|
The universities and colleges in Mindanao formed a
consortium several years ago in order to better serve the needs of
the communities. The Mindanao Studies Consortium Foundation Inc. (MSCFI)
organized its first Mindanao Studies Conference in Davao City on
February 26 and 27, bringing together academe, civil society,
government and development partners to rethink the Mindanao
agenda. Ricardo de Ungria, UP Mindanao chancellor, and Fr. Albert
Alejo SJ of Ateneo de Davao did a great job organizing the
conference. The topic was “Checkpoints and Chokepoints: Learning
from Peace and Development Paradigms and Practices in Mindanao.” I
was invited to share my thoughts on governance, peace and
development. The timing of this conference was impeccable, as we are
in the process of choosing who will bear the mandate to govern in
our name.
We have witnessed the start of
the 2007 elections, where all candidates and party have tried to
focus our attention on governance issues. As the administration
states that it has improved the economic situation of the country,
the Genuine Opposition asks: Are we less hungry? Are there more
jobs? Are we free? Are our rights secured by the state?
Each candidate and each party
claims to be the arbiter of good governance. What is governance?
More important, what is good governance?
Governance, for good or bad, is
simply the process of decision-making and the process of
implementing those decisions. In the process of decision-making and
implementation, many should be involved, not just government. For
instance, in Mindanao, the stakeholders include local government and
regional officials, the military, business and industry, landlords,
politicians, the donor community, NGOs and peoples organizations,
academe, religious leaders, MNLF and MILF. Are all party to
decision-making and implementation on issues that affect their
lives?
And then there are the
“unofficial” processes—the back channels and kitchen cabinets,
the all-pervasive lobbying by cronies and family members, among
many.
Governance involves all of these
players and groups. And more. But is this enough to satisfy the
elements of good governance?
When we speak of good governance,
we do not merely think of an efficient government which follows the
rule of law. After all, a government can make up immoral and unjust
rules, implement these rules, and claim quite rightly that it is
following the rule of law. When we speak of good governance, we
think of governance which is participatory and consensus oriented.
We think of accountability and transparency. We think of effective
delivery of public goods and services. We think of equity and
justice. We think of an all-inclusive government for the people, by
the people and of the people.
Do we have a system of governance
that has all these properties? Or is ours a system of chokepoints
that deny good governance?
For decades, we in Mindanao have
belonged to the periphery of the national vision. We have seldom
been participants in decisions that affect our lives—or ruin our
lives, as the case may be. The arena of insurgencies, we have become
the favorite laboratory for development assistance by international
donors since the signing of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement between
government and the MNLF. Still our participation in decision-making
and implementation has been peripheral.
Perhaps our rulers believe that,
since the administration has been elected to power (although that is
a contested notion), it had the authority to rule in our name and
best interest. Even if we disagree with administration policies. For
instance, the move to amend the Constitution was conducted in our
name, never mind that surveys showed we did not want it. It had to
take a show of force—or at least the threat to gather hundreds of
thousands as the government was to host the Asean Summit last
December—for government to back off and jettison the move.
You and I know full well that a
representative democracy such as ours requires that informed
participation is necessary. Following this logic, good governance
requires that government not just allow but encourage freedom of
association and expression by nongovernmental players such as civil
society, whether or not government likes what is said.
Candidates, it is time you say
what needs to be said.
|
