The year’s end brings the usual spate of annual assessments in all fields of national endeavor. Politics always hogs the limelight, with entertainment taking a close second. Economics and various indices for national growth are always given the once over — with the usual whining about how our growth is good but not as great as our Asian neighbors.
For a different take, I dug though my archives for a yellowed copy of an annual magazine, Progress: edition1957, which caught my eye and pocketbook years ago at an antiquarian shop, mainly because of the colorful cover by Botong Francisco.The cover, done in watercolor, depicts Philippine progress in the fascinating ’50s. The country’s previously predominant economic activity of agriculture is relegated to the bottom corner of the painting. Occupying the rest of the half dedicated to production is a woodsman chopping down a tree, miners sweating away in the bowels of our mineral-rich mountains, and a steel mill worker. The woodsman’s ax is a disturbing image in the light of today’s reality of forest-cover loss — in the last 50 years we have lost between 70 to 90 percent of our forests (depending on whose statistics you read). Mining has made or is trying to make a comeback — which, again, is disturbing, depending on which side of the development-versus-environment equation you are on. Our road to industrialization, which was to be fueled by an iron and steel industry, was nipped in the bud by the 1960s as pressure from the outside forced us to concentrate on agriculture — which we did. That’s why we are still a banana republic.The second half of the painting is devoted to arts, culture, and sports. A painter (possibly a self portrait, though I don’t really have a picture of Botong from that period) shares the central spot with the miner. A carver works on a traditional wood piece below a conductor in a barong. A movie camera at bottom right reflects how strong Philippine cinema was in the late ’50s. The publication devoted three lengthy pieces by Cesar Amigo and Corazon Rodriguez on Philippine movies and movie stars.Acknowledged stars, too, were sportsmen — a basketball player, a chess master and a boxer (who looks like a young Flash Elorde). The final figure is a folk dancer — possibly inspired by the Bayanihan Group — that had started to make waves abroad in festivals and expositions.Well, basketball is still a national addiction despite our limited success in international competition. Our shortsightedness in devoting too much attention and hope to this one sport has led to the near death of several others like soccer, baseball and tennis, where height does not matter. Philippine boxing and chess have fared better in the last 50 years, but have also suffered from the predominance of basketball and the even more popular sport of politics. The year 1957 was a tragic year for Philippine politics, with the death of President Ramon Magsaysay in a plane crash on March 17. He was 49; our version of the popular JFK, except that instead of Camelot he made Malacañang the palace of the people by opening its gates to any and every common tao (a term we hardly use today). The publication had extensive articles on politics and foreign relations by Vicente Tañedo (“The Two Party System”), O.D. Corpuz (“Philippine-American Relations”) and the Hon. Felixberto Serrano (“The Philippines in World Affairs”). Business had wide coverage with features by Vicente Buhain (“Growing Pains of a Nation’s Economy”), Luis Ongpin (“The Securities Market”), Max Soliven (“Reparations: A Second Look”) and Sixto Roxas (“Problems of Philippine Economy”).Soliven reported on the fact that the first Japanese-made, 5,000-ton merchant marine vessel arrived in Manila that year. Despite US$29 million in reparations that had been transmitted by this second year of the agreement, much was left to be desired by way of the quality of the material and equipment turned over, the implied graft and corruption, the ineptitude of government in negotiations, and the emergence of Japanese cartels. Roxas painted a picture of a struggling economy that still needed to shore up and increase production and wean itself away from dependence on imports and a global economy that marginalized (and still does to this day) countries such as ours.Fifty years later, we find ourselves in a situation that cannot be described as much better than that of the 1950s. We have still failed to industrialize. Our runaway population is outstripping our capacity for delivering even the most basic of needs. Poverty has decreased, but this has been the product of redefining the term and not addressing the reality itself. We are now dependent on the export of our most precious commodity — Filipinos themselves.Have we progressed? I think not. Our movie industry is in the doldrums. Our architects and other creatives are leaving in droves. OFW inflow is fueling consumption and mostly for goods not made here. We have a world boxing champion, but our citizens are battered daily with the misadventures of misdirected personalities and the inanity of Philippine politics.There is hope, but first we have to define what we mean by progress. We need to aspire for more than just escape. We should yearn for more than the promise of dollars from abroad or a messiah from the sorely limited pool of so-so leaders we now have.The New Year beckons. Let’s not screw this one up, pardon any more rapists, schedule any more hotel media/military events, or enter into ridiculous contracts for stuff we don’t need anyway.
* * *
Feedback is welcome. Please e-mail the writer at paulo.alcazaren@gmail.com.