MODULE 3

POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

Topics:

1. Difference of Governance and Government

2. Processes and actors of Governance

3. Eight indicators of good governance

4. Current situation of Philippine governance

Governance and Government

Governance is traditionally associated with government. In literatures, they are

often used interchangeably. But in the 1980s, political scientists broadened the meaning

of governance as including, not just government actors, but also civil-society actors.

Today, governance includes three sectors: the public sector (state actors and

institutions), the private sector (households and companies), and the civil society (non-

governmental organizations). These three sectors are said to work hand in hand in the

process of governance. This new use of the term focuses on the role of “networks” in

the achievement of the common good, whether these networks are intergovernmental,

transnational, or international. In other words, governance is broader than government

in that other sectors are included in it.

Many authors also distinguish the two by associating government with “control

and domination,” and governance with “decentralization and relational management.”

On the one hand, government refers to a central institution which wields power over its

subjects. It is the instrument patterned after the model of “command and control,” the
government being in command over the affairs of the people. On the other hand,

governance is closely associated with the concept of decentralization of power and the

need for inter-sectoral management. Governance is based on the realization that the

government cannot do everything for the people, so that in order to survive the state

should not only rely on government but also on the other sectors of the society.

Thus, under the current trend, there is a need to move from the “traditional

hierarchical exercise of power by the government” to the new notion of a “dispersed and

relational power in governance” – from government to governance. To govern should

now mean to facilitate or regulate, not to dominate or command.

Processes and Actors in Governance

Governance entails two processes: 1. Decision-making and 2. Implementation of

the decision. In broad terms, decision-making refers the process by which a person or

group of persons, guided by socio-political structures, arrive at a decision involving their

individual and communal needs and wants. Implementation is the process that logically

follows the decision; it entails the actualization or materialization of the plan or decision.

Governance is not just decision-making because decision without implementation is

self-defeating. Neither is it just implementation because there is nothing to implement

without a decision or plan. Thus, the two processes necessarily go hand-in-hand in, and

are constitutive of governance.

Actors and Structures

Understanding the two processes requires an analysis of the “actors” involved

and “structures” established for making and implementing a decision. An actor is a

sector or group or institution that participates in the process of decision-making and

implementation. A structure refers to an organization or mechanism that formally or

informally guides the decision-making process and sets into motion the different actors

and apparatuses in the implementation process. Having such a broad scope,

governance has different facets and may be applied in different contexts, such as

corporate governance, international governance, and national and local governance. In

each context, governance has different actors and structures. Depending on the kind of

decision made and the structure implementing it, governance may be good or bad

governance.

The government is almost always the main actor in governance, whether it is in

the corporate, international, national or local level. The government is called the “public

sector.” While it is the biggest actor in governance, it is not the only actor. Modern

complex societies, in order to meet the growing demands of development, are managed

in different levels by various actors. Even communist governments work with other

sectors, especially with international organizations and multi-national corporations, in

meeting their communist ends. The main role of the public sector is to provide an

enabling environment for the other actors of governance to participate and respond to

the mandate of the common good. All actors other than the government are called the

“civil society.” The civil society includes non-governmental organizations, and other

communitybased and sectoral organizations, such as association of farmers, charitable

institutions, cooperatives, religious communities, political parties, and research

institutes. These organizations are private in nature but have public functions or

objectives. The Philippine Red Cross, for instance, is a non-governmental organization.

It is a private charitable institution the serves the community especially during disasters

and emergencies by providing medical assistance and disaster support services.

The study of Philippine governance, however, includes the business or private

sector as an indispensable partner in development. To cope with the ever growing

demands of development, the public sector must necessarily tie-up with the private

sector most especially in the financial.

In the national and international level, decision-making is greatly influenced by

actors like the media, international organizations, multi-national corporations, and

international donors. Thus, from the foregoing, it should be clear that governance

involves several actors in multi-level structures.

Informal Actors and Bad Governance

Other informal actors also exist, such as organized crime syndicates and

powerful families. Their influence is felt more clearly in local governments, and in rural

and urban areas. Most often than not, these actors are the cause of corruption, in that

legitimate government objectives are distorted by their illegal and private interests.

Worse, they manipulate government officials and agencies, and cause widespread yet

organized violence in the community. In urban and rural areas, for example, the rich and

powerful families control the economy by controlling the local government officials. They

bring about a controlled environment so that decisions must always favor them.

Allegedly, even government officials, both local and national, are not just influenced but

themselves members of organized crime syndicates with the purpose of using public

office and, consequently, public funds for personal aggrandizement.

 When these actors and informal structures disrupt, corrupt and upset the

legitimate objectives and ideals of the society, bad governance will result which is

considered as the chief problem of the society. Problems deepen and multiply because

of bad governance. Inasmuch as economics and politics are interrelated, poor economy

is caused by bad governance. International aids and loans, for instance, are scarce in a

badly governed country. International donors and financial institutions are increasingly

basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure “good governance”

are undertaken. Recognizing these realities, current economic and political goals of

countries all over the world are aimed at “good governance.” It is an ideal so broad and

elusive the realization of which is yet to be achieved. More so, the contemporary

meaning of “development” is good governance, or more specifically a reform from faulty

governance to good governance.

Eight Indicators of Good Governance

Good governance is understood through its eight indicators or characteristics: (1)

Participatory; (2) Rule of Law; (3) Effective and Efficient; (4) Transparent; (5)

Responsive; (6) Equitable and Inclusive; (7) Consensus Oriented; and (8)

Accountability. They are inextricably related to each other. For instance, without active

participation among the various actors in governance, there would be a concomitant

lack of responsiveness. Likewise, if decision-making is not transparent, then inevitably

there would be no participation, accountability, and decisions are not consensus

oriented. These indicators should, however, be understood in the context of good

“democratic” governance. Some of the indicators cannot be applied in other forms of

government. For example, good communist governance could never be consensus

oriented or genuinely participatory.

It must also be emphasized that good governance and development should not

be based exclusively on economic growth. Through global persuasion, good

governance and development signify a broader spectrum of things, such as protection

of human rights, equitable distribution of wealth, enhancement of individual capabilities

and creation of an enabling environment to foster participation and growth of human

potentials. As it evolved today, sustainable development necessitates “people

empowerment” and “respect for human rights.” After all, economic prosperity or the

minimization of poverty and unemployment depends on how the state unleashes the full

potential of its human resource by recognizing their vital roles and according full respect

for human rights.

Participation

Good governance essentially requires participation of different sectors of the

society. Participation means active involvement of all affected and interested parties in

the decisionmaking process. It requires an enabling environment wherein pertinent

information is effectively disseminated and people could respond in an unconstrained

and truthful manner. It also means gender equality, recognizing the vital roles of both

men and women in decision-making. Participation is one of the strengths of Philippine

governance. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is replete of provisions dealing with

relational and inter-sectoral governance. The Local Government Act of 1989 was borne

out of the need for decentralization in Philippine governance. As such, these and other

related legislations may be considered as normative standards for good governance.

Rule of Law

Democracy is essentially the rule of law. It is through the law that people express

their will and exercise their sovereignty. That the government is of law and not of men is

an underlying democratic principle which puts no one, however rich and powerful,

above the law. Not even the government can arbitrarily act in contravention of the law.

Thus, good democratic governance is fundamentally adherence to the rule of law. Rule

of law demands that the people and the civil society render habitual obedience to the

law. It also demands that the government acts within the limits of the powers and

functions prescribed by the law. The absence of rule of law is anarchy. Anarchy

happens when people act in utter disregard of law and when the government act

whimsically or arbitrarily beyond their powers. In more concrete terms, rule of law

means “peace and order,” “absence of corruption,” “impartial and effective justice

system,” “observance and protection of human rights,” and “clear, publicized, and stable

laws.”

Effectiveness and Efficiency

Good governance requires that the institutions, processes, and actors could

deliver and meet the necessities of the society in a way that available resources are

utilized well. That the different actors meet the needs of the society means that there is

effective governance. That the valuable resources are utilized, without wasting or

underutilizing any of them, means that there is efficient governance. Effectiveness

(meeting the needs) and efficiency (proper utilization of resources) must necessarily go

together to ensure the best possible results for the community. Professionalism in

Philippine bureaucracy requires competence and integrity in civil service. Appointments

to civil service must be depoliticized and must be based solely on merits. Effectiveness

and efficiency also demand that the programs and objectives of the various government

agencies are aligned with individual performance goals. The increases in compensation

are likewise necessary for the economic well-being, sustained competence and boosted

morale of the civil servants.

Transparency

As an indicator of good governance, means that people are open to information

regarding decision-making process and the implementation of the same. In legal terms,

it means that information on matters of public concern are made available to the citizens

or those who will be directly affected. It also means that transactions involving public

interests must be fully disclosed and made accessible to the people. It is anchored on

the democratic right to information and right to access of the same. Transparency is

necessary not just from government transactions but also n those transactions of the

civil society and private sector imbued with public interests. The reason why there

should be transparency is to promote and protect democratic ideals. When there is

transparency, people are placed in a better position to know and protect their rights as

well as denounce corrupt or fraudulent practices in the public sector and in the private

sector.

Responsiveness
 Responsiveness means that institutions and processes serve all stakeholders in

a timely and appropriate manner. It also means that actors and structures of

governance easily give genuine expression to the will or desire of the people. In other

words, the interests of all citizens must be well protected in a prompt and appropriate

manner so that each of them can appreciate and take part in the process of

governance. While responsiveness is also a characteristic sought from the private

sector and civil society, more is demanded from the government or the public sector.

Some of the important efforts made to attain responsive governance in the Philippines

are decentralization, creation of citizen’s charter in all frontline agencies (as required by

ARTA), and gender sensitivity programs. First, through decentralization, local

governments, which are more proximate to their constituents, serve more promptly the

people, who in turn become more involved in decision-making. Second, every

government agency now has it Citizen’s Charter, which provides timeframes for every

step in attaining frontline services. Agencies now must also respond to written queries

sent by the stakeholders or interested parties within a period of ten days, otherwise

there will be delayed service. However, this aspect of governance still remains to be

one of the causes for the decline of public’s confidence in the public sector. Although

the ARTA has been passed, there is still so much delay in public service delivery. The

failure of the government agencies to explain the charters to the stakeholders is one of

the main reasons why there is still delay.

Equity and Inclusiveness

Equity and inclusiveness mean that all the members of the society, especially the

most vulnerable ones or the grassroots level, must be taken into consideration in
policymaking. Everyone has a stake in the society, and no one should feel alienated

from it. Particularly, those who belong to the grassroots level must not only be the

subject of legislation, but they must be given the opportunity to participate in decision or

policy making. The Philippine Government has done extensive efforts in promoting

equity and inclusiveness. The Constitution makes it as one of its state policies the

promotion of social justice. Pursuant to this, the Congress has enacted social

legislations like the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which aims at freeing the

farmer tenants from the bondage of the soil. Also, representation in the Congress, under

the party list system, is constitutionally mandated to have sectoral representation of the

underprivileged. Gender and Development programs are in the process of being

integrated with the various structures and institutions in the country. But legislation is

one thing; implementation is another. It is in the faithful implementation of these laws

that the country failed. Inequality is especially felt in the justice system, electoral

system, and even in the bureaucracy itself.

Consensus Oriented

Governance is consensus oriented when decisions are made after taking into

consideration the different viewpoints of the actors of the society. Mechanisms for

conflict resolution must be in place because inevitably conflict that will arise from

competing interests of the actors. To meet the consensus, a strong, impartial, and

flexible mediation structure must be established. Without such, compromises and a

broad consensus cannot be reached that serves that best interest of the whole

community. Among the things done by the Philippines in promoting a consensus

oriented governance are: (1) creation of a wide-based of representation in the

Congress; (2) a two-tiered legislature or bicameralism which subjects legislation to the

evaluation of national and district legislators; and (3) necessity of public hearings or

consultations of various governmental policies and actions.

Accountability

Accountability means answerability or responsibility for one’s action. It is based

on the principle that every person or group is responsible for their actions most

especially when their acts affect public interest. The actors have an obligation to explain

and be answerable for the consequences of decisions and actions they have made on

behalf of the community it serves. The Philippines in the recent years had endeavored

to comply with the requirements of accountability. It had put in action the concept of

political accountability as it held answerable erring public officials involved in graft and

corruption and for acts contrary to the mandate of the constitution. It had also

strengthened parliamentary scrutiny through legislative investigations and creation of

special committees exercising oversight functions. The Office of the Ombudsman,

considered as the public watchdog, has become ever so active in investigating and

prosecuting graft and plunders cases. Citizen’s Charter, as required by ARTA, was also

an important tool in promoting professional public service values. In this area, Philippine

governance has done relatively well.

EXERCISES:
1. Explain the difference of Government and Governance

2. Enumerate and discuss the process and actors of governance

3. Enumerate and explain the eight indicators of governance

4. Make a short article about the current situation of Philippine Governance

DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP

Topics:

1. Define the meaning of Democracy and Citizenship

2. Enumerate and discuss the theories of democracy

3. Understand the History of Citizenship concepts

The Meaning of Democracy in a Changing World

The many changes occurring around the globe are stretching and reshaping

forms of social organization and decision-making processes. To meet the challenges of

the times, advocates and organizers may find it helpful to revisit the meaning of

democracy and citizenship in their work. Throughout the world, many countries have

undergone exciting reforms that have opened up political processes to people. In

countries such as the Philippines and South Africa, authoritarian governments have

been brought down. In others, governments have taken significant measures to include

women and other marginalized groups in public life. Countries such as Brazil, Bolivia,

and Thailand have institutionalized laws about people’s participation in policymaking.

Fairer elections have occurred without violence in dozens of countries where people
have voted for the first time. But there is a long road between successful elections and

accountable governments. Along this road civil society continues to struggle for a

legitimate voice and for honest, committed leaders to help guide the process. As

economic globalization changes the terrain of economic development and the power of

national governments, the challenges for improving political structures and relationships

grow.

Democracy in Theory

Different concepts of democracy implicitly inform our approach to advocacy and

participation. The following definitions, taken from a dictionary on political theories,

show some of the basic conceptual differences. Democracy is a form of government in

which supreme power is held by the people and exercised directly or through elected

representatives. The word comes from the Greek for “people’s rule.” Although

democracy comes in many forms, nowadays the concept generally implies majority rule,

minority and individual rights, equality of opportunity, equality under the law, and civil

rights and liberties.

• Liberal democracy is government characterized by the twin pillars of democratic

institutions, on the one hand (e.g. elections, representative legislatures, checks and

balances), and democratic protections on the other (e.g. the personal freedoms

guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights). Liberal democracies typically occur in capitalist

economies and stress private property rights. The approach emphasizes individual

rights over the popular will.

 • Popular democracy stresses self-rule by a free and equal people, sees

government as an expression of the “people’s will,” and thus seeks to maximize citizen

participation. It does this both electorally and in other ways, as it recognizes that the

outcomes of elections do not always reflect the popular will.

• Representative (or indirect) democracy is the form of government in which

legislation is enacted by representatives who are elected by the citizenry. In contrast to

direct democracy, the majority delegates power to a minority nominated to act in their

interest. The minority is mandated to do this either in response to the majority’s express

wishes or according to the representatives’ own judgment.

• Direct (or participatory) democracy is a form of government in which the

citizenry itself makes legislative decisions instead of delegating the power to elected

representatives. This is often considered the “purest form of democracy”. Referendums

and petitions, in which all voters can participate, are examples of direct democracy.

• Social democracy is based on the belief that economic equity and social

equality—can be achieved through democratic institutions via redistribution of wealth

within a mixed-market economy in a welfare state.”

Citizens as “Makers and Shapers”

A discussion of democracy inevitably reaches the subject of citizenship. And like

democracy, the meaning of citizenship is also open to debate. For example, some

political theorists argue that a good citizen is one who displays trust and obedience.

Some believe that ordinary people lack sufficient judgment and knowledge and should

therefore rely on their leaders to solve problems. Other theorists argue that the
individual as active citizen is rapidly disappearing and is being replaced by the individual

as consumer. In contrast, people concerned about participation and advocacy say that

the problem is not that people are politically incompetent or distracted by the consumer

economy. Rather, the problem is the continued concentration of power in the hands of a

few. They believe that more involvement by people in decisions affecting them would

improve both government and people’s quality of life. Some believe that people’s

participation is a basic right (regardless of whether one is a “legal citizen”), and that

constructive engagement with government, if possible, is the best way to address social

and economic problems and conflict. Below, scholars from the Institute of Development

Studies in the U.K. describe active visions of citizenship. Citizenship is learned through

education, socialization, exposure to politics, public life, and day-to-day experiences.

Promoting active citizenship among people who have been marginalized from politics is

not a straightforward task. Citizenship does not just happen naturally in response to

increased public space or political opportunity. Citizenship is more than voting or

fulfilling public obligations. It is not only choosing officials and using the system;

citizenship involves making and shaping the system’s structures and rules.

A common vision of citizenship is helpful for advocacy. It is also important to

recognize that the values of citizenship vary from context to context. For example, in

South Africa, people might define a good citizen as someone who actively fights racism.

In Russia, being a good citizen might be associated with economic liberalism, and

individual self-reliance might be valued over collective action. In countries that have

emerged from years of conflict, often a good citizen is seen as one who seeks peaceful

resolutions and reconciliation. In older democracies, where a significant portion of

citizens are not exercising their right to vote, citizenship is often expressed through

participation in activities such as volunteer neighborhood crime watch and clean-up

efforts. In all contexts, the changing views of citizenship are marked by battles that

determine whose concerns get incorporated as legitimate and whose get excluded. The

outcomes decide who is considered a full citizen and who is not.

History of Citizenship Concepts

Civil citizenship took shape in the 18th century western world. It refers to the

rights that are necessary for individual freedom, such as the rights to free speech and

assembly, property rights, and equal rights before the law. Over the years, excluded

groups have fought to have these rights extended. Political citizenship emerged from

struggles in the 19th century. It emphasizes rights to participate in the exercise of

political power—whether as a voter, a candidate, or public official. Women, minorities,

and poor people waged battles well into the 20th century to gain universal suffrage,

which was previously granted only to male property owners. In some countries those

struggles continue into the 21st century.

 Social citizenship emerged against the background of the growing inequities of

the 20th century. It focuses on minimum rights and standards of economic, cultural and

social well-being.

Disadvantaged groups and their allies are currently still working to gain

legitimacy for this view of citizenship and rights.

EXERCISES:

1. Enumerate and discuss the theories of democracy

2. Enumerate and discuss the history of concepts of citizenship

3. Make an essay about your initiatives or contribution to the government as a good

citizen.