Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Youth and Social Accountability
Youth and Social Accountability
Youth and Social Accountability
Introduction
There
is
a
school
of
thought
that
says
that
politics
and
governance
are
for
politicians
and
technocrats
alone.
Politicians
and
technocrats
are
there
supposedly
to
do
the
difficult
work
of
developing
and
managing
the
state.
Another
school
of
thought
proposes
that
the
state
cannot
be
governed
alone
by
politicians
and
technocrats.
In
this
proposition,
citizens
or
citizen
groups
take
an
active
role,
as
partners
of
government,
in
the
governance
process.
Social
accountability
follows
from
the
proposition
that
citizens
or
citizen
groups
are
necessary
partners
in
the
governance
process,
specifically
in
ensuring
responsiveness,
transparency
and
accountability
in
the
use
of
government
resources
and
the
fulfillment
of
its
functions.
Social
accountability
lies
on
the
premise
that
citizens
have
the
need
and
right
in
determining
how
public
resources
are
used.
There
are,
however,
questions
to
consider
for
social
accountability:
Up
to
which
level
can
government
documents
be
opened
for
public
scrutiny?
Up
to
which
point
can
citizens
participate
in
the
whole
public
financial
management
(PFM)
cycle?
Among
the
young,
there
is
a
similar
debate.
One
side
argues
that
the
role
of
young
people
is
just
to
study,
and
leave
the
affairs
of
governance
to
the
adults.
The
focus
of
young
people
should
be
on
their
studies,
so
that
later
on
when
they
are
already
adults
they
will
be
ready
to
take
over
governance.
The
other
argues
that
studying
does
not
mean
the
four
corners
of
the
classroom.
Participation
in
the
governance
process
while
young
is
a
form
of
study
or
training
for
young
people.
In
these
debates,
the
question
lies
on
the
preparedness
of
young
people
to
take
on
or
meaningfully
participate
in
governance.
Similarly,
if
young
people
are
supposed
to
participate
in
governance,
the
questions
that
will
be
asked
are:
Are
they
interested
or
do
they
have
the
motivation
to
participate?
Are
they
prepared
to
or
do
they
have
the
capacity
to
engage?
Is
the
environment
open
and
conducive
for
their
participation?
In
the
context
of
ensuring
accountability
from
government,
can
the
youth
handle
social
accountability?
To
answer
these
questions,
this
paper
will:
1
Written
by
Marlon
Cornelio
for
the
Affiliated
Network
for
Social
Accountability
in
East
Asia
and
Pacific
(ANSA-‐EAP).
This
article
was
first
publish
in
http://ansa-‐eap.net/about-‐us/v-‐o-‐i-‐c-‐e-‐
s/youth-‐and-‐the-‐social-‐accountability-‐challenge/
1
3. present
cases
of
youth
participation
in
social
accountability
initiatives
in
the
said
countries.
I.
Citizen
Participation
and
Social
Accountability
Citizen
participation
and
civic
engagement
are
often
used
interchangeably.
We,
however,
can
still
differentiate
one
from
the
other,
in
terms
of
objectives
and
concerns.
Participation
is
seen
both
as
a
means
and
an
end,
and
is
broadly
defined
as
a
process
through
which
stakeholders
influence
and
share
control
over
development
initiatives,
and
the
decisions
and
resources
which
affect
them
(World
Bank
1996).
Participation
is
a
process,
not
an
event
that
closely
involves
people
in
the
economic,
social,
cultural
and
political
processes
that
affect
their
lives
(UNDP
1993).
Freire
(1970),
on
the
other
hand,
view
participation
as
a
process
that
politically
educates
citizens
in
the
art
of
governance,
and
the
pursuit
of
rights
and
civic
roles.
The
case
for
citizen
participation’s
role
in
development
transformation
has
substantially
been
argued
(Malik
and
Wagle
2002;
Stiglitz
1998).
Participation
contributes
to
the
effectiveness
and
sustainability
of
development
outcomes
by
encouraging
information-‐driven
efficiency,
ownership,
transparency
and
accountability,
and
constructive
partnerships
(Uphoff
et
al.
1979;
World
Bank,
1996;
Malik
and
Wagle,
2002).
Beyond
the
instrumental
roles
in
ensuring
better
decisions
and
sounder
implementation,
participation
is
also
seen
as
a
social
good
that
deepens
democracy.
By
giving
citizens
an
opportunity
in
the
shaping
of
governance
and
the
exercise
of
power,
participation
complements
the
system
of
electoral
competition
that
may
fail
to
meet
the
needs
of
citizens
(Agrawal,
1999).
On
the
other
hand,
Malik
and
Wagle
(2002)
defines
the
scope
of
civic
engagement
by
characterizing
it
as
a
continuum
spanning
information-‐sharing
to
empowerment.
Following
Edgerton
et
al.
(2000),
this
continuum
can
begin
with,
(a)
a
one-way
flow
of
information
to
the
public
in
the
form
of,
say,
media
broadcasts
or
dissemination
of
decisions;
and
on
to;
(b)
bi
–
or
multilateral
consultation
between
and
among
coordinators
of
the
process
and
the
public
in
the
form
of
participatory
assessments,
interviews
and
field
visits;
(c)
collaboration
encompassing
joint
work
and
shared
decision-‐making,
between
the
coordinators
and
the
stakeholders;
and
(d)
empowerment,
where
the
decision-‐
making
powers
and
resources
are
transferred
to
civic
organizations.
Hirschman
(1972)
also
highlighted
the
concept
of
“exit”
contrasting
the
issue
of
voice,
or
the
capacity
to
influence
policy
and
debate
within
an
institution,
with
the
capacity
of
the
group
to
get
what
it
wants
by
choosing
a
specific
institution
or
switching
to
another.
It
also
extends
to
the
people’s
choice
to
express
dissatisfaction
with
an
institution
or
process
by
ignoring
or
moving
away
from
it
rather
that
necessarily
working
from
within.
Korten
(1998)
frames
civic
engagement
as
an
issue
in
governance,
stating
that,
“if
sovereignty
resides
ultimately
in
the
citizenry,
their
engagement
is
about
the
right
to
define
public
good,
to
determine
the
policies
by
which
they
seek
that
good,
and
to
reform
or
replace
those
institutions
that
no
longer
serve”.
Malik
and
Wagle
(2002)
point
out
that
participation
is
based
on
the
premise
that
people
2
have
the
urge
as
well
as
the
right
to
be
part
of
events
and
process
that
shape
their
lives.
The
virtues
of
participation,
however,
are
not
fully
appreciated.
Concerns
often
are
raised
about
the
drawbacks
of
participatory
processes:
costs,
time
and
management
(high
transaction
costs);
risks
of
elite
capture;
the
possibility
of
instability;
and
legitimate
representation.
In
addition,
Brinkerhoff
and
Goldsmith
(2000)
suggest
that
participatory
processes
may
also
result
in
policy
stalemates
and
unrealistic
expectations
on
the
part
of
those
involve.
Social
accountability
follows
from
the
proposition
that
citizens
or
citizen
groups
are
necessary
partners
in
the
governance
process,
specifically
in
ensuring
responsiveness,
transparency
and
accountability
in
the
use
of
government
resources
and
the
fulfillment
of
its
functions.
Social
accountability
(SAc)
refers
to
the
constructive
engagement
of
citizens’
group
in
monitoring
public
resources
towards
better
service
delivery,
protection
and
promotion
of
people’s
rights
and
welfare2.
Two
forces
drive
SAc:
citizen
groups
(the
direct
beneficiaries
of
public
services)
and
government
(which
provides
the
space
for
citizen
in
monitoring
public
resources).
The
process
of
SAc
generally
involves:
-‐
gathering
information
about
government
programs;
-‐
analyzing
this
information;
and
-‐
using
this
information
judiciously
to
directly
engage
with
public
officials
and
service
providers
and
demand
that
they
serve
the
public
interest
fairly,
effectively
and
efficiently.
Examples
of
SAc
initiatives
include
participatory
public
policy-‐making,
participatory
planning
and
budgeting,
budget
monitoring,
procurement
monitoring
and
preparing
citizen
report
cards
or
community
report
cards
on
access
to
and
quality
of
public
services.
Social
accountability
is
also
referred
to
as
the
demand-‐side
for
good
governance3.
It
compliments
the
supply-‐side
or
internal
accountability
mechanisms
that
are
already
in
place,
like
ombudsman
and
internal
audit.
It
also
refers
to
mechanisms
and
processes
to
hold
government
officials
or
politicians
accountable
for
their
actions
and
use
of
public
resources
in-‐between
elections.
II.
Social
Accountability
Initiatives
The
process
of
social
accountability
is
built
on
trust—no
constructive
engagement
between
the
two
stakeholders
can
take
place
without
it.
Aside
from
trust,
social
accountability
requires
four
basic
elements
or
pillars
which
are:
(1)
organized
and
capable
citizen
groups;
(2)
government
openness;
(3)
access
to
information;
and
(4)
context
and
cultural
appropriateness.
These
basic
elements
are
best
illustrated
in
the
experiences
of
the
Concerned
Citizens
of
Abra
for
Good
Governance
(CCAGG)
and
Government
Watch
(G-‐Watch).
2
ANSA-‐EAP
definition,
2008.
3
Malena,
2008.
3
In
Abra—a
province
in
the
northern
region
of
the
Philippines—CCAGG
engages
the
Department
of
Public
Works
and
Highways
(DPWH)
in
ensuring
reasonably
priced
and
quality
public
infrastructure.
CCAGG
trains
their
fellow
citizens
to
monitor
the
construction
of
roads
and
bridges
to
check
if
the
agreed
standards
are
met.
When
they
complain
about
government
services
and
suspect
that
there
is
fault,
they
are
backed
up
with
information
and
evidence.
As
they
work
in
partnership
with
the
government,
they
first
present
their
reports
to
them
whom
they
expect
would
make
the
necessary
action.
If
they
see
no
action
from
the
part
of
government
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time,
they
provide
the
information
to
media
or
present
them
to
the
general
public.
The
organization
has
mastered
the
critical
mass
of
equipped
and
capable
citizens
to
engage
their
government.
Engineers,
as
well
as
other
professionals,
volunteer
to
share
their
expertise
to
the
community.
Universities
and
colleges
also
encourage
their
students
to
train
and
volunteer
for
CCAGG.
From
the
student
volunteers,
CCAGG
draws
its
new
line
of
trainers
and
facilitators.
Manang
Pura
Sumangil,
the
chairperson
of
CCAGG,
explains
the
focus
of
their
work;
“Roads
and
bridges
are
emotional
issues
for
citizens
in
Abra,
a
mainly
agricultural
province
bounded
by
mountains
and
rivers.”
She
adds
that,
“children
have
to
walk
for
several
kilometers
and
cross
rivers
to
school.
Farmers
have
to
transport
their
produce
from
the
mountains
to
the
town
centers.
Our
lives
are
highly
dependent
on
the
reach
and
quality
of
our
roads.”4
Thus,
the
citizens
of
Abra
take
it
as
their
task
to
ensure
the
quality
of
roads
and
bridges
that
the
government
builds.
The
work
of
CCAGG
has
been
replicated
little
by
little
in
other
provinces
in
the
country.
Government
Watch
(G-‐Watch)
also
applies
social
accountability
in
the
procurement
and
delivery
of
books
of
the
Department
of
Education
(DepEd).
G-‐
Watch
initially
conducted
a
study
on
the
procurement
of
books
by
the
DepEd.
In
the
said
study,
they
found
out
that
while
there
was
enough
budget
for
books,
schools
still
lack
books
or
books
or
that
these
were
not
delivered
to
the
schools.
Overpricing
and
the
dismal
quality
of
books
were
also
recorded.
With
the
biggest
bureaucracy,
DepEd,
then,
was
perceived
as
one
of
the
most
corrupt
government
agencies.
That
the
agency
in-‐charge
of
the
country’s
education
was
perceived
as
one
of
the
most
corrupt
caused
national
alarm.
This
reputation
did
not
sit
well
with
reform-‐oriented
officials
in
DepEd,
which
prompted
them,
along
with
G-‐Watch,
to
initiate
the
Textbook
Count
Project.
With
very
huge
tasks
at
hand,
G-‐Watch
has
partnered
with
different
organizations
such
as
student
organizations,
the
Scouts
and
the
PTAs,
and
trained
them
to
monitor
the
procurement
of
books.
G-‐Watch,
in
addition,
has
developed
a
number
of
procurement
monitoring
modules
which
students
and
parents
could
use.
To
expand
its
reach
and
sustain
its
work,
G-‐Watch
trained
several
student
leaders
on
capacity-‐building
and
actual
monitoring
work.
DepEd
officials
explained
the
procurement
process
and
provided
access
to
information
like
4
ANSA-‐EAP
Interview,
2009.
4
bidding
processes,
as
well
as
procurement
and
delivery
schedules.
Volunteers,
together
with
DepEd
representatives,
were
deployed
to
bidding
processes
and
publishing
houses
of
winning
bidders.
A
procurement
monitoring
form
was
developed
which
both
the
government
inspector
and
citizen
monitor
are
supposed
to
sign.
Years
of
constructive
engagement
between
citizen
groups
and
DepEd
finally
paid
off:
with
the
same
budget,
1:1
book
to
student
ratio
was
achieved;
books
were
being
purchased
at
half
the
price
and
in
half
the
usual
period;
and
the
DepEd
became
one
of
the
most
trusted
government
agencies.
IV.
Youth
and
Social
Accountability
In
both
stories
of
CCAGG
and
G-‐Watch,
young
people
served
as
the
monitors
of
construction
of
roads
and
bridges
and
procurement
of
books.
These
stories
are
instinctive
of
the
relationship
between
youth
and
social
accountability.
Young
people
and
social
accountability
initiatives
have
mutual
needs
for
each
other.
Social
accountability,
on
one
hand,
provides
the
frame
and
opportunity
for
young
people
to
participate
in
governance.
On
the
other
hand,
young
people
provide
the
necessary
human
resources,
new
ideas
and
energies,
for
undertaking
social
accountability
initiatives.
Social
Accountability
as
a
Frame
for
Youth
Participation
There
are
many
definitions
for
youth
or
young
people;
and
the
age
range
varies
as
well.
The
United
Nations,
for
purposes
of
statistics,
defines
youth
or
young
people
as
persons
belonging
to
the
age
range
of
15-‐24
years
old.
Many
countries
also
draw
a
line
on
youth
at
the
age
at
which
a
person
is
given
equal
treatment
under
the
law—often
referred
to
as
the
"age
of
majority’.
This
age
is
often
18
in
many
countries,
and
once
a
person
passes
this
age,
they
are
considered
to
be
an
adult.
However,
the
operational
definition
and
nuances
of
the
term
‘youth’
often
vary
from
country
to
country,
depending
on
the
specific
socio-‐cultural,
institutional,
economic
and
political
factors5.
Below
are
other
definitions
for
youth.
"Youth"
is
the
critical
period
in
a
person’s
growth
and
development
from
the
onset
of
adolescence
towards
the
peak
of
mature,
self-reliant
and
responsible
adulthood
comprising
the
considerable
sector
of
the
population
from
the
age
of
fifteen
(15)
to
thirty
(30)
years6.
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Youth
is
not
a
time
of
life;
it
is
a
state
of
mind;
it
is
not
a
matter
of
rosy
cheeks,
red
lips
and
supple
knees;
it
is
a
matter
of
the
will,
a
quality
of
the
5
United
Nations
definition
for
“youth”.
Available
online:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin//qanda.htm
6
Republic
Act
8044:
Youth
in
Nation
Building
Act.
Republic
of
the
Philippines.
5
imagination,
a
vigor
of
the
emotions;
it
is
the
freshness
of
the
deep
springs
of
life.
Youth
means
a
temperamental
predominance
of
courage
over
timidity
of
the
appetite,
for
adventure
over
the
love
of
ease.
This
often
exists
in
a
man
of
sixty
more
than
a
boy
of
twenty.
Nobody
grows
old
merely
by
a
number
of
years.
We
grow
old
by
deserting
our
ideals7
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
youth
or
young
people
undergo
five
life
transitions:
(i)
continuing
education
beyond
primary-school
age,
(ii)
going
to
work
for
the
first
time,
(iii)
growing
up
healthy,
(iv)
getting
into
relationships
and
forming
families,
and
(v)
exercising
citizenship,
i.e.
paying
income
taxes,
having
legal
rights
like
voting,
getting
a
driver’s
license8
These
definitions
highlight
important
aspects,
definition
and
characters
that,
taken
together,
provide
a
better
understanding
of
young
people.
Youth
is
a
critical
period
for
growth
and
development.
Youth
is
a
matter
of
ideas,
ideals,
and
disposition.
Youth
is
a
transitory
stage.
Since
young
people
are
at
their
critical
period
of
growth
and
development,
necessary
interventions
should
be
in
place
in
order
for
them
to
realize
their
full
potentials.
As
early
as
1965,
the
Member
States
of
the
United
Nations
have
recognized
that,
“the
imagination,
ideals
and
energies
of
young
men
and
women
are
vital
for
the
continuing
development
of
the
societies
in
which
they
live”
(UN
Declaration).
Then,
in
1985,
the
UN
General
Assembly
declared
1985
as
the
International
Youth
Year,
with
the
theme,
“Participation,
Development,
Peace.”
In
1995,
during
the
10th
Anniversary
of
the
International
Youth
Year,
the
UN
launched
the
World
Programme
of
Action
for
Youth
to
the
Year
2000
and
Beyond
–
a
policy
framework
for
national
action
and
international
support
to
improve
the
situation
of
the
youth.
This
further
reaffirmed
the
said
body’s
commitment
to
young
people.
Youth
participation,
as
a
subset
of
citizen
participation,
has
both
advantages
and
drawbacks.
But
for
young
people,
being
in
a
critical
formation
period,
participation
is
practical
integration
to
citizenship
and
understanding
democracy
and
democratic
processes.
Young
people
can
be
considered
as
“new
borns”
or
learning
citizens.
It
is
at
this
age
that
young
people
actually
perform
certain
social
roles,
like
getting
a
driver’s
license,
getting
employed
and
paying
income
taxes,
and
for
the
very
first
time
exercising
their
right
to
vote.
As
such,
participation
presents
the
opportunity
for
appreciating
democracy,
governance,
responsibility,
ownership
and
belongingness.
Youth
participation,
in
the
words
of
Freire,
can
be
seen
as
a
process
of
political
education
or
integration.
Specifically,
GTZ
(2008)
highlights
the
following
points
on
youth
participation:
7
“Youth”(1934)
by
Samuel
Ullman
(1840
-‐1924).
8
Adopted
from
World
Development
Report
2007.
WB,
2006.
6
1. Political
participation
in
adulthood
is
largely
determined
by
participation
in
youth.
Young
people
who
learn
early
to
deal
with
democratic
values
later,
as
active
citizens,
contribute
in
building
more
stable
and
peaceful
countries.
2. Young
people
also
provide
fresh
ideas
and
enthusiasm,
providing
critique
for
conventional
ways
of
thinking
and
creating
new
perspectives
on
decision
making.
3. Youth
participation
on
issues
concerning
them
improves
the
effectiveness
and
sustainability
of
development
program.
4. Young
people
develop
ownership
of
programs
and
take
responsibility.
When
young
people
directly
pay
their
taxes
or
cast
their
ballots
for
a
government
official,
they
are
most
open,
exposed
and
conscious
of
their
role
and
right
to
exact
accountability
from
their
governments,
to
inquire
where
their
taxes
go,
and
to
demand
better
basic
services.
Social
accountability
provides
that
frame
of
engagement
for
young
people.
Youth
as
force
for
social
accountability
Because
of
their
sheer
numbers,
young
people
are
major
stakeholders
in
developing
countries.
Eighty-‐five
percent
of
the
world’s
young
population
is
concentrated
in
developing
countries—sixty
percent
of
which
is
found
in
Asia
alone.9
According
to
the
World
Development
Report
(2007),10
this
big
numbers
of
young
people
provides
both
great
potentials
as
well
as
risks.
The
potentials
lie
in
harnessing
this
big
numbers
of
young
people
as
human
capital
for
fast-‐tracking
the
development
of
their
countries.
The
Demographic
Windows
of
Opportunity11
is
open
for
most
of
developing
countries
according
to
the
same
report.
The
risks,
on
the
other
hand,
are
due
to
the
challenges
facing
young
people
in
most
developing
countries
such
as:
low
access
and
quality
of
education,
unemployment,
among
many
others.
If
these
are
not
addressed
within
the
time
frame
calculated
in
the
demographic
windows
of
opportunity,
much
human
capital
is
wasted.
More
than
economic
stagnation
and
extreme
poverty
await
the
future
of
these
young
people
and
their
country.
A
statement12
released
by
the
World
Bank
during
the
launching
of
the
World
Development
Report
2007,
warns
that
the
“failure
to
seize
this
opportunity
to
train
them
more
effectively
for
the
workplace,
and
to
be
active
citizens,
could
lead
to
widespread
disillusionment
and
social
tensions.”
There
is
definite
cause
9
Ibid.
10
The
World
Bank.
See
Special
Focus,
WB
East
Asia
and
Pacific
(EAP)
Report,
2006.
11
Ibid.
12
“Urgent
Need
to
Invest
More
in
Developing
World’s
Record
Youth
Population,
says
World
7
for
alarm
since
such
situation
has
already
happened
and
is
happening
in
many
parts
of
the
world.
In
another
Report13
of
WB
EAP,
it
stated
that,
“the
failure
of
the
labor
market
to
absorb
them
exposes
them
to
numerous
risks,
including
organized
crime
and
violence
and
civil
unrest,
evidence
by
youth
involvement
in
the
tensions
and
militaristic
violence
that
rocked
the
Solomon
Islands
from
1998
to
2006;
and
Timor-‐Leste
in
2006.”
As
education
and
employment
are
primary
concerns
among
young
people,
they
want
to
ensure
that
enough
government
resources
are
allocated
for
these
services
and
that
it
reaches
them.
There
are
a
number
of
examples
of
of
youth
participation
in
social
accountability
initiatives,
such
as
CCAGG
and
G-‐Watch.
In
addition,
different
groups
of
young
people
in
Cambodia,
Indonesia,
Mongolia
and
the
Philippines
have
taken
on
the
task
of
monitoring
government
resources
for
youth
and
ensuring
youth
policies
and
programs
are
in
place.
In
the
Philippines,
youth
voters
are
using
the
promises
of
politicians
to
make
them
accountable
to
young
people
once
in
power.
Using
information
such
as
election
promises
and
platforms
for
youth,
youth
groups
have
adopted
citizen
report
cards
to
grade
the
platforms
and
performance
of
politicians.
Indonesian
youth
and
student
organizations,
on
the
other
hand,
are
known
for
their
activism
as
seen
in
many
street
demonstrations
demanding
an
increase
in
the
state’s
subsidy
for
education.
To
further
improve
their
lobbying
efforts,
youth
groups
in
Indonesia
are
now
looking
into
the
youth
and
education
budget
as
well
as
the
budgeting
process.
Coming
from
autocratic
rule,
Cambodia
and
Mongolia
are
just
beginning
to
realize
the
blessings
of
democracy.
This
opening
is
being
explored
by
young
people,
as
well
as
other
citizen
groups.
In
Cambodia
for
example,
several
national
youth
organizations
formed
a
coalition
to
collectively
engage
the
government
in
the
crafting
of
a
national
youth
policy.
Because
of
this
engagement,
government
officials
have
expressed
pride
over
the
fact
that
young
people
are
very
active
in
drafting
the
policy,
while
young
people
have
noted
that
government
officials
were
also
approachable.
At
the
local
level,
another
youth
group
piloted
the
monitoring
of
several
basic
services.
However,
youth
monitors
had
difficulty
in
accessing
information
and
got
reprimanded
by
local
government
officials,
saying
that
the
information
they
are
requesting
are
for
government’s
use
only.
In
Mongolia,
several
youth
organizations
have
also
come
together
to
raise
awareness
on
human
rights
and
civic
participation.
Since
these
are
largely
unfamiliar
and
unattractive
topics
for
young
people,
these
organizations
used
youthful
approaches,
until
they
finally
go
the
attention,
not
only
of
young
people,
but
also
of
government
officials.
They
also
provide
training
for
young
people
so
13
The
Bank’s
Youth
Engagement
Strategy
(YES)
in
the
Pacific
Sub-‐Region,
2008(?).
Available
online: http://go.worldbank.org/4VR9F3X9P0
8
that
they
mobilize
other
youth
who
can
constructively
engage
with
the
government
on
the
issue
of
resources
for
public
universities.
In
varying
degrees,
young
people
in
these
countries
are
expected
to
take
the
role
of
monitors
and
“conscience”
of
government
vis-‐à-‐vis
its
policies
and
programs.
Young
people
also
see
themselves
as
partners
of
government
in
development.
9
Young
people,
when
asked,
are
also
divided
in
the
issue.
What
can
be
ascertained
from
some
reports
is
that
young
people
lack
interest
in
politics
because
of
the
“failure”
of
governments
to
provide
service
or
to
become
relevant
to
them.
This
is
particularly
true
in
poor
countries
where
education
and
employment
are
the
primary
concerns
of
young
people.
Young
people
have
low
trust
among
politicians
since
they
perceive
that
most
politicians
are
corrupt.
Among
young
people
it
is
a
common
sentiment
that,
“politicians
only
talk
with
them
during
elections.”14
But
despite
their
distrust,
young
people
still
recognize
the
value
of
politicians
and
governments
in
shaping
their
lives.
Thus,
apathy
can
be
considered
as
a
form
of
“exit”
as
proposed
by
Hirschman
(1972).
In
Indonesia,
one
youth
leader
pointed
out
that
“youth
apathy”
per
se
is
not
“apathy”
or
“state
of
indifference”
or
“lack
of
interest.”
According
to
the
said
youth
leader,
“apathy”
is
a
position
taken
by
young
people,
a
critique
to
the
system.
It
means
that
young
people
understand
the
problem
and
concluded
“things
cannot
be
changed.”15
According
to
him,
young
people
in
Indonesia
are
not
uninterested
with
their
country’s
concerns
but
are
looking
for
the
means
to
contribute
to
the
solutions.
This
can
also
be
the
case
in
most
developing
countries.
On
the
other
hand,
youth
apathy
is
also
seen
as
the
cause
of
this
dismal
condition
of
young
people.
Young
people
are
not
asserting
their
voice
and
their
collective
power
to
demand
for
better
basic
services
or
for
electing
better
leaders.
In
this
instance,
youth
apathy
is
the
cause
and
not
the
result.
Is
youth
apathy
a
result
of
negligence
by
governments
or
young
people
are
neglected
because
they
do
not
engage
with
their
governments?
However
one
frames
the
question,
increasing
youth
participation
in
governance
remains
the
main
goal.
Showing
that
government
can
be
responsive
to
their
needs,
and
can
be
exacted
accountability
on
the
use
of
resources
and
power
can
adequately
address
apathy.
Young
people
know
the
importance
of,
have
the
interest
and
motivation
to
take
part
in
politics
and
governance.
The
question
most
young
people
are
facing
is
how
to
take
part
in
politics
and
how
to
make
a
difference.
Taking
part
and
seeing
that
things
are
not
changing
or
are
getting
worst,
both
in
the
short-‐
and
long-‐
terms,
further
frustrates
young
people
and
fuels
apathy.
In
all
countries,
young
people
have
expressed
their
lack
of
skills
and
capabilities
to
directly
and
constructively
engage
their
governments.
Capability
can
be
determined
by:
access
to
information,
command
over
real
resources,
and
the
ability
to
process
and
act
on
the
information
(World
Development
Report,
2007).
Though
capability
is
considered
as
an
internal
factor,
it
is
mostly
shaped
by
external
factors,
such
as
having
access
to
information
and
opportunities
or
resources,
training
and
skills
development.
Cultural
restrictions
and
bad
perceptions
on
youth
and
youth
participation
remains
a
main
hindrance
in
developing
the
capacity
of
young
people.
If
young
people
are
not
taken
seriously,
then
the
result
is
lack
or
absence
of
opportunities
14
ANSA-‐EAP
Youth
Consultation,
2010.
15
Ibid.
10
to
build
their
capacity.
Furthermore,
youth
being
a
transitory
stage,
continuous
organizing
and
training
of
new
generation
of
young
people
is
necessary.
External
Factors:
Access
to
Information
and
Opportunities,
Mechanisms,
cultural
restrictions
Access
to
information
and
opportunities
is
a
prerequisite
for
participation.
In
developing
countries,
the
rural
and
urban
divide
in
terms
of
access
is
very
significant.
Information
can
be
accessed
through
formal
and
informal
channels,
e.g.
schools,
media
including
the
internet
respectively.
Young
people
wanting
to
pursue
college
education
have
to
migrate
to
urban
centers,
the
capital
cities
like
Phnom
Phen,
Jakarta,
Ulaanbaatar,
or
Metro
Manila.
While
there
are
provincial
educational
hubs,
they
have
limited
slots
and
courses.
Young
people
have
more
access
to
information
and
opportunities
in
urban
centers.
While
mass
media
and
the
internet
have
democratized
access
to
information
in
rural
areas,
opportunities
are
still
more
concentrated
in
urban
areas.
Aside
from
studying,
young
people
are
also
expected
to
help
out
in
the
finances
of
the
family
by
taking
part-‐time
jobs.
Youth
from
less
affluent
families
have
to
contend
with
studying
and
part-‐time
jobs.
Participation
entails
direct
and
indirect
costs,
such
as
transportation
and
less
time
for
work.
In
Indonesia
and
the
Philippines,
youth
participation
is
something
engrained
in
their
history.
A
quick
review
of
history
would
reveal
how
young
people
participated
in
the
Youth
Oath
(1928)
and
Reformasi
movement
(1998)
in
Indonesia,
and
in
the
Katipunan
(1896),
the
People
Power
1
&
2
(1986
and
2001)
in
the
Philippines.
As
such
youth
participation
is
enshrined
in
the
Constitutions
of
these
two
countries.
In
the
four
countries,
the
Philippines
is
advanced
in
terms
of
laws
and
mechanisms
for
youth
participation.
It
has
enacted
the
Youth
and
Nation
Building
Act
of
1994
or
Republic
Act
(RA)
8044
which
created
the
National
Youth
Commission
(NYC)
and
has
established
a
national
comprehensive
and
coordinated
program
for
youth
development.
Village
Youth
Councils
or
Sangguniang
Kabataan
(SK)
have
also
been
established
at
the
grassroots
or
village
level
by
virtue
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
or
Republic
Act
No.
7160.
SK
evolved
from
Kabataang
Barangay
(Village
Youth)
created
by
Presidential
Degree
(PD)
684
under
the
Marcos
Administration.
SK
Officials
are
elected
by
the
youth
constituency
at
the
village
level
and
are
federated
up
to
the
national
level.
Federation
presidents
serve
as
ex-‐officio
members
in
their
municipal,
city
or
provincial
councils
and
chair
the
Youth
and
Sports
Committee.
Marginalized
youth
groups
are
also
represented
in
anti-‐poverty
policy-‐making
processes
through
the
National
Anti-‐Poverty
Commission
Youth
and
Students
Sector
(NAPC
YSS).
The
Youth
and
Students
Sector
is
one
of
the
14
Basic
Sectors
which
sit
with
their
counterpart
national
agencies
in
tacking
anti-‐poverty
policies
and
programs
of
the
government.
The
Commission
was
created
by
virtue
of
the
Social
Reform
and
Poverty
Alleviation
Act
of
1998
or
Republic
Act
No.
11
8425.
Aside
from
engagement
in
these
mechanisms,
young
people
are
also
organized
in
different
socio-‐civic
and
political
groups.
Indonesia
has
taken
a
similar
step
in
adapting
a
comprehensive
youth
policy.
In
2009,
Act
No.
40
was
signed
into
law
creating
the
National
Youth
Ministry.
The
Act
is
intended
to
strengthen
the
position
and
opportunity
for
every
citizen
aged
16
(sixteen)
to
30
(thirty)
years
to
develop
the
his/her
potential,
capacity,
self-‐
actualization
and
ideals.
In
addition,
it
guarantees
that
youth
activities
will
be
legally
protected.
It
also
provides
legal
certainty
for
government
and
local
governments
to
integrate
youth
service
programs.
The
Act
includes
the
regulation
of
community
youth
participation,
as
well
as
granting
of
awards,
funding
and
access
to
capital
for
entrepreneurial
in
a
planned,
integrated,
focused
and
sustainable.
In
Mongolia
and
Cambodia,
similar
legislations
have
been
proposed
but
are
still
awaiting
government
action.
A
national
youth
policy
is
important
to
ensure
the
integration
of
youth
issues
and
concerns
with
the
overall
national
policy.
Cultural
restrictions
and
the
existing
political
environment
are
significant
factors,
especially
in
multi-‐cultural
and
political
contexts.
Cultural
restrictions
usually
combine
with
legal
or
institutional
mechanisms
for
youth
participation.
Cultural
restrictions
can
be
the
cause
of
the
absence
or
lack
of
institutional
mechanisms.
It
can
also
result
to
the
corruption
or
malfunctioning
of
these
mechanisms.
The
case
of
the
Sangguniang
Kabataan
in
the
Philippines
is
a
good
example.
After
more
than
three
decades
of
existence,
the
SK
now
faces
calls
for
abolition
since
they
are
now
seen
as
breeding
grounds
for
corruption.
The
SK
was
originally
conceptualized
as
training
ground
for
youth
on
governance.
However,
these
village
youth
councils
have
become
an
extension
of
dynastic
and
patronage
politics
pervasive
in
the
country.
Youth
officials
are
made
to
believe
that
getting
a
10
%
commission
from
their
projects
are
pat
of
the
S.O.P.
or
standard
operating
procedure.
Usually,
adult
village
officials
would
refuse
to
sign
the
release
of
the
budget
for
their
projects
without
the
S.O.P.
Adult
officials
also
limit
projects
of
young
people
to
sports
festivals,
beauty
pageants,
and
putting
on
street
signage
or
markers.
Young
people
point
out
that
the
more
educated
adults
are,
the
more
open
and
appreciative
they
are
for
youth
participation.16
In
rural
areas,
there
are
fixed
roles
for
young
people,
primarily
obeying
their
parents
and
community
adults
and
assisting
them
in
their
daily
tasks.
Young
people
are
supposed
to
obey
and
not
to
question
their
elders.
Young
people
are
not
taken
seriously
because
they
are
“young”.
The
book
Go!
Young
Progressives
in
Southeast
Asia
(2005),
for
instance,
points
out
that:
12
Politics
is
seen
as
a
domain
for
seasoned
policy-‐makers
and
campaigners.
Young
people
are,
at
best,
dismissed
as
being
too
“inexperienced”
to
make
meaningful
contributions
to
politics;
at
the
worst,
senior
officials
brand
them
as
“naïve.”
There
are
overlaps
between
and
among
internal
and
external
factors.
However,
there
is
more
value
in
demarcating
internal
and
external
factors
to
further
situate
the
problems
facing
youth
participation
and
to
provide
a
broader
perspective
in
the
interplay/relationship
of
these
different
factors.
This
demarcation
further
shows
which
challenges
or
limitations
are
faced
by
which
stakeholder
and
how
specific
stakeholders
should
act
to
address
specific
problems.
For
example,
young
people
themselves
have
to
find
ways
to
address
their
apathy,
while
government
and
adults
have
to
provide
mechanisms
for
meaningful
youth
participation
and
capacity
building.
Together,
young
people
and
government
can
help
address
the
information
and
opportunity
gaps
among
rural
and
urban
youth.
Conclusion
The
case
studies
of
different
youth
initiatives
in
social
accountability
show
that
while
there
are
hindrances
and
challenges
for
youth
participation,
there
are
also
ways
for
young
people
to
manifest
their
interest
and
build
on
their
capability.
13
Philippines:
Youth
Report
Card
Capitalizing
on
politicians
persistent
pursuit
of
and
election
promises
on
youth
voters,
the
Center
for
Youth
Advocacy
and
Networking
(CYAN)
and
the
Bingawan
Working
Youth
Federation
(BWYG)
adopted
the
citizen
report
card
(CRC)
to
hold
politicians
accountable
on
their
campaign
promises.
CRC
originated
in
1994
in
Bangalore,
India,
through
the
work
of
an
independent
NGO
–
the
Public
Affairs
Center.
The
idea
was
to
mimic
the
private
sector
practice
of
collecting
consumer
feedback
and
applying
it
to
the
context
of
public
goods
and
services.
The
surveys
derive
their
name
from
the
manner
in
which
data
is
presented.
Just
as
a
teacher
scores
a
student’s
performance
on
different
subjects
in
a
school
report
card,
CRC
data
aggregates
scores
given
by
users
for
the
quality
and
satisfaction
with
different
services
like
health,
education,
police,
etc...or
scores
on
different
performance
criteria
of
a
given
service,
such
as
availability,
access,
quality
and
reliability.
The
findings
thus
present
a
collective
quantitative
measure
of
overall
satisfaction
and
quality
of
services
over
an
array
of
indicators.
Together
with
the
Student
Council
Alliance
of
the
Philippines
(SCAP),
the
First
Time
Voter’s
Network
(FTV),
SK
Reform
Coalition
and
other
youth
groups,
CYAN
developed
a
Youth
Report
Card
that
assessed
the
2010
Presidential
Candidates
on
their
platform
and
track-‐record
on
youth
issues.
CYAN
started
by
developing
a
national
youth
agenda
in
2007
that
identified
top
issues
among
young
people.
Turning
the
youth
agenda,
specific
questions
on
education,
employment
and
youth
participation
that
politicians
then
answered.
With
these
and
collected
youth
platforms
from
politicians,
a
sample
of
young
people
gave
ratings
on
the
politicians.
The
result
of
the
youth
report
card
where
later
presented
to
politicians
and
media
to
help
guide
young
voters
in
choosing
a
candidate.
Local
politicians
in
Municipality
of
Bingawan,
Iloilo
province,
are
more
conscious
of
their
election
promises
since
the
BWYF
initiated
Pamangkutanon
sa
Banwa
(PSB)
or
Citizen
Query.
BWYF
records
politicians
election
promises
and
present
them
to
the
electorate.
Yearly,
after
elections,
BWYF
convenes
citizen
assemblies
and
presents
the
election
promises
of
the
winning
candidate
and
his/her
accomplishment
so
far.
The
Citizen
Query
dubbed
as
“accountability,
not
lip
service”
resulted
to
electoral
education,
accountability
and
transparency
in
government.
As
elected
officials
regularly
report
on
their
accomplishment,
adequate
planning,
budgeting,
implementation
and
monitoring
of
government
projects
are
ensured.
Citizen
Query
has
also
been
institutionalized
through
a
local
ordinance.
14
Mongolia:
Hands
Up
for
Your
Rights
Campaign
Using
fun,
dynamic
and
participatory
approaches,
the
Hands
Up
for
Your
Rights
campaign
in
Mongolia
attracted
many
young
people
in
issues
like
human
rights,
gender
justice
and
democracy.
The
campaign
is
jointly
organized
by
Let’s
Develop
Club,
National
Network
of
Mongolia
Women’s
NGOs
–
MonFemNet,
and
Amnesty
International-‐
Mongolia.
The
Youth
Committee
for
Unity
and
Development
(YCUD)
is
composed
of
different
national
youth
organizations
in
Cambodia.
YCUD
works
with
the
Ministry
of
Education,
Youth
and
Sports
in
the
development
of
a
National
Youth
Policy
(NYP)
in
Cambodia,
while
at
the
same
time
spreading
awareness
and
consulting
young
Cambodians
on
the
content
of
the
NYP.
Several
provincial
youth
forums
and
radio
talks
shows
have
been
conducted
to
raise
awareness
of
young
people
and
raise
inputs
and
questions
on
the
draft
NYP.
A
multi-‐stakeholder
forum
has
also
been
called
which
was
participated
by
different
youth
organizations
and
representatives
from
the
concerned
government
agencies
and
officials
from
different
Commune
Councils.
Representatives
from
government
agencies
expressed
their
appreciation
in
the
participation
of
different
youth
organizations
in
drafting
the
proposed
NYP,
while
youth
leaders
realized
that
their
government
officials
were
willing
to
listen
and
take
into
consideration
their
proposals.
Furthermore,
a
letter
of
cooperation
sent
by
the
Ministry
of
Education,
Youth
and
Sports
facilitated
partnership
with
the
local
offices
and
conduct
of
provincial
youth
consultations.
15
Cambodia:
Khmer
Institute
for
National
Development
(KIND):
Youth
Monitoring
of
Local
Public
Service
(YMLPS)
Young
people
in
Phnom
Phen
and
Takeo
Province
in
Cambodia
put
to
practical
application
social
accountability
tools
as
they
initiated
monitoring
of
local
public
service
at
the
commune/sangkat
level.
16