Realignment

In this last week of campaigning, expect to be surprised by a slew of tactical shifts among supporters of the contending candidates. This might as well be called the Week of Realignment.

While many politicians will literally change the color of their shirts, most dumping yellow, practitioners of this unique Filipino phenomenon are not, strictly speaking, “turncoats.” Some might be called cross-dressers, however.

“Turncoats,” traditionally refers to people who change parties. Before that, the term referred to soldiers who deserted the battlefield, literally turning their coats inside out to signal their intents.

It is hard to be a “turncoat” in our setting where parties are not taken seriously and where there are few party voters. Our voters not only choose candidates independent of their affiliation, they defy formal alliances by voting across party lines.

Our voters, for instance, prefer to select presidential and vice presidential candidates from different parties. This is why the AlDub (Alyansang Duterte-Marcos) is such a salient network in this campaign – as was “Noy-Bi” (Noynoy-Binay) in the 2010 elections.

In our setting, a lot of switching in political allegiances is driven by pragmatic considerations. Voters tend to migrate from weaker candidates to those with better chances of winning in a multi-candidate presidential race.

Those desperate to stop the Duterte juggernaut are considering jumping onto the bandwagon of the likely challenger. At the vice presidential level, part of Leni Robredo’s improved numbers come from voters wanting to stop front-runner Bongbong Marcos.

Over the last few days, the observant might have noticed the proliferation of “Bi-Bo” t-shirts, indicating a de facto alliance between VP Binay and Bongbong. The informal alliance will create obvious synergies beneficial to both.

In the city of Manila, a tactical shift in alliances could dictate the outcome of the mayoral race.

Mayoral candidate Alfredo Lim and vice-mayoral candidate Ali Atienza have all but formally engaged in an alliance against incumbent Joseph Estrada. This could deliver the decisive votes from Atienza’s Fifth District bailiwick to Lim’s favor while improving Ali’s share of the vote in the districts where Lim holds sway.

Although clan patriarch Lito Atienza, now seeking reelection for his party-list Buhay, was formerly a close ally of Estrada, standing by him when he was impeached as president, many issues have pulled them apart.

The elder Atienza, himself a former Manila mayor, disagrees with Estrada’s policy of privatizing the capital city’s 17 public markets. He disagreed with Estrada’s policy of imposing charges on public hospitals and health care centers, as well as on public playgrounds. Estrada’s policy runs against the grain of what Atienza believes are the legacies of his time as mayor.

As mayor, Atienza built public swimming pools for the poor. During Estrada’s term, he observes, City Hall not only raised real estate taxes but also built a cockpit near the Sta. Ana church and close to the district’s public hospital. He likewise opposes the establishment of a casino and another cockpit within the Manila Zoo compound.

Estrada’s obsession with real estate play, Atienza observes, degrades Manila into a mere “tiangge center.”

Agriculture

Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates seem to have a innovative package for the agricultural sector.

Our nearly stagnant agricultural sector is one of the main reasons we have high poverty and malnutrition rates. While, over the last three decades, the rest of Asia saw average agricultural growth at three percent, our agriculture grew by only two percent. That is the reason we have a high food price regime, one of the major causes of poverty.

True, there is no silver bullet to cure what ails our agriculture, there are policy positions to be staked out now to set the foundations for more robust farm growth into the medium term. The candidates might be avoiding adverse reaction from some groups who, in effect and despite good (but unenlightened) intentions, want to keep our agricultural sector in its most primitive state.

The redemption of our agriculture rests on two legs: the increased capitalization of our farm processes and the increased use of biotechnology to improve productivity and reduce pesticide dependence.

Increased capitalization of our farms requires an explicit state policy favoring the development of agribusinesses. Increased use of biotechnology requires fighting all the superstitions proliferating about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The old orthodoxy about keeping farms small and farmers permanently subsidized can never work. Yet some farmers’ groups stand by this old idyllic vision of farming.

Too, there are advocacy groups fighting science by opposing genetic improvement of the crops we plant. For instance, while Greenpeace internationally is fighting dependence on pesticides, the local Greenpeace group is fighting the introduction of less pesticide dependent GMOs like Bt Talong and biotech corn varieties.

In Bangladesh, government stood firm against the agitation by foreign-funded anti-GMO groups. Their equivalent of Bt Talong is now widely cultivated, reducing pesticide use by 80 percent.

In the Philippines, Bt corn in now widely planted commercially. This helped increase yield and reduce pesticide use. The biggest beneficiaries of Bt corn are the small, resource-poor farmers tilling two-hectare farms.

China long rejected the use of biotech crops varieties. Soon, their policy is about to change dramatically, in the interest of their food security.

More than that, state-owned ChemChina is finalizing a $43 billion deal to acquire Swiss-owned agriculture firm Syngenta to control the company’s valuable seed patents. Soon, China’s massive agriculture will be driven by biotech.

If we maintain our anti-scientific policy inclination against biotech, we will soon be importing even more food from China. Food-dependent on our giant neighbor, how can we maintain an independent foreign policy?