by Alex Roldan
Since the days when I was still with a development organization, there has been a growing increase in the usage of the phrase “good governance”.
Today, as a new administration is about to be ushered in, there is hope among Filipinos that the new leadership will be an exemplar of good governance. But what is governance in the first place, and how would we know which is good, or bad, governance?
Several articles have attempted to define the word “governance,” and they all led to one thing – the process of decision-making by a government and how decisions are implemented. Meaning, even if the process used in decision-making is considered faulty by other standards, it does not always follow that the result is bad governance; neither does it follow that what is construed to be a good decision-making process necessarily results in good governance.
The concept of good governance is not new. In fact, NGOS and development agencies have been advocating for it for decades. Donor organizations are very particular about the decision-making process of governments and even make “good governance” as a pre-condition for their assistance.
A UN paper–What is Good Governance–suggested that “dealing with good governance” involves the analysis of the process and systems by which a specific society, or organization operates. Though government is one of the main actors of governance, it is far from being the only one; depending on the specific entity under study, the other actors can include influential landlords, associations of peasant farmers, cooperatives, NGOs, research institutes, religious leaders, finance institutions, political parties, the military, media, lobbyists, international donors, multi national corporations, etc.” Moreover, “governance applies to several contexts: corporate governance, international governance, national, regional or local governance.”
This definition created the term “civil society” that refers to all actors in governance, except the government and the military. This is the very reason why some groups and development technocrats are insisting on the participation of civil societies in the government’s decision-making process – which obviously indicates that participation of the other sectors in government’s decision-making process is essential to “good governance.”
This is where the complexity of the process comes in. Past government administrations can claim that they practiced good governance because they applied the “participatory approach” in their decision-making process. They created committees and agencies to reach out to the grassroots level and established structures to coordinate other sectors such as the business and other private organizations. Though these are formal government structures, there are other government decisions, particularly at the national level that are informal – that are more potent than the formal structure. I am referring to those people who rub elbows with the President and top decision makers of the nation! More often, they undermine other government established structures. These informal decision-making structures are often the result of corrupt practices or lead to corrupt practices.
It is not difficult to distinguish government decisions that are influenced by some interested sectors. For example, our policies on agriculture wherein exportable products are favored despite the fact that it results in the dislocation of farmers and food production shortages. The interest groups, particularly business, clearly influence this decision. Powerful families that do not want their lands included in the agrarian reform program, would exert efforts to convert their estates into industrial areas. Or, we have an agency for the indigenous people for example, a very important agency for the development of the sector – but does not have the needed budget to run their programs.
What I am saying is that, the process that the government undertakes to attain good governance may be correct, but let us accept the fact that there are sectors that are more influential than others. The struggle “to be heard and be counted” is a matter of life and death to the marginalized members of civil society, particularly the more vulnerable sectors.
I believe that the new administration is very familiar about the concept and the need to embrace the characteristics of good governance if it wants this country to extricate itself from the mess it is currently in. Noynoy Aquino’s stint with the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP), a leading development organization in the country that is on the forefront of good governance, be it in government or the corporate sector, must be familiar with, and believes in, the concept, including its characteristics. Butch Abad, his campaign manager, has worked with the same institution and other NGOs before becoming a politician. One of the names earlier bandied about as a shoo-in for inclusion in the Aquino government is Dinky Soliman’s, the former DSWD secretary who is well- known in NGO circles.
I bet that many members of an Aquino cabinet will be people who have mad a name for themselves in the development industry or NGOs who are also familiar with processes that are consensus-oriented, participatory, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. Some members of the coming Noynoy cabinet may even have worked with GMA but got frustrated over the fact that they and their Big Boss were not on the same wave-length.
It should be clear, however, that while good governance is ideal, it is easier said than done. The new administration must practice what it believes in. It must be able to work towards this ideal with the aim of making good governance a reality.
And no more excuses, please.
For comments, e-mail to:roldanalex@yahoo.com
