Aquino falls back on myth of Potemkin villages

Analysis

Aquino falls back on myth of Potemkin villages

By Amando Doronila

Faced with setbacks in its prosecution of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the Senate impeachment trial and under fire for its dismal performance in economic management, the Aquino administration has fallen back on “Potemkin village” projects that look good on paper but are short in results.

The term “Potemkin villages” derives from fake settlements built by the Russian minister, Prince Grigory Potemkin, to fool Empress Catherine the Great during her visit to the Ukraine and Crimea in 1787.

According to one claim, Potemkin “had hollow facades of villages constructed along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River in order to impress the monarch and her entourage (which included foreign ambassadors) with the value of her new conquest of territories in Russia’s expansion southward, thus enhancing his standing in the empress’ eyes.”

Potemkin, who led the Crimean military campaign, was also the lover of Catherine the Great.

Modern historians are divided on the degree of truth behind Potemkin villages. Some historians argue that Potemkin “did mount efforts to develop the Crimea and probably directed peasants to spruce up the river front in advance of the empress’ arrival.”

Largely fictional

A Russian historian, Aleksander Panchenko, an authoritative specialist on 19th-century Russia, concluded that the myth of Potemkin village had basis in reality.

“Potemkin really did build mock towns and villages, but he never denied that they were theatrical sets,” Panchenko wrote.

“Potemkin’s goal was to demonstrate that this vast region was already practically civilized, or was at least energetically becoming civilized, by showing a vision of what the area would become, using screens on which villages were painted and driving flocks of sheep each night to the next stop along the routes.”

According to Simon Sebag-Montefiore, the story of “fake settlements with glowing fires designed to comfort the monarch and her entourage as they surveyed the barren territory at night, is largely fictional.”

The term “Potemkin villages” has also been used to describe the attempts of the former Soviet Union to fool foreign visitors.

In modern political usage, the term has come to mean “something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance.” The term has “become synonymous with phony display.”

Phlegmatic growth

It is from this perspective that this article translates the response of the one-dimensional Aquino administration to mounting criticism over the dismal growth rate of the economy during the past two years and over the underspending on public infrastructure.

In response to the calls of the International Monetary Fund and the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce to pump-prime the miserable economic growth with accelerated spending on public infrastructure, the Aquino administration’s reaction has been phlegmatic and as “feeble” as the 2011 GDP growth, which is how the government’s own economists described last year’s growth.

The administration has referred the public, clamoring for economic accomplishments, to its own “Potemkin villages” epitomized by its centerpiece economic plan or what is claimed to pass for one—the so-called PPP (public-private partnership)—as its engine of growth and economic development.

The PPP is a blueprint for reinvigorating the economy after it slid down the slope in the first two years of the Aquino administration.

Not his first love

On close scrutiny of the PPP’s record, the economy obviously is not President Aquino’s first love or priority in his agenda for the nation compared to his penchant for bashing the heads of those “obstructing” his anticorruption campaign and for creating stratospheric slogans on good governance (for example, “daang matuwid”).

In his speech to the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce on Jan. 26, amid the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the President acknowledged the growing concerns about infrastructure underspending. While he cited a number of infrastructure projects with a total disbursement of P105 billion for 2011, there was no report of completed projects.

Mr. Aquino said he was happy to report around two-thirds of the P205.8-billion budget for the infrastructure program had been released.

“This means P137.4 billion will rebound to employment for those who work in construction, increased mobility for goods and services across the nation, and more livelihood opportunities for those in our local communities,” he said.

But these are not results. They are prospective.

Castles in the air

Days later, Finance Undersecretary John Phillip Sevilla said the PPP program would not be felt until next year.

“Assuming we bid out the 16 projects this year, the funding requirement will not come until three, four, six months, after those bids,” Sevilla said.

He was actually referring to projects in the pipeline and bottlenecks. This means there would be nothing to show in results and we would have to wait until the middle of the Aquino term in 2013.

The PPP program did not take off last year. The Aquino administration expected in November 2010 that it could implement 10 PPP projects. Only one was awarded—the Daang Hari-SLEx Road Project.

According to the finance department, only the P1.96-billion Daang Hari project, awarded to Ayala Corp. in December last year, could have an economic impact this year.

“The bulk of spending, the economic impact, the multiplier will start next year,” the finance official said.

This program’s implementation is all up in the air. It is worse than Potemkin’s villages. It is building castles in the air. Potemkin was less flamboyant in his vision.