Local Government and Civil Society in the Philippines (1)

(October 26 – November 2, 2008)
by Bienvenido Oplas, Jr (2)

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr

Last October 26 to November 2 this year, I was one of 23 lucky participants from four continents who attended the international seminar on “Local Government and Civil Society” sponsored by the International Academy for Leadership (IAF) of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty. The event was held at Theodor Heuss Akademie in Gummersbach, Germany. This is 56 kms. from Cologne. Below is my picture in front of the akademie.

I was interested in this subject because I have many questions in mind about the role or misrule of some local governments in entrepreneurship and economic development in the Philippines. So by participating first in the online seminar and exchanges, then in the actual seminar in Germany, I hoped I could answer many of those questions, as well as share my ideas and observations on the subject.

The other participants, the other “survivors” out of the original 65 participants in the online seminar phase, were from South Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, Ukraine, Lithuania, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Pakistan, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. About two-thirds of us were from local government (city or municipal councilors, a Mayor, and two leaders of liberal political parties) while one-third came from civil society organizations. Below is our group picture: 23 participants + IAF staff and 2 moderators + 2 translators (English-Spanish)

Below are the important lessons I have learned from the seminar.

1. Principle of subsidiarity. The individuals, their family and neighbors, friends and associates, their village, civic, professional, cultural, or sports organizations, can do things by themselves, and are allowed to do those things, to solve certain social and economic problems. Those tasks and functions that they cannot handle and manage will be assigned to the next higher level body, in this case, the local governments. And those tasks that cannot be handled more efficiently by local governments, the central or national or federal government should come in.
   
   In short, functions that can be done at the lowest and most basic units or levels of citizen administration should be done there. Only when the lower levels cannot handle those tasks more efficiently that higher levels of administration be created and mobilized. One example of task that the individuals and their voluntary associations cannot handle more efficiently is neutralizing armed robbers and criminals; or ensuring fast and unbiased justice system for people with legal and jurisdictional conflict with each other.
   
   
2. Decentralization. Related to the above principle, functions that can be done at the lower levels should be delegated there since they know the specific and local conditions more than those in the higher levels. In the process, this hastens the manner of addressing problems and correcting mistakes and bottlenecks. The dreaded “B” word for “bureaucracies and more bureaucracies” can also be minimized significantly.
   
   The process of decentralization is from the federal or central government level down to state or regional level, to provincial or city/municipal level, down to the village level.
   
   
3. Privatization. This is turning public services into private ones; it is also turning government assets and properties into private assets. Since some or most of those government properties have debts, those liabilities are in turn transferred to private liabilities.
   
   The main goal for doing this is related to the subsidiarity principle, those services that can be done by the citizens, their associations and enterprises, be given to them. This gives them more personal responsibility, allows for more competition among private service providers, and reduces the need for more taxes and fees to sustain those previously government services and properties.
   
   
4. Local Government Funding. It is important that local governments should have their own funding separate from those transferred to them by the central or national government in order to assert their own political and economic independence. Among the various revenues that local governments can tap are the following: real estate and other local taxes, shared taxes among neighboring cities and municipalities, various fees, contributions, income from business activities, sale of local assets, loans and grants.
   
   
5. New Public Management (NPM). A lean state, lean management and management by objectives, flat hierarchy, centrality of citizens as “customers”, service quality management, and products approach. The above 4 principles and concepts are related to NPM.
   
   
6. Civil Society Participation. Aside from electoral participation, the citizens and their voluntary associations, enterprises and other organizations can pressure government leaders to stick to their avowed services and program of government. Modes of citizen participation include the following: citizen question hour, community meetings and public hearings, citizens’ petition and objections, and citizen referendum.
   
   I believe that all of the above lessons can be applicable in the Philippines. The task is greater for political parties and civil society organizations and think tanks that advocate more individual liberty, more personal freedom and responsibility.

Aside from these formal lessons during the seminar, we also learned a few minor but important lessons among us participants.