PUNCHLINE
Ike
Seneres
During the
ancient days of the Greek city states, they were able to practice direct
democracy, because the small numbers of citizens made it possible for anyone to
stand up and vote.
Even when
they elected their Senators, consultation with their lawmakers was still
possible due to their small numbers. Fast forward to the present times, direct
democracy became difficult to practice because of the larger number of
citizens, but now, new technologies already make it possible.
Because of
the Electronic Commerce Act (ECA), electronic evidence is already admissible,
and that includes the electronic signatures of natural persons. On that note, I
would say that Private Key Infrastructure (PKI) and other authentication
technologies are just high end options, because pre-registered Subscriber
Identity Module (SIM) cards matched with Personal Identification Numbers (PINs)
should also be admissible, enough to confirm the identities of their owners.
In other
words, it is now technically possible for any pre-registered citizen to vote
for anything, anytime, from anywhere, using any available device. Aside from
these PKI, SIM and PIN options, there are actually other wireless and mobile
technologies that could be used, such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID),
Near Field Communications (NFC), Automated Finger Scan Identification Systems
(AFIS), Universal Product Code (UPC) and Quick Response (QR) codes.
In my
advocacy for the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) for
election purposes, I have been proposing that we should be voting in the same
way that we are banking now. As it is now, we are banking by way of personal
tellers, Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), land lines, internet sites and cell
phones. I say that if we could bank securely by using these means, then we
could also vote securely by using these same means.
When I
write about direct democracy however, I do not mean voting in elections only,
because elections are very few and are far between. What I actually mean is
that we should be voting in all assemblies where we are allowed to vote, as
provided for in the law. Perhaps unknown to many, all pre-registered residents
of all barangay units are allowed to vote in the barangay General Assemblies
that are supposed to be held in every barangay once a year.
As far as
I know, it is only in these assemblies where the people are allowed to vote
directly, at least in theory. What happens in real practice however is that not
too many people attend these assemblies, and that is why they are unable to
exercise their right to vote. What also happens is that the politicians
operating in the barangay are manipulating the voting because they are
mobilizing their own supporters, thus leaving out the others who could not
attend because of one reason or another.
Mr. Manny
Valdehuesa, is the founder of Gising Barangay Movement (GBM). He says that we
should refer to the barangay as the “primary” unit of government, instead of
referring to it as the “smallest” unit of government. I agree with him because
“primary” is more positive, compared to “smallest” than wrongly emphasises what
is diminutive. Being the “primary” unit of government, the barangay would be
like the building blocks of the republic, upon which our towns, cities and
provinces are standing on.
For
whatever it may be worth, I have already convinced a number of technology
providers to join me in building a system that would already make it possible
for any barangay resident to vote in the barangay General Assemblies even if
they could not physically attend, for whatever reasons that they should no
longer explain. Once that system is built, it would already become possible for
these residents to exercise their rights, no matter where they are.
Mr. Valdehuesa
explains by way of comparison that barangay General Assemblies are like
stockholder’s meetings, whereas Sanguniang Barangay meetings are like board
meetings. Using that comparison, it would be easy to understand that any
stockholder (read as citizen) could vote in a stockholder’s meeting, whereas
only the directors (read as kagawad) could vote in the board meetings.
Actually,
I am just being optimistic and open minded, because even now, there are still
many problems in the admission of electronic evidence in this country. A lot of
people representing some political interests could still oppose the idea of
voting in the same way that we are banking. However, the technologies are
already available, and the legal frameworks are already deployable.
Aside from
the Sanguniang Barangay, there is another venue or forum wherein the barangay
residents could participate in their governance. According to the Local
Government Code (LGC), every barangay is supposed to have a Barangay
Development Council (BDC), and it is provided for in that law that at least 20%
of the members should come from Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Since
there is no percentage limit, there could actually be more NGOs represented.
Besides, there is also no limit to the number of NGOs that could attend.
Aside from
the BDCs, the law also mandates the creation of Municipal Development Councils
(MDCs), Provincial Development Councils (PDCs) and Regional Development
Councils (RDCs). In reality therefore, the BDCs could actually influence the
agendas of these higher councils, thus re-enforcing the argument of Mr.
Valdehuesa that the barangay is really the “primary” unit of government.
By the
way, those who will be attending the General Assemblies and the development
councils will now have the capability of streaming (read as broadcasting) the
videos from these events using their cell phones that have either IOS or
Android systems. With these, they could already transmit their videos using the
Long Term Evolution (LTE) connectivity that is now offered by both Globe and
Smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment