Local
Government and Civil Society
(January 22-29,
2006)
By Melvin G. Macusi
 |
| Melvin
G. Macusi |
Contents of the Report:
I. Brief description
of the seminar
II. Profile of
the participants
III. Seminar methodology
IV. Topics and
issues taken up
V. What I gained
from the seminar
VI. Recommendations
Brief description of the seminar
It is one of the many activities of Friedrich Naumann Stiftung
implemented by one of its organs, the International Academy for
Leadership (IAF). By gathering participants with varied political
backgrounds, the seminar in effect promoted a dialogue and sharing
of experiences. It was said that “political dialogue” is the key
strategy of FNSt in carrying out its programs and in attaining
its objectives in Germany and throughout the world.
Although the topics may be considered basics in local governance,
the scope of the discussions was so rich and so broad since there
were many backgrounds to consider.
The training design employed a variation of techniques that
made discussions more interesting and informative.
Profile of the participants
At least one-third of the participants were councilors like
me, and deputy mayors who were duly elected in democratic elections.
Some were high-ranking party officers; there were also employees
directly involved in local administration or in the delivery of
basic services; there were also those in private or non-government
organizations; and one was an academician.
With the diversity of professions from different locations,
the discussions had limitless borders, as expected. Participants
came from Asia, South America, Europe and Africa, some are from
former communist countries.
Seminar methodology
A topic was usually discussed first in the plenary and then
the group will break up into smaller groups for further discussion
of a more specific matter related to the main subject. The groupings
were either based on geographical considerations, on professional
backgrounds, or sometimes on the languages.
English, Spanish and Russian were the main languages used in
the seminar, so the interpreters had to be following us even in
small group activities.
Each small group was then required to render an oral report
to the plenary. Another roundtable discussion follows as a finale.
The facilitators required the use of the meta card technique
in presenting reports. Other means were also allowed, like power
point, but there should always be the meta card on movable panels.
As we have learned, this is one of the German innovations. The
facilitators also used this method.
“Role playing” was also done in two topics, the privatization
of local water services and land acquisition and utilization.
We had also a trip to the nearby city of Cologne and a meeting
was arranged with the officers of the City Council. On one hand,
a guest lecturer from Aachen was invited to the academy to discuss
their pioneering programs on local government personnel administration.
An on-line lecture-discussion was also set up where the lecturers
were in Israel and they talked about their private group providing
assistance to migrants in Israel from South America.
Topics and issues taken up
The seminar covered the following topics and issues:
- Decentralization of powers and responsibilities from the
central government to local governments
- Delegation of responsibilities and services by the local
government to private or non-government organizations
- What liberalism got to do with decentralization and delegation
- Comparison of the levels and manners of decentralization
among the various countries/regions
- Privatization of certain services or enterprises of the local
government; requisites for a successful privatization, and lessons
from unsuccessful experiences
- How local government can promote and safeguard democracy
even in assuming more powers delegated by the state
- Funding of local services, funding models
- Experiences of liberals in the city of Cologne
- “Citizen-friendly government” : the Aachen model
- Civil society participation in the local government
- Local development – a liberal instrument in addressing the
concerns of the grassroots
What I gained from the seminar
As I said earlier, the subject matters may look as basic things.
But the context, style and broadness upon which they were discussed
made the seminar very fruitful and rewarding. Especially so that
the ones I was interacting with were people directly involved
in local government operations in their own countries. It was
always interesting to learn from the very people who personally
experienced what they were saying. And from my side, it was also
an opportunity to review and tell about the Philippine model of
local government autonomy and the functions and problems that
go with it.
In addition to the formal discussions inside the classrooms,
the activities “in-betweens” also brought forth a deeper appreciation
of the topics.
This 8-day seminar enriched my understanding on the local government
and civil society partnership and I want to mention some of them.
There are proven essential requisites to consider for a successful
delegation and privatization. In all phases, liberal and democratic
practices have to be observed even if they make the work a little
more complicated and sometimes more expensive.
We have to stick to the hard fact that the primary purpose of
privatizing businesses owned by the government is to further improve
the quality of the products or services and further reduce prices.
The main thing here is the well-being of the consumers and constituents.
The idea of raising funds out of privatization should only be
a secondary consideration. The city of Cologne, for example, even
at this stage of its status as a progressive city, had not privatized
any of its services.
A local government vested with more powers and responsibilities
through decentralization must first gain the trust of its people,
meaning all speculations of corruption and incompetence had to
be settled and institutions that will protect this trust have
to be in place and seen to be functional. Moreover, it is necessary
for the people that will run the local government to be equipped
with working knowledge and skills, and this means that there ought
to be a continuous training program for local officials.
All processes in coming out with development plans and programs
for the community must be in accordance with democratic procedures,
and the wider the considerations, the better.
And another important thing that I gained is the new network
of friends and connections that can be tapped for other activities
in the future. Fortunately with the internet, we remain in contact
with each other, still sharing news and still exchanging opinions
on matters we are commonly interested in – politics and economy.
Recommendations
The seminar in Gummersbach pooled in participants from various
continents and regions. This is perfectly well, as I have stated.
But it may also be good to have seminars on the regional level,
for Southeast Asia and Pacific region. Although the perspectives
will be narrower, the possibility of replication of each others’
models will be much greater because of the similarities and closeness
of culture. And to implement this, it might be worthy to consider
the establishment of an IAF-like training institution in the region.
Another suggestion, in fact an appeal, is for the FNF to allocate
more slots of this kind of courses to liberal local legislators,
through the L4.
Finally
Again, let me express my profound thanks to the FNF in the Philippines
for giving the opportunity to attend this very important seminar.
Specially, I will never forget the kindness of the Resident Representative,
Dr. Ronald Meinardus and his staff. And of course, my heartfelt
thanks to all the people in IAF headed by Jorg Dehnert; and finally
to the Course Assistant, Ann-Cristin Baumann, who had solutions
to all my problems during my stay in the academy.
