Friday, June 13, 2008 Roperos: Land reform dilemma By Godofredo M. Roperos Politics Also
THE problem with our agrarian reform program is that both the landowner and the beneficiaries are unable to see tacit benefits from it.
While the concept is politically clear—giving land to the landless, with the landless being able to contribute to national growth---the giver does not appear to be clearly defined, except through the size of landholdings and number of family members.
Through the years of the implementation of the land reform program, a tug-of-war between the landowners and the Department of Agrarian Reform has gone on, and always the less politically influential are at the losing end while the politically powerful are often left “untouched.” Note the report about the presidential family’s landholdings in Tarlac.
I believe that if a serious survey is made about the beneficiaries and the “ resisting donors” of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (Carp) and then an inventory is made of its successes and failures, it is possible the pluses and minuses would even out, meaning, no gain is reflected. And if there’s none, what good is Carp to this republic?
The truth of the matter, according to a social scientist friend from the academe, is that the country’s agrarian reform is feeding on the middle class that this nation ought to develop in order to have a dynamic economic growth and not from the landed elite who are protecting their properties through political power and influence.
How many times have I written about the public school teachers who cried foul when they were forced to give up part of only a 16-hectare land they bought from savings? Yet, many of those owning 25 hectares and up are left untouched because they sway political power and influence in the town, or province, or is part of the national leadership.
Such is the unfairness in the agrarian reform program that, I am sure, is a key reason behind the slowness of the Carp implementation. This factor, though, is only one of the barriers to the successful attainment of the program and of improving the economic life of our people who live below the poverty line.
It was even reported yesterday that Gov. Gwen Garcia has objected to the release by the National Statistical Coordination Board of statistics showing that “Cebu has the most number of poor families, at 184,207.” Does this mean that the situation could have been different had the Carp been successfully implemented in the province?
