Search This Blog

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Democratic governance in the Philippines



The UNDP’s main focus in relation to democratic governance relates to areas such as justice and human rights; public administration; and political development (UNDP, 2011b). The focus on justice and human rights deals with reforms in the legal systems and the institutionalisation of government practices in a manner that encourages the use of the rule of law and accountability. The most commonly targeted institutions in enhancing justice reforms are the courts of law, the law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor offices, the correctional facilities and human rights advocacy groups (UNDP, 2011b). Some of the practices focused on include approaches to legal justice and alternative mechanisms, gender sensitivity and other indigenous practices. Public administration on the other hand focuses on areas such as efficient provision of government services, rationalisation of procedures, corruption free practices and the maintenance of good ethics across all levels of government. Political reforms have more to do with the extent to which all sections of the society are included in the decision making processes which mainly border on electoral processes (UNDP, 2011b).  
The political system in the Philippines is democratic and a multiparty system. It is a representative presidential system where the president is the head of state and government (National Democratic Institute, 2006). The government is organised into three distinct branches including the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. The Philippine judiciary system is headed by the Supreme Court while the executive is headed by the president. The legislature on the other hand consists of the two-chamber congress which shares the legislative power with the government (National Democratic Institute, 2006). The two-chamber congress comprises of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In addition to these distinct functions, the Philippine government maintains a fully functional office of the Ombudsman which is independent and monitors all the three government functions. This office is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the various government functions execute their mandates devoid of any crimes, graft, corruption or unethical practices. The Philippine government is ranked as Medium Human Development country by the UNDP and has been known to make some decisive steps in ensuring better governance systems are in place in the country in order to encourage greater economic growth and development (UNDP, 2010).       

Democratic governance is considered to be one of the greatest pillars for ensuring development in any country. This is especially so where executive authority is exercised by elected officials as is the case in the Philippines where the president and vice president are elected by the citizens (UNDP, 2011). The rationale behind this presumption is based on the fact that democracy ensures that the leaders remain accountable to their electorate at all times and their continual survival in leadership is predominantly influenced by the effectiveness with which they are seen to advance the public interest. Presidents are elected for one term in office which runs for six years (National Democratic Institute, 2006). Such presidents are barred from seeking re-election unless in situations where a president assumes office as a result of a constitutional succession where such a president serves for less than four years. Even though the presidents are largely ineligible for re-election, their sponsoring political parties continue to have a stake in the democratic processes and provide the pressure for the members of the executive to ensure that the policies designed and implemented are aligned with the public good. Indeed most of the leading world economies tend to be governed democratically; illustrating the possible implication of democratic governance in development (National Democratic Institute, 2006). In the more developed economies, political debates revolve around issues that affect the citizens’ daily lives. Such issues may range from jobs availability, security, education plans, and others. The primary concern of the electorate in the Philippines revolves around issues such as the eradication of corruption in governments, adequacy of infrastructure, the soundness of the business environment, unemployment levels, security, and transparency and accountability in governance among others. It is on the basis of their performance on such issues that the country is ranked as a medium human development country.

Democratic governance in the Philippines is still lacking in various areas. Firstly, the level of bureaucracy in government has with time proven to be highly inefficient due to inadequately developed enabling institutional and policy frameworks. Firstly, the sole medium through which the population expresses their sovereignty (the electoral process) has been found wanting in several areas (UNDP, 2011c). The government has been focussing on raising the voter turnout during the elections in order to ensure all eligible voters express their will. These efforts have especially been directed towards the youth, a segment whose voter turnout in elections remains significantly lower than that of the rest of the population (UNDP, 2011c). Emphasis on the importance of expression and the assurance that opinions expressed would not be ignored has formed the focal point of these campaigns.

The inclusion of the office of the Ombudsman as a supervisory body of government is illustrative of the seriousness with which corruption is being taken in the Philippines. However, corruption persists and the government has been embarking on a number of processes that would help reduce the corruption levels within government (Lallana, 2010). The main approach has been through the use of public awareness campaigns which are aimed at sensitizing citizens on their duties and responsibilities and encouraging whistle blowing tendencies in order to curb the vice. The government has also been seeking to reform their political systems where funding for political party funds are expected to be accounted for and their sources disclosed (Lallana, 2010). This is aimed at ensuring that corruption is eliminated at the political level or is minimised as much as possible.

More actions involve a concerted effort to make government services more accessible to the population through the embracing of the modern technology. The government has made considerable progress in providing e-government which is slowly taking root in the country (UNDP, 2011). There have also been efforts towards demystifying the practices of government where transparency and accountability in government is improved. The Philippine government has been using media campaigns to build faith in the government systems while conducting training programs to the civil service in order to improve their service delivery.     

Some of the frameworks needed to implement good governance practices can be quite costly. The Philippines, being underdeveloped, the country has other pressing needs such as poverty eradication, provision of basic education and ensuring food security among other needs (Lacanilao, 2011). For instance, reforms such as those involved in the judiciary may involve having a costly program to empower judges and investigation bodies with expensive modern equipment whose cost may be beyond the country’s ability to afford in the face of other pressing priorities. The country therefore has to either depend on donor funding to implement its reforms or at the very least do it in smaller chunks whose overall effect may be insignificant (Lacanilao, 2011). The public sentiments about the government and their commitment to deal with their problems to their satisfaction have also been quite negative. These sentiments have made the government’s efforts to enlist public support for some of their reform agendas largely ineffective (UNDP, 2011). The country’s systemic corruption has also been so deeply embraced in the system that many policy makers and implementers have been keen to frustrate any meaningful efforts of fighting off the vice. In addition, the regulatory frameworks established to curb corruption are increasingly being proven ineffective in the face of more sophistication in the conduct of the vice.

Democracy in governance is becoming more popular across the world with many of the countries with different systems embracing democracy in part or in total (UNDP, 2011c). It is therefore emerging as the best mode of governance for the enhancement of development and the public good. Democracy as is practiced has been in the Philippines and in many other countries has been criticised as partial and in desperate need for enrichment. Traditionally, democratic rights are evident only during the election of the government officials who then proceed to execute their mandate with little or no consultation with the electorate in most issues (National Democratic Institute, 2006). The leaders are then evaluated on the basis of their satisfaction of the needs of the electorate and the verdict given in the subsequent election with re-election being the most probable eventuality where satisfaction is achieved. There are calls to involve the electorate in decision making on a continuous basis. Various structures to allow citizens to air their views on issues prior to the formulation of policies are being formulated to ensure such views are aired in good time. The quality of voter decisions is also bound to increase hence making democracy good for development in the affected economies (UNDP, 2011). With increased public awareness on economic policy and the development agenda, it is increasingly likely more qualified officials will be getting a chance to serve hence making the economy more sophisticated and in the interest of the public.    

For more theory and case studies on: http://expertresearchers.blogspot.com/

Lacanilao, F., 2011. Democratic governance impedes academic reform. (Online) Available at: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110314-325325/Democratic_governance_impedes_academic_reform (Accessed 20 September 2011)
Lallana, E.C., 2011. SMS and Democratic Governance in the Philippines. (Online) Available at: http://www.apdip.net/projects/e-government/capblg/casestudies/Philippines-Lallana.pdf (Accessed 20 September 2011)
National Democratic Institute, 2006. Philippines: Promoting Democratic Governance and Enhancing Community Relations in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. (Online) Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACJ506.pdf (Accessed 20 September 2011)
UNDP, 2010. Human Development Report.(Online) Available at: http://www.beta.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/HDR/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint-1.pdf  (Accessed 20 September 2011)
UNDP, 2011. Democratic governance: Country Case Study: Philippines. (Online) Available at: http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/DGTTF_Philippines.pdf (Accessed 20 September 2011)
UNDP, 2011b. Fostering democratic governance. (Online) Available at: http://www.undp.org.ph/?link=10 (Accessed 20 September 2011)
UNDP, 2011c. Empowered and Equal: Gender Equality Strategy. (Online) Available at: http://www.undp.org/women/docs/Gender-Equality-Strategy-2008-2011.pdf (Accessed 20 September 2011)

No comments:

Post a Comment