Manny Villar and Filipino poverty
Manny Villar recently changed the direction of his presidential campaign from “Tumutulong si Manny Villar” and “Akala mo Trapo” to the theme of RICH versus POOR. This is a very risky move. While it is calculated to counter the “Good” vs. “Evil” theme of the NoyNoy camp, it is not without risks.
While Villar likes to emphasize his rags to riches story and the fact that since he rose from poverty and had a lola who was a housemaid, he can relate to the “masa” of Filipinos who are in the lower classes (D & E class). He may be overreaching by underestimating one simple fact of human nature: people tend to be more comfortable with “OLD” money than with “NEW” money. Specially in the Philippines. Think about it. People are less threatened by someone born into wealth because they can always rationalize the person’s higher station in life to a cause he and they could not control. They can attribute his higher caste to the LUCK of birth. Hence, they can be comfortable with him and vote for him.
However, there’s nothing more threatening for people struggling economically than someone who came from their ranks and became a billionaire due to his own efforts, sheer hard work, and determination. The threat emanates from the fact that it is a reminder that people CAN rise from bone-grinding poverty through effort, planning, will power, and faith. For many, this may be a reminder of their own failure, lack of risk taking, career or financial myopia, laziness, or other factors. If THIS person, who was born as poor as they are, can make it up the economic ladder, why can’t they? Human nature being what it is, people would rather blame others or externalize rather than accept responsibility and blame themselves. The ego needs protection from harsh realities that may point the way to actions that lead to positive personal transformation. This is the threat that Manny Villar’s biography poses—his story holds up a mirror to the coping mechanisms that Filipino culture has historically resorted to in dealing with economic stagnation and class divisions.
Cultural coping mechanisms
This disconnect between many who are stuck at or near the bottom of the economic totem pole and the brilliance of the super achiever from their ranks traditionally requires some cultural coping mechanisms. These range from the mildly palliative to the downright self-destructive. Regardless of the particular form of the coping mechanism, they all share two key objectives: (a) find an explanation for the achiever’s rise other than the individual achiever’s own personal efforts or character and (b) absolve those who fail to achieve such success.
Luck
Luck is the simplest and easiest explanation of why one person rose to achieve more than others similarly situated. Luck of timing. Luck of place. Luck of connection. The right time, the right place, the right relatives, friends, or social network. Applying this coping mechanism to Villar’s situation, those who seek to dismiss his rise to wealth as a statistical aberration can always refer to the fact that Villar started his construction business in the 70s. During this time, the OFW/balikbayan real estate market was still in its formative stages and it could be claimed that Villar had a “first mover” advantage in the particular lower middle class/upper working class OFW housing niche. Moreover, he had the additional “luck” of being married to Cynthia Aguilar, a member of the land rich Aguilar family of Las Pinas. Hence, his costs are lower since he can source land from relatives in a low to no cash up front “join venture” model.
These “luck” justifications can’t withstand some basic questions. Weren’t there many other developers like Manny Villar from the 70′s? Why did most of them fail to get as big or established as Villar? Villar didn’t have a monopoly on the OFW market. Indeed, the construction industry focused on the upper working class/lower middle class is populated by many small contractors and companies. Very few of these are well-known or particularly successful. Why Villar’s Camelia Homes? Does it have something to do with the fact that he focused on reinvesting his earnings and building up his brand? Many developers also have access to traditionally land rich families. There’s nothing stopping them from doing joint ventures on a “develop first, pay later” model where the developer gets access to the land first, develops it, then splits the proceeds with the land owner. This is not outside the basic confines of basic contract law. If this is the case, Villar’s family connections didn’t give him any pronounced advantage over the competition regardless of the fact that his in-laws have a lot of land.
The problem with the “luck” justification is that it discounts the biggest factor for Villar, and any other entrepreneur who started small—capital reinvestment. Instead of eating all profits, the entrepreneur destined for greater things focuses on reinvesting and building up capital to yield more capital. The focus is on an upward spiral that, due to volume and network effect, takes less and less effort to grow and maintain. The personal characters needed to do this are long term vision and self-discipline. Those who blindly attribute Villar’s success to luck do not wish to confront their own uneasiness about long-term planning and self-discipline. Long-term planning involves diligence. It also involves moving on from initial failures and setbacks and always focusing on the goal. Endurance. The same situation applies to self-discipline. Indeed, the lack of these two factors contribute to poverty. By focusing on sheer luck, there’s no need for vision and self-discipline since luck can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. The ego is preserved and no personal change is required. And life goes on.
The Wealthy Oppressor justification
There is a longstanding and pervasive belief in Filipino culture that most wealth is gained through wrongdoing. It can range from failure to pay the right amount of taxes to outright theft, corruption, illegal appropriation, or land robbery. To some extent, this can be attributed to historical fact. The colonizers of the Philippines, whether they be Spanish friars or American land title recording bureaus, often rode roughshod on Native Filipinos’ rights. Whether it is titling “Indios”‘ lands right from under them or violently occupying land, these and similar colonial actions gave rise to the impression that wealth is usually achieved through unfair or sharp practices. Add to this the historical distrust and race-based misconceptions of the Chinese trader or the Indian lender. Consequently, great wealth is locally often seen as the fruits of corruption and oppression. This perception has persisted to the Marcos and post-Marcos era with the advent of corrupt “behest loans” made on behalf of public officials, to “Kamaganak, Inc” dealmaking, to the more recent ZTE Broadband controversy. Corruption, as the public perception goes, produces large scale wealth. Applying this justification to Manny Villar, we can smell whiffs of this old canard in Villar’s Senate detractors in the recent C5 road controversy. While the facts of the case are still being threshed out, one thing is clear: the animus born of equating wealth with wrongdoing is very much alive and well in contemporary Pinoy society.
While it’s true that SOME individuals’ wealth is built through nefarious and unfair means, it doesn’t logically follow that ALL entrepreneurs’ wealth is the fruit of illegal/immoral activity. Unfortunately, this logical disconnect doesn’t faze the person who is determined to justify his own lack of initiative and lack of financial results. This thinking also has the “added benefit” of making rich individuals look morally suspect.
Moreover, the Oppressor justification hinges on an unstated premise: for one person to become rich, others have to become poor. That is the moral power of the oppressor justification, in one stroke it demonizes the rich for being rich while harping on the victim status of the poor. Unfortunately, the zero sum game isn’t based on economic facts. There is such a thing as an expanding pool of resources—not all economic transactions are win lose. In fact, most are win win. That’s the only viable way economies grow.
The biggest problem with the Oppressor justification is that it discourages people from actively SEEKING to become rich. The moral taint of affluence may be enough disincentive in our very conservative and appearance/propriety-driven (well, at least the appearance of it) society. This disincentive harms the rest of Philippine society because it robs the local economy of a potential class of entrepreneurs who could create jobs, add wealth to the national economy, and generate tax revenues.
The Villar story is a slap in the face of traditional concepts of Filipino class
In conclusion, the demonization/marginalization of honest wealth-seeking behavior in Filipino culture is a calculated and timeworn way to deal with the uncomfortable reality that people CAN, and often do, rise from poverty through sheer hard work, diligence, planning, self-discipline, and faith. For those that don’t wish to put in the work or make personal changes to change one’s own economic landscape, Filipino culture has a rich treasure trove of excuses and justifications that take moral blame away from one’s own failings. This is the backlash Villar courts if he overplays the whole “Rich vs Poor” theme in his campaign. The standard unstated question will be “You were poor like me but you rose to become rich. What does that say about me?” That’s the crux of the issue.
Share on Facebook