Excluding the People in Government

07 October 2009

Yesterday morning, it was broadcast live on TV a question-and-answer forum involving 100 LGU officials and 4 presidential aspirants – Sen. Manny Villar of the Nactionalista Party, defense secretary Gilberto Teodoro of Lakas-Kampi, Sen. Chiz Escudero of the Nationalist People’s Coalition and Senator Noynoy Aquino. The forum tackled very substantial issues on governance: (1) allocation of resources, (2) accountability, (3) local autonomy and (4) the peace process. The forum was a featured part of a 4-day workshop by local government executives. The LGU participants, of course, looked at the issues from the point of view of local government officials. The responses given by the presidentiables typically came from the vantage point of those sitting who have been sitting in high positions of government. It was, as can be expected, a dialogue between national and local government decision makers.

While such dialogues may remove obstacles to a smoother working relation between local and national offices or even improve government efficiency, the discussion is framed within an approach to governance that does not include the people as real, active players in the affairs of government. The discussants must have forgotten that in a democracy government is about representing and serving the people. In that forum the people were not represented, much less served by those who professed to be public servants.

For example, in the matter of allocation of resources: more than the problems attendant to the sharing of revenues between LGUs and the national governments is the actual use of government funds to benefit the poor and marginalized sectors. This was not addressed in a manner that would indicate the existence of an agenda for these sectors of the population. This means that between the would-be presidents and local government officials, there isn’t any agenda for the people. A people’s agenda would have a major share of government resources devoted to stimulate employment in the towns and cities; provide incentives to small farmers to produce more food crops; embark on a food security program locally and nationally; make public education, housing, health care and other social services more accessible to most people. Incidentally, the forum was held at the Asian Institute of Management.

Of course, a people’s agenda like that would undercut local and national officials’ control of government resources so necessary for political survival. The truth of the matter is that the Philippine government has never been short of money for national and local economic development. But what the government earns from the people in the form of taxes and revenues from state monopoly enterprises is basically regarded a means for political ends, that is, for their continuance in power. Whether it is by lawful or unlawful means, the purpose is the same: the maintenance of political machinery that is sustained by a broad and intricate system of patronage that cascades from Malacaňang down to the barangay.

The other very lively issue in the upcoming elections is public accountability. It seems that the question of accountability is simply left to the integrity of individual officials or the strict execution of laws. By international standards, the Philippine is not far behind in terms of laws against corrupt practices. In fact, we have an office of the ombudsman, an independent constitutional body especially created to prosecute erring public officials. Nevertheless, corruption in government continues unrestrained. This is because officials with connections to the powers-that-be conduct themselves in office with impunity, that is, with neither fear nor shame. It is quite ironic to have the Ombudsman herself face impeaching proceedings for complicity in high-profile cases of corruption.

Actually, public accountability is a political matter. It is about political relationship between leaders and people. Public officials don’t hold themselves accountable to a people who have no power over them. Only an empowered people can demand a clean government. It is by design, I suspect, that people are kept divided, dependent, inferior and hopeless so that the leaders don’t have to be answerable to them. Elections under these circumstances only abet the situation as people are rendered passive players in matters affecting their life and future. For an electoral exercise to truly matter, elections should be a means and opportunity for the people to actualize the power that democracy has reserved for them.