Article 12 and the local economy
ARTICLE 12 of the CNMI Constitution can be repealed by voters — if they want to. But previous proposals to scrap it have gone nowhere, and the last time an elected official tried to amend (not even repeal) Article 12, it didn’t go too well. He had to withdraw his measure, saying he did not intend “to create chaos in our community,” which should give us an idea of how “negative” the “feedback” was. Most voters want to retain Article 12 as clearly indicated in the public pronouncements of elected officials and other politicians seeking office.
For many local residents, in any case, Article 12 is not an economic issue. It is about the preservation of their distinct cultural identity, and their ownership of their own land. Article 12 is their fortress — their last line of defense, so to speak, as islanders in a rapidly changing world. They want to secure their home islands, especially for their descendants. And that is the reassuring promise and guarantee of Article 12.
However, it is inaccurate to claim that “under Article 12, Japanese [investments] ‘exploded’ and [they] invested millions in the CNMI” in the late 1980s. That “explosion” happened because of a strong Japanese economy and currency. As the late CNMI economist Bill Stewart noted, Japanese banks in those days “overflowed with money, much more than they could accommodate by relending in Japan itself. It was this money that went abroad and around the world to finance a myriad of projects.” And these included the “millions invested in the Northern Marianas,” which “launched the islands on the road to a thriving tourism industry.”
To be sure, investors back then were aware of Article 12. But they also knew about Section 805 (a) of the Covenant, which stated, in so many words, that land ownership restrictions could be revisited “twenty-five years after the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement….” That is, 25 + 1986 = 2011. Beginning in that year, CNMI voters could amend or even repeal Article 12. For the past 13 years, they could have done so, but they refused to do so. For many local residents, Article 12 remains a “non-issue,” regardless of the state of the economy, and it will continue to be off-limits for the foreseeable future.
Conflation
SORRY, but no. “Our economic challenges” were not caused by “misuse and abuse of funds.” The state of the economy and the government’s rapacity for other people’s money are separate issues. No matter the economic situation, public officials have been known to not spend money appropriately while “robbing Peter” — among others — “to pay Paul.”
One has to address government abuse and corruption, of course. (And if you read our back issues that date back to the Trust Territory days, you’d notice that candidates for office were all against government abuse and corruption.) But elected officials must also do something — anything — to help improve the local economy. This includes not imposing additional burdens on businesses, consumers or taxpayers; finding ways to make the islands more attractive to visitors; cutting red tape and streamlining the regulatory process to make it easier for legitimate businesses, big or small, to do business in the CNMI; among many other things.
As for government corruption, we should remind ourselves that the bigger the government, the more offices and programs and services it creates; the more rules and regulations it imposes; the more opportunities there are for influence-peddling, favoritism, cronyism and graft.
As author and public policy analyst Michael D. Tanner would put it, “You can decry the influence of lobbyists and money on politics all you want, but those who are taxed, regulated, paid, hired, or controlled by the government are naturally going to try to influence how they are taxed, regulated, paid, hired, and controlled.”
Corruption, in short, “is endemic to big government.”
