Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the writer do not state or reflect those of the publication.
NEOLIBERALISM IS a term often misunderstood and thrown around as a catch-all for everything wrong in society. In the simplest terms, “Neoliberalism” describes policies that give the market a free hand to operate while maintaining a strong state. This means relaxed regulations, heightened state security, and free trade that all result in lower prices, improved quality of life, and reduced poverty—in theory. In practice, it is a deeply flawed system that worsens inequality among nations and classes. The latter is often the center of everyday discussions on the matter but it is often forgotten that neoliberalism, at least in the Philippines, has been a force for freedom and for good.
The People Power Revolution of 1986 saw not only former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. ousted from power but also sought the liberation of national industry. It was not just the government that needed restructuring at the time but the economy too. The Marcos-era oligarchy funneled public money through state-owned enterprises into the pockets of cronies. This resulted in grave inefficiencies, especially in public utilities that every Filipino relied on. The revolution was, in part, a response to these economic injustices imposed by the dictatorship.
It was only natural that citizens and economic planners were averse to government controls on the market, fearing corruption and mismanagement. International financial institutions also required liberalization as a condition for access to foreign capital. A lighter touch was needed to escape the debt and refill the empty coffers that Marcos had left behind. As a result, the newly inaugurated President Corazon Aquino had no choice but to adopt neoliberal policies and privatize Philippine industry. It worked. Philippine Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would eventually recover from the Marcos-era slump. Employment increased and prices were stable. However, it was not enough and it did not take long for problems in the system to surface.
Labor rights continued to be circumvented through contractualization. Unsustainable resource extraction practices are still overlooked. The rich got richer and the poor got slightly less poor. The Philippine Stock Exchange Index and GDP figures, touted as indicators of development, felt like bald-faced lies. They were not seen as proof of success but served as another reminder of the broken promises of 1986 for social and economic justice.
I do not contest the fact that there have been failures, but so often do people blindly complain about the neoliberal system that has brought emancipation for so many, all in the guise of indignation. Keyboard warriors flock to Twitter or Facebook and complain about “late-stage capitalism,” another nebulous term, or tag things as neoliberal in an attempt to discredit them. Ironically, they do so on platforms and devices they only have access to thanks to the systems they decry. “Working within the system” is no excuse for such hypocrisy as that very system, neoliberal capitalism, allows them to choose alternatives, boycott, or even make their own platforms and devices.
No one is forcing you to consume. If you do not like it, then do not use it.
You do not want socialism. What you want is welfare.
Anger without critical thought is not indignation—it is just noise. A fair assessment of other economic systems throughout history will provide the same conclusion about neoliberalism as what Winston Churchill arrived at regarding democracy: “[it] is the worst form of government—except for all the others that have been tried.”
Although neoliberalism is not unproblematic, we cannot deny its role as a tool for liberation and development. The freedom won by People Power did not start and end at the ballot box. It brought us the power that lights our homes, the water we drink, and the money that changes hands from the executives to the workers. It created a more equitable Philippines than the one that came before. Beyond liberation, we must seek justice through the framework that has already been built and works. We must acknowledge both the faults and successes of these efforts. Only then can we begin to find and fix what is broken in our society.
