Costa Rica is an intriguing country.
By traditional standards, it's not among the most prosperous nations in the world: Nearly a fifth of its citizens are classified as poor; inflation has been persistently in double digits over the past decade; its economy, while widely perceived as resilient, is worryingly dependent on tourism and exports; problems on drugs and human trafficking are potential flash points for conflict with neighboring countries, especially Nicaragua. Yet notwithstanding all these, Costa Rica has been called the "world's happiest place," and appears to be genuinely peaceful and stable.
The case for Costa Rica as a model for development is compelling, and borne out by many reliable indicators. It is consistently among the top five Latin American countries in terms of quality of life, environmental preservation, economic and press freedom, and overall democracy. Per capita GDP is about $11,000, and the country enjoys near-universal functional literacy. (That the United Nations has chosen it as base for its University for Peace, in itself, already speaks volumes about Costa Rica.) In international affairs, it's not viewed as important as a country like Brazil or Venezuela, but there can be no underestimating its success as a welfare state in a part of the world where many others have aspired but failed with similar models of governance. Considering the fact that as recently as the 1980s, it was on the receiving end of IMF assistance and in the 1940s was recovering from civil and world wars, it would be hard not to appreciate. (The name "Costa Rica" was for many years a misnomer, in light of its poverty under Spanish rule in the 19th century.)
Clearly, Costa Rica's state-dominated approach to economics cannot--and should not--be adopted by the Philippines, given the latter's history with government-led industrialization. What the Philippines should "copy" from Costa Rica is its singular focus on human development. Currently, the Philippine government annually spends just between 2 to 3 percent of its GDP on education, and with regard to health outcomes, is in the unenviable company of countries like Myanmar and Russia.
Of course there is no one way to ensuring more Filipinos are provided better education and health care, and simply spending more on both will not eliminate problems of access and quality. Costa Rica, it could be said, was able to make lasting progress on both fronts because of an unlikely partnership between Catholicism and communism.
Somehow in the early parts of the 20th century, Costa Rica saw an alliance form between its communist party and its Catholic church to achieve politically liberal ends--mainly, a strong social security system that remains in place today. I don't see how a similar agreement between Philippine Catholic church groups and progressive elements can be unlikely, particularly in an impending election season. Broadly speaking, the two share a concept of social justice and a critical mass of supporters--what they jointly need to do is hammer on a message and an approach that:
1. Actively communicates inequality issues (land reform, health and education) to the general public in personal (moral, family-oriented) and positive terms
2. Neutralizes disagreement on "hot-button" issues such as death penalty, abortion, and divorce by focusing on common initiatives that strengthen family ties, minimize unwanted pregnancies, and reduce crime (particularly petty crime, in view of their tendency, if unchecked, to lead to more violent crimes--or the "broken windows" phenomenon)
3. Nudges people toward "good citizenship" through novel incentives (e.g. public recognition...and financial reward?)
The nuances of these three aspects are something I have yet to think about more, but in general,
a Costa Rican type of understanding between the Philippine Left and its Christian counterparts could prove to be powerful--and liberating.
No comments:
Post a Comment