Analysis
People’s Governance, Not Arroyo’s Charter Change
Solution to corruption
The current people’s
initiative for charter change is itself a mockery of genuine people’s
governance because it reportedly involves bribing voters and local
government officials—a classic example of graft and corruption.
By Antonio Tujan Jr.
Ibon Features
Posted by Bulatlat
The shift to a
parliamentary system under the proposed charter change (Cha-cha) would
“significantly reduce” corruption in the political system, according to
House Speaker Jose de Venecia.
De Venecia said that
the proposed shift would set elections on a five-year cycle and provide
state funding to move the country towards a strong two-party system. He
added that a parliamentary government tainted by corruption could fall
through a no-confidence vote introduced in parliament. On the other hand,
a presidential system offers only the difficult process of impeachment to
remove a president.
But the proposed
shift to a parliamentary system is a shallow response to a societal
problem that is more deep-rooted that government realizes or cares to
admit.
Corruption is
systemic and a product of the form of governance dominated by a small
ruling elite who regard government or public office as an extension of
their property or business. Thus, without people’s governance, any
mechanism to solve corruption will fail miserably.
People’s governance
is the only effective and most comprehensive solution to corruption.
Unfortunately, the current Cha-cha drive has less to do with promoting
people’s governance and more to do with salvaging an illegitimate regime
tainted with allegations of severe corruption.
The current people’s
initiative for Cha-cha is itself a mockery of genuine people’s governance
because it reportedly involves bribing voters and local government
officials—a classic example of graft and corruption.
Systemic Corruption
Stressing that
corruption can be minimized by adopting a system that would make it easier
to replace a corrupt chief executive is confusing the issue by viewing
corruption as an individual act instead of the product of a flawed system.
Corruption is
generally defined as “using public power for private gain”. The problem
however is that this definition is commonly interpreted in terms of
individual acts, focusing on the issue of how “private gain” is made.
Instead of focusing on the nature of public power and how it is organized
by the ruling elite to fit their interests, thus providing the foundation
for systemic and systematic corruption, the focus is on creating
mechanisms or instruments to prevent individual cases.
Bureaucrat Capitalism
In the Philippines,
corruption is the manifestation of an even bigger socio-economic problem,
one that has been described as far back as the 1960s as “bureaucrat
capitalism.”
As early as the US
colonial era, local bureaucrats were weaned and bribed by colonial masters
to uphold a system of foreign domination and exploitation. These
“bureaucrat capitalists” partook of the wealth that was extracted by local
big business and landlords while upholding the interests of monopoly
capital. They used the government as a giant private enterprise in the
service of profit. Graft and corruption became integral to the Philippine
state.
The most efficient
and trusted bureaucrats gained the political and financial backing of the
US during the elections. A tradition of subservience was carried on by
succeeding administrations. Bureaucrat capitalism reached its acme in the
Marcos dictatorship which has become the model of the Arroyo
administration.
So it hardly comes as
a surprise when there were widespread allegations in 2001 of bribes or
pay-offs to lawmakers for the immediate passage of anti-people measures
such as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA). The big monopolies
clearly had the lawmakers in their pockets. And some players in the power
sector were ahead of the others in securing deals from the government.
It is also not
surprising that President Arroyo and the First Gentleman were accused of
stashing away undeclared campaign contributions running to the millions of
pesos.
People’s Governance
A change from
presidential to parliamentary in the current political context therefore
would not truly address the issue of political corruption. In fact, in a
ruthlessly corrupt system, including the legislative branch of government,
a parliamentary system could lead to a long-standing authoritarian rule
fed by corruption of the ruling alliance – a phenomenon that has already
made itself felt in the House of Representatives since the 1990s.
Fighting corruption
in the Philippines should go beyond simply devising and honing mechanisms
to weed out and punish corrupt officials. Ensuring that genuine democratic
governance is exercised in various government projects and activities
requires the organization of public power that is participatory and truly
democratic, and thus is genuinely transparent, accountable and preventive
of corruption. This is what any genuine charter change should focus on.
This is what the current charade of charter change pushed by Arroyo and De
Venecia’s Lakas is not all concerned about.
Scandals of corrupt,
elite politics under a system of patronage that characterizes the
Philippine political system are now a daily phenomenon, and right-minded
Filipinos want to do something to stop this problem. “People power” is a
more militant form and now a more important form of people’s governance,
where people undertake collective militant action to challenge governance
processes in the country and build, from the bottom, true democratic
action.
Participation means
that people should become the decision-makers in public policy. It
requires building into the system key features such as participation,
transparency, accountability and equity. This way, the views of the masses
are actively solicited through decision-making processes that ensure their
genuine participation.
Transparency and
accountability take on a deeper meaning in a true people’s governance.
People are provided access and knowledge of issues and concerns in order
to ensure their full participation in decision-making. Accountability also
goes beyond concepts of being subject to accountability mechanisms, but
permeates the whole concept and operation of public office and the
exercise of public power. Thus, representatives and officials would
actively seek out consultation and participation of the people in the
exercise of their political functions.
People’s governance
and the internalization of its key features into government are the only
way that deep-seated political corruption in the country can be addressed.
Ibon Features/Posted by Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.