The topic I chose is Transparency and Good Governance and I chose my Naga City experience as a test case for me to discuss at length these two concepts.
Inevitably, when we talk of transparency and good governance, our gaze turns to our local government. And inevitably, Mayor Jesse Robredo and his administration will be on the spotlight. I say this as introduction to lay the foundation for my talk this afternoon. Commonly, it is through the local government that we have real time interaction with the government and our political leaders. More often than not, it is through the local government that we have first hand experience of what governance is, in any way that we understand it to be.
Naga City is often cited as an example where transparency and good governance exist. And for this, Naga City earned a special recognition from Asiaweek as one of the four most improved cities in Asia in 1999. It is not farfetched to say that among other reasons, this eventually earned Mayor Robredo the Magsaysay Award for Public Service in 2000.
In this period of massive corruption in Philippine history, a promise of transparency and good governance is like a promise of dawn after a stormy night. Any politician who appears to be transparent in his dealings and participatory in his leadership is a hero.
The Kaya Natin of Ateneo de Manila School of Governance is spending lots of money for its advocacy on Good Governance and Ethical Leadership. One of the four political leaders tapped by the program is our own Mayor Jesse Robredo. Now, Mayor Robredo appears to be the beacon of light for the advocacy. Harvey Keh, the program director, even canonized him in the article: Things I’ve Learned from Mayor Robredo.
In this lecture, I invite you to take a second look at our Naga City experience. With the prestigious awards and impressive city reports, powerful sloganisms and campaigns as background, we ask, is there genuine transparency and good governance in the City today?
What is transparency and good governance? Are awards faithful renditions of the reality in Naga? Or are they the crooked mirrors Francis Bacon talked about in the idols of the tribe? What is this city called Maogmang Lugar? Is this a city of empowered citizens? Or is this a city where transparency is actually a myth and good governance is as real as the characters in Disney World?
As we strive to become good citizens, there is a need to take a second look at the real condition of the governance in our city. However, may I clarify: transparency and good governance are not ends in themselves. Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of good governance. And good governance is an instrument to human development.
I. TRANSPARENCY: LIGHTS AND SHADOWS
Transparency is an admission that the government owes its reason for being to the citizens. It respects citizens as stakeholders. It seeks citizens’ participation in governance.
A. Website and Coliseum
The Naga City website received three consecutive awards for its innovative i-governance. The city’s site has become a tool for transparency in governance. It includes information such as facts and figures, bids and public offerings, ordinances and executive orders.
However, the website avoids inconvenient truths. Let’s check the infrastructures. What is the story of the Naga City Coliseum? These gigantic white elephants cost local taxpayers of millions of pesos in basic services. Imagine how, for many years, millions of pesos are wasted for an infrastructure project that until now do not serve its purpose. Obviously, there is failure in the planning. But it is also easy to see that at its core is corruption.
What we see in the website is only the tip of the iceberg. We take the information on its face. We do not see the stories behind the information. The complaints, how they were addressed, and what issues still hang, need further verification that will take than just a click of the mouse.
B. Street parties and open letters
Two years ago, during the 2007 Penafrancia, riots took place during the street parties for two consecutive nights. Mayor Robredo was silent about it. He never acknowledged in public that violence erupted in the street parties. Yet police records said it so.
This year, he cited a survey that 82% of the Naga residents were unaware of the pandemonium that took place in the street parties in the 2007 Penafrancia Fiesta. The statement was an effort to downplay the fact that the street parties were a threat to public safety. Unfortunately, by emphasizing that 82% did not know about the riots, our Mayor unwittingly admitted that the residents are in fact unaware of the truth.
What does it mean? Is there transparency if 82% of the residents are unaware of crimes taking place in Naga? The question now is, how can people participate in governance if they do not know what is happening around them?
On August 15, 2008, Archbishop Leonardo Legaspi wrote our good mayor and urged him re-examine the activities in connection with the Penafracia fiesta. The Archbishop said that street parties and similar activities tarnish the real nature of the Penafrancia Fiesta celebration.
The Mayor replied in writing but the letter was marked “personal.” The Archbishop then wrote the Mayor another letter dated September 7 saying that the matter is of public interest and that he is calling for an open dialogue.
DWNX, a radio station in Naga, expressed its allergy towards the practice of writing open letters. “Why write open letters? Why don’t they just talk about it privately?” exclaimed one radio commentator. The Mayor himself said during the interview: “I have not even read the letter yet, someone was reading it to me over the phone already.” To set the record straight, it was only published long after it was received by the Mayor. But that is beside the point.
Although the letter of the Archbishop was addressed to the Mayor, it was addressed to him as a public servant. And the content of the letter was clearly of public interest. The Archbishop was inviting him and all the residents of Naga, being the host city of such a religious event, to a communal discernment.
The letter is an invitation to a public discourse and thus, by its very nature, seeks the attention and response of the community. However, the Mayor complained that about the letter being published. Some, like the radio station I mentioned, also reacted that it is unbecoming of the local Church to be raising issues through open letters.
The examples I cited are simple illustrations. But they are clear examples of how a public discourse of public issues is not welcome. Our allergy towards open dialogue about public concerns is an indication of our level of political maturity. This allergy would not have existed if transparency is truly ingrained in our system.
C. Open Society versus Closed Naga City
Karl Popper, in his book The Open Society and its Enemies, offers a critique of the fathers of totalitarian states such as Plato, Hegel and Marx. Using his falsification theory in his philosophy of science, he claimed that states can only progress through the process of falsification. He prescribed how important it is to place in governance a devil’s advocate, an institution whose job is to falsify one’s ideas. Only through this could the best of ideas emerge. Freedom of speech is a guarantor of the evolution of the society. Just like counter instances as guarantors for the development in science.
This is how the British Parliament works. Some of you may even have watched over BBC how PM Tony Blair was grilled by the Chamber on the issue of war against terror.
Is Naga an open society or a closed society? Is it a democratic society with a democratic attitude or a democratic society in paper but communistic in practice? In other words, is there genuine transparency there?
The Naga City People’s Council is a wonderful idea that fits the concept of Karl Popper. It is there as an institution to put to test the ideas of the government expressed through its policies. It is there as the watchdog, the devil’s advocate. However, is it given the opportunity to freely present an “anti-thesis?”
Does it have the assurance that a dissenting stand will be met with open-mindedness and fair treatment? Is it able to mobilize even when their cause is against the city government’s plans? In one question: is it empowered? Only empowerment of this council can help ensure checks and balance, and therefore, good governance.
D. Ubos kung ubos
Naga City's current administration boasts of ubos kung ubos, a political campaign slogan which roughly means, all or none at all. It boasts that if one votes for Mayor Robredo, one must vote for all HIS councilors. A Manila-based media outlet called Cedar Media came to Naga to interview Mayor Robredo. One of the things that truly amazed them was the ubos kung ubos phenomenon. They thought the Robredo Party means good governance while the opposition means bad governance
While it sounds amazing, especially for politicians who need to ensure the numbers, this concept of ubos kung ubos is a threat to democracy. It is a manifestation of pseudo-power exercised by a handful. Pseudo-power because, in fact, power rests only on the local chief executive. Local legislators – because they owe their seat to the Mayor who has “star power” – become an assembly line of an ordinance-mill. This is absolutely contrary of the separation of powers necessary in democratic governments.
Closed society refers to totalitarian governments. Leaders are dictators. Systems of assumptions are not subject to discussion. They are sheltered from refutation, modification and renewal.
Many democratic governments such as ours only have the semblance of democracy. But in reality, they are totalitarian, especially in attitudes. Many structures and rituals are utter manifestations of their close-mindedness. “Due to time-constraint”, “you could have just texted me, why bring the matter to the media”, “he has an axe to grind” are some of these attitudinal rituals of closed societies.
Valid public concerns are immediately dismissed as “personal vendettas,” “bitterness” and “insulting the leadership.” Public issues are responded to with “ad hominem” arguments. Instead of addressing to the substance of the claim, personal attacks are made.
Public discourse in such closed societies has many of the features of private conversations. They generally preclude overt challenges and criticisms. Familiar sentiments are heard such as: “can we just talk about it in private?” “We don’t want controversies.” Can we discuss our difference over a cup of coffee?”
Political events, such as website, proliferation of awards, State of the City Address, are manufactured for public consumption, but not for criticism.
In closed societies, critics are not appreciated. They have no part in governance. Instead, they are accused as ‘nasty’, ‘rude’ and ‘insensitive’. Overt criticism of a public concern is immediately labeled as part of a vicious culture called crab mentality.
In closed societies, the citizens are afraid to engage in public discourse because they do not see its merits. For them, it is an exercise in futility. Or worse, it is an invitation to an all out dirty war. Often we hear “It has been that way, why rock the boat?” “I have a business to protect.” “I do not want to expose my skeletons in the closet.” There is fear of being ridiculed. There is fear of a “counter-strike” of unimaginable proportions.
E. Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is not enough to guarantee a free society. Freedom of expression may assure that any citizen could bring his or her opinion to public forum. But the right to assert is not equal to the right to be listened to. One may continue to enjoy his or her freedom of speech while the government continues to enjoy its own freedom to ignore, disregard and marginalize such expression.
Only open dialogue in the discourse guarantees a free and open society. Open dialogue requires engagement and mutual responsiveness. In that dialogue, the government demonstrates its readiness to listen. It does not marginalize the voice of the people.
There is indeed a great danger when citizens fail to be vigilant and be participative in governance. When policies stand unopposed, that sends a wrong signal even to democratic institutions such as ours. That sends the message that the leader is infallible, that his policies are inscrutable. Therefore, no one should question his ideas. Such a thought could easily become a habit, and later a dangerous vice.
Indeed, there is a big difference between freedom of expression and a free society. In a free society, there is not only the freedom to assert. More than the freedom to be heard, there is the freedom to be listened to, and the freedom to be understood.
These freedoms become guaranteed they become rights the citizens can claim for themselves. There is a right to be listened to, without fear that one will be ridiculed, or branded to have an axe to grind, or merely working for another politician. There is a right to demand for honest answers – answers that do not aim to silence the speaker but answers that encourage further discourse.
Transparency includes a readiness to respond with the aim of discovering the best courses of action. It includes a willingness to subject one’s ideas to query and criticism. It welcomes rigid scrutiny and embraces dissenters. It does not employ data and figures that only overwhelm the citizens. It does not attack the speaker in an effort to maintain the status quo. Transparency is not afraid of change initiated from the periphery.
II. Governance: Power versus Empowerment
As mentioned earlier, good governance is not an end in itself. Good governance is not achieved through a website proclaiming the programs of the government. It is not found in the stories about a politician’s love and devotion to his family and country, or in the seemingly simple lifestyle of an elected official. These may give a semblance of good governance but the true yardstick of good governance is human development.
Governing, as opposed to governance, puts weight on control to meet the needs of the people. Governance emphasizes the creation “of an enabling setting within which people can be more effective in meeting those needs for themselves.” This is exactly the goal of human development. Human development aims for people to fully develop to their full potential, and become agents of their own advancement. Thus, good governance lies in empowering the people, in facilitating human development.
Employing the Cartesian Methodic Doubt, how do we see a Mayor staying in power for the past 17 years? Forget about Marcos who was a dictator of the country for 21 years. What does 17 years mean to us?
Mayor Robredo's 17 years in power manifests how he failed to groom anyone to take his place. The fact that we have failed to elect a new leadership indicates a lack of empowerment among our citizens.
Staying long in power must in all cases be suspicious. Has not Thomas Jefferson said, "whenever a man has cast a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct?" History is replete with characters that latched on to power by all means, at all costs. We only need to skim through history to know that staying long in power stagnates the mind and the years breed stubbornness and folly. Jefferson also said: Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Again, there is only one word to describe good governance: empowerment. Good leaders empower their constituents, their communities, their institutions, and their environment. And the purpose is simple: to create a community of equals. This is the true yardstick of good governance.
How many among you can say with conviction that in dignity and significance we are co-equals with our political leaders? We do not value our citizenship because we do not see why it matters. We do not recognize the power within our hands. When I say citizenship in this context, I do not refer to your being a natural born or a naturalized Filipino. Citizenship means work towards the betterment of our society, armed with rights and privileges. Many of us fail to value our citizenship because we feel powerless. In our helplessness, we submit to the wrong idea that we cannot do anything.
Bad governance perpetuates the culture of dependence, the master and slave relationship between the leader and his constituents, between the elite and the masses. Bad governance does not promote and strengthen citizenship.
What does our constitution say? “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (11.1) This statement means that power comes from the citizens. We are the boss, and not Mayor Robredo!
When we elect our political leaders, we pass on that power to them. But the passing on of power is not something physical. It’s not like passing a ball to a teammate. That power is something spiritual. It’s like the passing on of an idea by a teacher to his student.
The idea does not leave the mind of the teacher. While it is handed onto the student, it remains to be in the mind of the teacher. This is the case in governance. That is the reason why any elected official can be impeached when he destroys the trust of the public. For power still resides on the people. The public official is a mere delegate of the people.
A well-informed public is able to get involved in the affairs of the community. They are able to demand that public officials serve the people and not the other way around. They are able to determine their present and chart their future.
Again, the bottom line of good governance is empowerment: to expand the middle class, to trim down poverty. To improve services and to destroy structures that only reinforce and perpetuate dependency in the society.
A. Image is not good governance
Good governance does not end in the apparent. As citizens, it is our duty to look beyond the images.
Image is created and re-created as needed. Erap's legendary appeal to the masses remains a standard among politicians; see how they belabor trying to look reachable, lovable by the masses. Even Raul Roco wore floral polo shirts to soften the image of the disciplined intellectual that he truly was. But despite Erap’s masa appeal, did it prevent him from holding “midnight cabinets?” Did it stop him from hoarding billions of jueteng money?
When you see a picture of President Arroyo eating with her bare hands with the families in the squatters area, what does it mean? Does that mean the poor will have better living conditions? Will they have increased access to sustainable livelihood and shelter? No. It only means that she was at that place at that time. We can even say that it means she wants to appear one with the poor but will that uplift their quality of life? No.
A simple house, a taxi ride, an absence of obvious bodyguards may be traits of a simple lifestyle, but they delude the masses of what good governance really is. Image is, never was, and never will be, good governance. Even worse, image can successfully hide the fact that there is lack of basic services.
Take the case of Naga City's drainage system. After a few hours of heavy rains, the roads are flooded. We walk through murky waters to get to our houses. Worse are our sewage systems. Where do the waste materials from the supermarket, the abattoir, the dump site go? To the Naga City River. These are concerns that require immediate attention. But we do not care because we do not see the filth.
Our thoroughfares are now lined with tasteless, gaudy, kitschy lampposts. Between these lampposts and better drainage and sewage systems, we know what the people need. But of course, who gets to see the drainage and sewage systems? While the lampposts, they add color to the streets. Never mind if they actually inconvenience motorists because the two-way streets are narrow and easily congested especially during peak hours. Never mind if there is actually destruction of beauty because of the disrespect for architectural designs.
Imagine the more than a century year old façade of the Universidad de Sta. Isabel, now lined by lampposts that look like markers for barbershops.
The point is this: good governance lies in the development of our society, in the empowerment of our people. It does not depend on the images that we are bombarded with.
B. Empowerment is key to participatory governance.
Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. The word “people” is not replaceable with the name Arroyo, Villafuerte or Robredo. Or even Tria. Therefore, we can never say that democracy is the government of Tria, by Tria and for Tria.
In a democratic country like ours, there are three golden rules to follow to ensure that it is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, namely: honest elections, the separation of powers, and transparency.
All these must be in place to ensure participatory governance.
First, clean and honest elections. This is one of the weakest points in our country. The reason is obvious: Because of poverty, majority of the electorate are easily manipulated by money.
According to Aristotle, democracy can take place only when the majority belongs to the middle class. To belong to the middle class means to have access to all services that makes one human such as employment, housing and healthcare. To belong to the middle class means to be empowered.
This is not the case in our country. Many have no access to quality education. Many have no access to employment. Many have no access to housing and healthcare. These are what we call the Masang Pilipino. The masses are vulnerable and defenseless against the schemes of the corrupt. They are the ones being exploited during elections.
Let us check the case of Naga City.
Many local governments in the country attempt to provide housing for its constituents. While the project is laudable, it is actually silent about ‘ownership’ or ‘private property’. All they do is to give them a semblance of ownership.
The local governments simply give poor families the ‘right’ to use a housing unit. Such ‘right’ never guarantees ownership across the generations. The Urban Poor Housing in Naga is no different. Without a system of collection, no value is taught by the government on how important it is own a lot for their own empowerment.
According to Rerum Novarum, private ownership is one of the tools towards human development. It is a tool to human creativity and inventiveness. If the urban poor housing is serious with its program towards private ownership, why is it not serious in collecting monthly amortizations? If the leadership is happy about the perpetual indebtedness of its constituents, this is not good governance. Many of the electorate comes from the urban poor. Every unpaid amortization guarantees enough number of votes in the election. Vote for me so you can continue to stay in the house.
Granting that the elections were free from election fraud, but was the decision of the citizens a product of a free and honest discernment? Or was the decision a product of fear of losing their house?
Second, separation of powers. Do we really promote institutional pluralism in Naga? Are the legislative and judiciary separate and autonomous from the executive?
In our city, do you believe there is separation of powers between the Mayor and the Sanggunian? What do we really mean by ubos kung ubos? Common good can only be guaranteed by a pluralist institution.
What does this ubos kung ubos speak about our people? That there are few men and women who are qualified to run our government? Or that there are only few who believe in the democratic structures of our city and are therefore, unwilling to run for office? In both cases, this is a cause for concern. The unwilling believe that an elective position is not the way to serve the people. Those who are willing soon realize that ours is in fact is a closed society. This increases the number of the unwilling. It’s a vicious cycle.
Lastly, transparency. This one was discussed lengthily awhile ago.
C. Pandering versus Empowerment
Welfare is the most convenient system of delivery of basic services in the Philippine government. Consider for instance GMA’s solution to the fuel and rice crises. The government chose to subsidize fuel and rice. But the way to a poor man’s heart is through his hungry stomach. Subsidies are better than nothing at all. However, money is lost in subsidies in many ways. But more importantly, we lose our chance for independence and self-reliance. The poor continue to be dependent. And subsidies can in fact be an act of pandering.
Pandering is taking advantage of the weakness of another person. There is a thin line that divides welfare and pandering. When the intent is the benefit of the other, that is welfare. But if the motive is the selfish benefit of the giver – like a continued term of office - this is pandering and is totally contrary to our being human. Pandering degrades the other, it makes them mere subjects of one’s designs. But for a family in quandary if there is going to be next meal, they become willing victims of panderers. Panderers at least bring food to the table. There is no place for idealism for a grumbling stomach.
Welfare is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. Pandering is not a solution at all. It is only through empowerment that we will be able break the chain. Through empowerment, men become producers. As productive citizens, they will be able to distinguish between what helps them stand on their own and what cripples them.
D. Empowerment of Labor
John Locke said that nature will yield so little without labor. Abandoned to itself, it would not support human life. The use of human wit and human labor is indispensable for its cultivation and improvement.
Good governance requires empowerment of labor. And according to Locke, the best way to empower labor is to insist the ‘natural right’ of human beings to private property. In other words, to empower the labor sector is to educate them of the need as well as the right to ownership. Ownership accords each person a capacity for self-determination.
The labor sector must graduate from the hand-to-mouth existence. The fruits of their labor must guarantee them private property. They must be able to break the culture of dependence. The labor sector must know that their future is determined by work of their hands and not by another man’s election.
Good governance necessitates a re-distribution of wealth, a closing of the gap between rich and poor, a growth of the middle class where the labor sector enjoys a right to private ownership.
Conclusion
I wish to conclude by sharing with you the philosophy of Annette Huiberts: “humans strive for optimal survival.” This ought to be the universal human aspiration: living life to the fullest. And optimal survival cannot be achieved if we think only about ourselves.
If leaders only think about themselves, they will never live life to the fullest. According to Huiberts, one’s optimal survival depends on the growth of her family, the institutions around her, the unfolding of her common future with fellow humans, the welfare of all life here on earth, including the physical universe where she lives in.
Therefore, if we want our government to grow, it must empower its people. If we want our city to grow, it must empower its citizens.
But good governance does not depend only on our political leaders. To ensure good governance, we must value our role as citizens. We must stop believing in superheroes who will solve our problems for us. We must stop waiting for the knight in shining armor who will take us to Camelot. We deserve so much more.
Good governance cannot be achieved from top to bottom. It is determining the will of an empowered people, and having so determined, ensuring that the environment is conducive to human development.
We owe our government our constant vigilance. We owe it to ourselves. There can be vigilance if there is a politically conscious, informed and organized citizenry. We must determine public issues and distinguish them from personal or personality based issues. We must initiate, join and support public discourse. We must make an independent stand. We must initiate change.
Remember what Kennedy said: “Think not what your country can do for you. Think what you can do for your country!” And Obama, in his inaugural address agreed: “that is the price and the promise of citizenship.”
FR. WILMER TRIA
Chair, Philosophy Department
Ateneo de Naga University
