In the first part, w argued that the anti-sabwag ordinance being proposed before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is short-sighted on the grounds that it attacks the symptom rather than the root cause of patronage system in Catanduanes. Trying to rid of the specific cultural mechanisms of patronage such as the sabwag practice will be futile; the systemic dependency held in place by poverty will simply invent new strategies to reproduce itself.
In this part, we will further argue that the proposed local legislation, while half-cooked, is in fact anti-poor. Even as it disregards the plight of the poor, it actually works against them.
To demonstrate my position, we make use of the ideas of a French maverick social thinker of the 70s-80s, Michel Foucault. As a starting point, Foucault argued that the flow of power in society is never one-way traffic, even in highly totalitarian systems. The down-trodden always have their own small means to get back at the powers-that-be. Think of how children are able to get around strict parental rules. The oripon can always spit in secret on the glass of water before handing it to the amo. The poor and powerless do come up with an arsenal of micro forms of resistance. In their lack of resources, they become creative in inflicting their revenge. They make use of the system itself, manipulating the very culture of dependence to maximize their advantage, or even at least to derive some sense of token power over the highly placed as a coping mechanism.
Along this line, we argue that the sabwag practice is actually a creative strategy of the disadvantaged. It is a means to access needed resources from the rich and famous. It compels politicians and those others who aspire for a privileged standing in society to make a spectacular display of their generosity, to the music and choreography of the pantomina. Such smart tactic makes mendicancy culturally sanctioned, the satiation of beggars glorified through a festive, celebratory performance that makes both parties of the exchange intoxicated with gratification: the clientele happy with the endowment, the patron basking in the glory of fame. At the end, gabos maogma. Although it can be cruel at times, when the patron gets to display the disaster of his/her parehong kaliwang paa, dancing like drunken chicken, to the raunchy glee of the audience. As such, the revenge of the masa indeed. But that is a small price to pay for the premiums. We must add however that the sabwag had brought the pantomina tradition to greater heights, courtesy of swabe politicians who really contributed through their signature styles of dancing. The former Cong. Jose Alberto and former mayor Codor Surtida were famous for their inimitable binanog and sarisid bravura.
Seriously speaking, the sabwag and similar other practices of patronage are essentially means for the redistribution of wealth in a social system of gross inequality. Note that patronage is a stand-alone social ecosystem that allows the satisfaction of needs, where symbiosis is achieved. Surely, it is ridden with contradictions; it operates on structural inequality among social classes. But it works by itself, and indeed had come to appear as the natural course of things, people do not anymore question it. Indeed it had been inscribed in “culture” and made sacred as “tradition.”
What happens when sabwag is eradicated by an ordinance? It will deprive the poor, particularly in this case the typically cash-strapped groups, organizations or basic communities of a most effective tool to extract resources for their worthy purposes. It will disincentivize them to pursue undertakings that, kung tutuusin, help the government do its job.
Who is bound to benefit from this proposed measure? No other than the politicians themselves and their subalterns in the private sector. They will be freed of a costly social obligation that erodes their assets. Proponents of the ordinance may justify it as a means to eradicate mendicancy, of encouraging self-sufficiency, or of preventing politicians to “buy votes” by indirect manner. But taken in a vacuum, pursued out of the context of the root cause of patronage – poverty that is – and stripped of its moralizing pretensions, the proposed ordinance is none but the cold snobbery of the elite.
It is only then expected that it will be met with resentment from the public. It is quite telling that in the immediate aftermath of its announcement, the proposed ordinance generated raw reaction of derision, contempt and cruel ridicule. Here is one example: Aw imbitadong Pontio Pilato sa pista, kaiba su pamilya buda alipures, grabe su siriba buda iligtok, nag Sharon pa pinatos su mga an-it? Tapos dai man lamang naghubon maski diit na paomok? Gut-level language yes, but a straightforward re-reading of such remark will reveal the basic logic of patronage: we grant you the premiums of power and privilege, but pay back your dues. What infuriates the masses about this proposed ordinance is this: it will allow politicians to continue helping themselves with public funds but without giving back to the people. There is nothing more hateful in a patronal system than one who is biga sulohan su mejoras.
As a final note, we make it clear: this is not to argue for the perpetuation of the patronage system in Catanduanes. Its disappearance is sine qua non for genuine progress because it will mean the freedom of the people from debilitating dependency. To get rid of patronal relations, one must render its usefulness irrelevant, which happens only when the people are economically empowered. To repeat: we are against this proposed ordinance for its lack of consideration of the root cause of patronal bondage, and being so, is in fact predicated on elitist, anti-poor principle.
Our opposition is arguably a popular one. And it gains credence in the light of the widespread perceptions that the incumbent provincial powers-that-be, with which the proponents of the ordinance are aligned, have so far no workable program for the genuine and sustainable eradication of poverty in Catanduanes. What it seems to be busy with is to eliminate its political competitors. What else, there are serious allegations of corruption among its ranks.
As regards the plight of the poor, recent statistics have shown Catanduanes as having among the highest incidents of poverty (at about 23%!) not only in Bicol but in the entire country. I have argued elsewhere that economic progress in Catanduanes will have to be generated on the production side. In this case, it has to mean the improvement of the lot of the abaca farmers, abaca being the major product which provides livelihood for some 60% of the people. What has been done so far along this line? From what we have seen, the SP is all agog in making it to the Guinness book of world record for the longest abaca rope ever, or something to that effect. For all we know, the ropes might shackle the hands of the abacaleros or indeed strangle them to asphyxia. And please, no bringing in of Puregold or SM into the island of our affections. Real economic development is not brought about by the distributive/marketing sector; without increase in production, they will just put added pressure on the consuming public whose buying power is not increasing. Tama na ang LCC, Bazaar, VTC at iba pa. They can give the illusion of a community’s opulence, but they are not the indicators, much less engines, of real economic progress.
Meanwhile: SABWAG PA MORE, habang ang mga tao ay nananatiling poor. There will be no need for the sabwag when the people are liberated from poverty. But how do you do that? That is altogether another story.