The “Sakop” Mentality: The Nemesis of National Consciousness and Development

I have always been fascinated by how our colonial masters were able to found and maintain a colony that is oceans away from them at the time that technology was not as advanced as it is today to overcome distance, demographics, and topography. The images of colonialism as something similar to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 are not an accurate depiction of the 16th century Spanish colonization of the Philippines and 20th century US colonization of the Philippines.

Reading An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines edited by noted American historian Alfred McCoy and Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines by Paul D. Hutchcroft affirmed my insights as to how Spain and the US were able to position themselves to be the Filipinos’ colonial masters for centuries and decades. The first book examines how some families in the Philippines were able to build their political and business empires in a manner replete with fraud, deceptions, trickery and violence. The second book is an exposition of the perils of pervasive rent-seeking behavior by entrenched economic elites which renders Philippine economy perpetually lethargic. The book is filled with details about Marcos cronies, central bank governors and business tycoons and how these personalities turned the Philippine banking system into an accomplice in maintaining a decayed political and economic structure. The two books chronicled the capture of the Philippine state and economy by a few families and elite. While not thoroughly and directly discussed in the book, the seeds of the mayhem wrought by the oligarchic elite on our political and economic life could be linked to our colonial past. Their rent-seeking behavior was emboldened, encouraged, and legitimated by the foreign colonial interests that had ruled the Philippines. Unfortunately, up to this time, the foreign and elite interests still intertwine. In instance where foreign interests were resisted, it was not due to a nationalistic fervor but largely due to threats to the elite’s vested interests.

The two books provide insights to the question of why we have failed to develop. Both the Philippine state and the market were stunted by the leadership of both political and economic elite who on one hand, failed to rise above and go beyond their familial and parochial loyalties and on the other, failed to pursue a genuine national and development agenda for the country. The “marriage” of politics and economics placed the country in a vicious trap. Those who are in power are those who control the economy.

The Philippine bureaucracy remains weak because it is populated by political appointees who are indebted to their patrons and therefore, cannot implement objectively rules and regulations. Elected officials would opt to appoint members of their “network” so the quid pro quo principle becomes handy “when the time comes”. It is not what you know that matters but who (m) you know.

National development programs contained in legislations and policies are often watered down to protect the interests of the political and economic elite. How can we expect those in power to go against their own economic interests? The elite have often behaved as if their interests approximate the national interests. Adam Smith’s invisible hand could never work in a country whose elite look at the national assets as booty to be partitioned among themselves. Political power creates access to economic opportunities which the elite monopolize. This behavior holds back genuine capitalist development in the country. Only the elite would have access to capital and information needed for business ventures.

The capture by the elite of the development tripod of market, state, and society becomes complete with the perpetuation of the “sakop” mentality among a large segment of the population.

The core of the Filipino view of social relationship is that of the kinship system which is by blood, affinity, and ritual. One’s kinship network is one’s social capital that facilitates or inhibits one’s social mobility. One’s ability to connect to the “network” or “sakop” of the elite paves the way for political and economic opportunities. The elite take it upon themselves to distribute to their “sakop” the “wealth” of the network. The members of the network support the network by contributing to the network’s leader/s their loyalty and support. This “sakop” mentality aptly explains political family feud, the need for money during elections to “support” the “hoard” working at the “grassroots”. thus our inability to develop a national consciousness. The “sakop” creates parochial expectations and obligations that prevent us from developing a national consciousness that will impel us to pursue a national development agenda.

We are indeed trapped by our past and present. The way out of this path dependency is citizenship education. It is the SOCIETY in the tripod that will help us finally transform both the Philippine state and the market. Our political and economic structures might be captured, but the dynamic spirit of the Filipino keeps the light of fire burning. There are many stories of hope that are happening around the country. All we have to do is collate them, draw lessons from them and weave a social theory that calls our attention not only on the insights produced by critical theories that underlie books such as those of McCoy and Hutchcroft by more so on the generative energy of individual and collective agency.