Not an Empowering Government

(Conclusion)

Although calls for greater people participation in governance and development are commonly heard and even “recognized” by the Leonardia administration, in reality, its programs and projects rarely involved, if any at all, the people’s meaningful participation.

BY KARL G. OMBION
SPECIAL REPORT

(Bulatlat.com)

Although calls for greater people participation in governance and development are commonly heard and even “recognized” by the Leonardia administration, in reality, its programs and projects rarely involved, if any at all, the people’s meaningful participation.

All available data show that in most, if not all of the city’s programs and projects, such as health, education, agriculture, fisheries, housing and population, and infrastructure, the people are treated as mere beneficiaries, and have never been allowed to take part in the planning and execution process.

There have been opportunities for the local government to experiment on the participatory approach to development, as in the case of the city’s planning system, flood problem, fishery, housing, transport, vendors, social delinquency and criminality, and even child labor concerns. But instead of drawing the participation of various communities and people’s organizations, the government relies on its executive assistants and staff who not only lack the proper orientation and commitment but also often count their services in terms of the 8 a.m.-5 p.m. official duty and the incentives being offered.

Worse, most of these problems are often viewed mainly as legal and financial in nature, so, if no one complains, or there is no budget allocation, there is no government response – or if there is, at all, it is meager.

Over time, this mindset of top-level officials has been carried down the line, and has become an “accepted culture” in the bureaucracy.

There is a cliché among development managers that any development, be it urban or rural, or both, is only as good as the people who design and implement it.

That means a good development program may end up useless if the implementers did it poorly, or in their individual way, without enabling the people as the main actors and ultimate beneficiaries of development.

On the other hand, a poor development program may deliver surprisingly good results if the actors did it according to their actual grasp and judgment of the changing conditions. But even this will likely be unsustainable.

In a number of evaluations of development projects involving NGOs and LGUs, it had always been a common finding that the chief reason for its failure is the wastage of millions of valuable money and the implementers’ lack of determination, creativity, objectivity and foresight, teamwork, and sense of mission.

In most cases, development programs collapsed because they did not embody the objective needs and aspirations of the people. A major reason for this is that the NGOs and LGUs who managed the program did not enable the people to participate from the planning process to the actual implementation and re-planning.

It cannot be denied though that there are also some government agencies which have well-laid out vision and mission statements, goals, strategies and programs. But because the key people running these institutions have standpoints that do not fit with these goals, or are motivated by self-interests and careerism, and their practices guided by sectarian, patronage and profit politics than commitment to public good – their programs ended in hogwash.

If there were development programs and projects that continue to be implemented despite their negative impact on the people, it is because some LGUs are compelled to pursue these for showcasing, funding purposes, employment and payment of political debts, or use these as milking cows.

Share This Post