Christian Democracy in the Perspective of A Young Mover

Having been introduced in few occasions as a movement of young professionals, as a member I take pride in hearing it along with other ears in a well – attended forum. It frills me with some kind of enthusiasm and even more take pride in uttering the name “CDM”.

But what is CDM? What are its ideologues? What makes it different or similar with other socio, civic or political organizations?

Last summer of this year, a group of young and idealistic individuals coming from different professional fields gather to nimble a philosophical and pragmatic principle that is so relevant with the young generation – the Centrist Principle.


In taking the name, most immediately pointed on its location in the political spectrum that are commonly and eloquently describe in political education activities and consequently spot the various organizations lining up along the particular sphere of the spectrum. But Centrist Democratic Movement (CDM) is not. Centrist doesn’t mean any of it, though in some instances as urgency of identification require, tended to be one or the other – as other political groups with. Centrist democracy does not require of politics as a headlight of concept, it is instead a lens, along with other thought disciplines like humanism, economics, and governance.

Centrism is founded on three broad principles – dignity of man, subsidiarity and social market economy.

With a rusty training in politics and philosophy, I will leave the discussion to the rest of the fellow centrist to elucidate the concept in many fora possible. Let me deal with the remainder of this reflection to discuss social market economy instead.

In 18th century, Adam Smith pronounced the term “laissez faire” which became the leading theory in economics for many centuries. In his book, “An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations”, he mentioned that it is not the benevolence of the butcher nor the generosity of the baker that a meat or bread is produced. It is not their desirous spirits that lead them to partake in the production of consumable goods that a meat was butchered nor a bread was baked, but was due to the personal motive of the individuals. Thus, a baker will produce a bread because he can earn an amount equivalent to the value of the bread – while the buyer was also motivated to buy as a result of his satisfaction derived from consuming the bread. Note that the buyer and seller transact in order to perfect the activity; the price and quantity of goods were negotiated. The indicator of this done negotiation is the price of the product in the market. Particularly note, that it’s the personal (greedy) motivation of the individual player (buyer and seller) that each enter into an agreement. Therefore, the greater the quantity of bread a seller can produce, the greater is his benefits (profit) as there will be more buyer whose desire for the product are addressed (quantity demanded) - this lead into the formation of the capital market economy. The capital market states that the greater the capital, the greater is the benefit, this in the form of wealth. Thus the motivation is to accumulate more and more capital in a more and more personalistic fashion. Let me point out that the government is assumed to take a very little role because its intervention might result into market distortion and thus shadow away the true market activity. It was believed that the buyers will buy to the amount they are willing and able to buy, while the sellers will produce the product limited by their constraints (cost of production). Therefore, the buyer and the seller will adjust in order to arrive at the agreeable level of goods and price – the invisible handshake.

Theoretically good, but the frailty of this concept is evident in the recorded history. The 1930’s Great Depression was a result of the operation of the free-market economy, as there were already bank runs happening, most were still expecting that the economy will go back to the so – called “equilibrium” a state of balance. But it did not and resulted instead to global recession. This was also evident in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and in the most recent 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The theory has failed, and it failed severely.

On the other hand, there develop in simultaneity with the free-market economics the welfare economics. It talks about a strong government that maintains the social protection like housing provision, health and education for the citizens. In 1950’s, the State of New York employed the welfare system in its governance by providing housing for its people. The program was designed in order to facilitate equity, in economics being referred to as “equality on outcome” that is everyone should have as much as everyone else. This lead into the formation of “Welfare States”. The trouble with welfare state is that those who benefit from the social program do not as much provide equal value on the program as everyone can get as much as the other. Simply saying, why should one work hard in order to buy basic necessities when the government can easily provide one? Thus, the trouble of “long queues”, and the “shoe cost”. Long queues translates into redistribution of the productive hours of a worker into not productive allocation. Shoe cost on the other hand refers to the “wearing and tearing” and time that were lost to the individual to gain access of the social protection program of the government.

Social Market Economy (SME) found itself in between of the two mentioned system. It allows the market to flourish that is the full interaction of the buyers and the sellers, while the government facilitates a competitive environment by eradicating monopoly or even oligopoly. It protects the market even from its own self. While so doing, it maintains equal protection afforded to its citizens. It is a market system which place in focus in the many economic activities the concern for every worker, the welfare of the worker, and the protection when the worker cannot do the job.

Putting in context, Philippine economy is a paradox. A country laid with abundance of mineral resources, natural resources and human resource but continuously and chronically hounded with poverty and hunger, budget deficit, underdevelopment. The economic structure is portrayed as a pyramid with the tip composed of small number of individuals who controls the great number of economic resources, while the bigger portion controlling a marginal value of the wealth.

Then why Centrist? It will provide the mechanism to pull the greater number of the lower portion of the pyramid up. How? Allowing the market to be flushed with small and micro players and disaggregating the oligarch (Hutchcroft call our economy as booty capitalism with oligarch having both economic and political power) so as to distribute the enjoyment of profit thus affecting the trickle down effect.

By Adrian Tamayo, Member, Centrist Democratic Movement