There is a raging debate right now on the issue of the “sabwag” practice, about which an ordinance to make it illegal is being proposed by some brilliant representation in the appointed SP. I feel obliged to contribute my ten cents worth of opinion because the stakeholders in the debate are invoking “culture” in their arguments. My discipline of specialization, anthropology that is, is supposedly the scientific study of culture. The sabwag is the display of generosity by scattering money during the dancing of the pantomina. Originally intended to raise seed money for a newly-wed couple, the practice had long been adopted as fund-raising strategy for a community project/activity. Of late, the sabwag has been derisively described as a preoccupation of the “trapo” by the provincial executive who conducts governance by social media. While anybody with a good amount of cash to give away can do the sabwag, politicians or those aspiring to become one, are enjoined by pantomina organizers to engage in the sabwag show off as a means supposedly to gain favorable estimate in the eyes of the electorate. Those in the anti-sabwag side argue that it is a “trapo” mechanism that must be eradicated. On the other side of the debate, they say that it is part of our culture, and not necessarily a bad thing; it has its own usefulness as indeed it is basically about generosity. In our culture, to be labeled “kuripot” is masahol pa sa malansang isda (apologies to Rizal).
It must be recalled that in the months leading to the 2025 elections, I ran a series of articles in this column on the topic “patronage politics” in order to contextualize the practice of vote-buying. Patronage is a social system based on the patron-client relations where the former is the generous dispenser of favors and the latter the hapless recipient. The patron possesses both wealth and power while the clientele are needy and powerless. They are engaged in a give-and-take of expectations, and both parties are happy as long as each fulfills respective dues. The clientele is afforded material relief while the patron basks in the glory of social recognition and the abiding gratitude (utang-na-loob) and indeed subservience by the recipient of goodies. This system, also called “feudal,” worked for the most part in history, defining how society operates. In the Philippines, it is arguably still the prevailing operating framework in politics, which is commonly known as “traditional politics” (trapo for short). Vote-buying can best be understood in terms of patronage. I have argued that trapo is not necessarily bad; it worked and made things happen for the most part. Many famous political personalities (like Ninoy himself) practiced in the trapo mold. The current ayuda mentality that operates in the poverty-stricken and calamity-prone Philippines is patently based on patronage and is not going to disappear unless substituted by a better system that can deliver the goods.
In this 2-part series, I will argue that while patronage is seriously flawed because it perpetuates dependency of the many (the poor and powerless) to the few (the rich and powerful), the current move by the SP to make “sabwag” practice illegal is short-sighted and in fact anti-poor. I will not argue so much on the cultural basis but on structural grounds. It must be pointed out that you do not legislate culture. Just consider attempts in the past to make fiestas illegal. It will be like criminalizing typhoons. Culture can become irrelevant in the very long run and would change, but it takes time and tedious process. On the other hand, culture is merely a reflection of deeper, more fundamental reality: the reality of economic structures. Culture, which is about beliefs and values, will not change by people merely changing their minds as to what to believe and valorize. Beliefs and values are shaped by more primary considerations of survival, or the very economic imperative that keeps society grinding. In a society suffering from chronic poverty confounded by recurring disasters, patronage had been the framework to live by and deal with the challenges. In Catanduanes, people had invented a whole array of patronage strategies along this line, including the “sabwag,” and dignified them as “culture” and “tradition.”
Why short-sighted?
The clientele in the patronal system is of two types. First are those that seek private and highly specific favors such as medical assistance, food, pang-tangway, KBL (kasal, binyag, libing) etc. Second are groups or communities that seek favors of more public and collective nature. These include barangay councils, local pastoral units, organizations, clans, alumni associations and others. They may ask for donations to defray costs of their projects or activities (pa-liga, pa-bayle, basketball court, waiting shed, etc.). The narrative is that while these groups have best intentions for the common good, they lack the material resources. So there is poverty not only of individuals but of groups and communities. In Catanduanes, we have an abundance of these two types of poverty-stricken clientele in constant search for material relief. Luckily, there is no scarcity of willing and capable patrons.
So it happened that the sabwag had become a most effective mechanism resorted to by the second type of clientele (group/community). Packaged as it is in the cultural format of the pantomina, it is a most spectacular public performance where the entire process of exchange between the gallant patron and the earnest pursuit of client is choreographed, reenacted and consumed. But there are variations of form for the sabwag strategy. It need not involve the dancing of the pantomina. The donor might acquire the honorifics by being guest speaker in a program, or do the honor of crowning the mutya ng purok or else have his/her face, name and virtue proclaimed in tarpaulins.
So it is this sabwag practice of patronage that the proposed ordinance is out to eradicate by making it illegal. It might be easy to justify the move by citing the practice as a social malady that perpetuates dependency. But it is a tall order to demonstrate its reasonableness within the big picture. It attacks the symptom but not the root cause: the poverty of the people that bound them in the first place to dependency. Address the poverty first, bring forth a sustainable and equitable economy that distributes wealth and patronage will disappear without the facility of some moralizing ordinance. Change the structural backbone of dependency and the culture that it spawned will become irrelevant.
So what is the current SP doing along this line? What alternative will it put in place to substitute for patronage? What so far has the provincial political mandate done to improve the lot, for example, of the abaca farmers? They have recently made a big fuss about making it to the Guinness Book of world records as regards abaca. How would that improve the life of the abacaleros? What kind of priority is that?
The timeliness and relevance of this proposed ordinance is therefore questionable. Furthermore, its sincerity is suspect with the insinuations that it is actually a measure that targets the incumbent’s political competitors, a way to deprive them of a means to win favor in the eyes of the people. Be that as it may, but there is no easy judging the inner motive of this proposed measure. What is concerning is its lack of regard for the big picture of the root cause. In Part 2, we will argue that this proposed local legislation is in fact anti-poor.