be unperturbed. Like an individual in a meditative state, the president can be passive, and yet, active, knowing fully well that with limited time, he or she must single-mindedly focus in achieving his or her goals, objectives, and strategies.

As it is, governing a country is already difficult in itself. More so, when the country’s population is bursting at the seams, the tremendous pressure on land, resources, and economy produces maraming pasaway, daghang buluyagon, o damo nga salawayon.

The leader cannot be distracted, no matter what.

_____________________________
The author is a professor and director of Urban Studies Program at California State University, East Bay and an urban and regional planning consultant. Email:efren.padilla@csueastbay.edu