top of page
Action for Economic Reforms

WHY FEAR FPJ?

The author is coordinator and member of the Management Collective of Action for Economic Reforms.


FPJ stands for Food, Peace, and Justice. This, according to some

quarters, is going to be the campaign slogan of Fernando Poe, Jr., once

he throws his hat into the political ring. This FPJ slogan has punch:

an already magnetic actor further captivating the poor by talking about

food, peace and justice.


The slogan of food, peace, and justice sounds uncannily Bolshevik. It

is the kind of slogan that swept Lenin into power. Although far from

being a Bolshevik, FPJ as a politician conjures up the picture of a

charismatic leader being catapulted into power by the agitated masses.


Just replace the image of Lenin waving to the workers from a train

platform on the way to the Winter Palace with an FPJ on horseback,

followed by the teeming masses, negotiating the road to Malacanang.


For the upper classes and the intelligentsia, this is a dreadful and

shocking scenario. The more condescending among the intellectual elite

look at FPJ as being as dull as ex-President Joseph Estrada (or perhaps

a little less dull than his kumpadre). The rich would simply demean

FPJ, for he does not belong to their discriminating and refined class.


Winnie Monsod’s reaction to an FPJ presidency represents the sentiments

of her friends in the upper crust of society and her colleagues in the

academe. In a seminar for student leaders a few months ago, she was

asked what simple but essential tasks the youth could do for the

country. As the first task, Ms. Monsod strongly urged the student

leaders to convince their parents and other people not to vote for FPJ.


Lately, columns and letters to newspaper editors lambasting FPJ have

become more frequent. The typical comments say that FPJ is

inexperienced and incompetent to become a president, that an actor

presiding over the country is farcical, that an FPJ presidency is going

to be a repeat of Estrada’s term, etc.


Even among the circle of activists, the fear of an FPJ presidency is

apparent. Some friends who are involved in progressive activism have

told me that they would rather vote with their feet (i.e., leave the

country) than accept a popular vote for FPJ.


In short, for those opposed to FPJ for president, he cannot be the

embodiment of the FPJ slogan: food, peace, and justice. Rather his

initials stand for fraud, pork, and junk.


Surely, there is some basis to fear FPJ becoming the next Philippine

president. My fear, for one, stems from FPJ’s long-standing friendship

with Estrada. It is quite possible that an Estrada-supported FPJ

presidency would lead to Estrada’s exoneration. (This practice is not

uncommon though. Previous administrations have in significant degrees

compromised with the rapacious Marcos clique, including cronies. And

that is why the masses have become inured to compromise).


That said, some of the criticisms against FPJ as a presidential

candidate are unfair. The most preposterous of the criticisms is that

an actor like FPJ does not deserve to be elected. The Estrada debacle

serves to reinforce this argument.


But a person’s qualifications or competence in politics should not be

reduced to the question of one’s profession. Milwida Guevara, the

highly regarded former Finance undersecretary and now a program officer

of Ford Foundation, recently wrote an enthusiastic piece about the

virtues of Vilma Santos not as an actress but as the mayor of Lipa

City. No mistake about it, Ate Vi could one day become presidential

timber.


Further, other “most important professions” (Adam Smith’s term) such as

lawyers could be worse than actors in managing the nation’s affairs:

The Philippines suffers from what Raul V. Fabella calls “many narrowly

beneficial laws” crafted by a legislature dominated by lawyers.


Lawyers, too, are the political instruments of businessmen out to

capture rent. It has become standard practice of businessmen to engage

the services of lawyers who have access to the corridors of power in

order to gain advantage over competitors. The petrochemical lobby, for

instance, was served by the powerful Villaraza and Angangco law firm in

its successful bid to obtain tariff protection.


The interpretation that lawyers can be harmful to the nation’s growth

is also derived from a famous study done by the economists Andrei

Shleifer and Kevin Murphy. Their study covering a cross-section of

countries showed that a higher share of lawyers to the total graduates

had a significantly negative effect on economic growth.


In a different historical-economic context, Adam Smith lumped together

the “gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous

professions: churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all

kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers,

etc.” In Smith’s time and from Smith’s point of view, the activities of

the professions enumerated above were unproductive in the sense that

they did not participate in the production of the material output

necessary for society’s progress. By now, we know that Smith’s notion

of being productive is narrow and literal. But the point remains that

no wide gulf separates “the most important” professions and “the most

frivolous” professions with respect to their contribution to economic

growth or to their efforts to make society more prosperous.


The argument that FPJ is inexperienced is a less preposterous yet

shallow argument. Recall the political life of Corazon Aquino, whom the

dictator Marcos ridiculed as just an ordinary housewife. She was a

political novice when she challenged Marcos in the 1986 snap elections.

And it was a historical accident that made her the leader of the

democratic opposition. Despite her inexperience and other weaknesses,

history will regard her as a heroic and decisive Philippine president.

FPJ, of course, cannot be compared with Aquino. Our point is that political inexperience need not be a bar to the presidency.


At this time, though, being engrossed with how to derail FPJ’s

candidacy distracts us from answering a more fundamental question: Why,

indeed, has someone who is part of a “most frivolous profession” become

the strongest presidential contender?

bottom of page