Participatory democracy

BANTAY GOBYERNO

Ike Señeres

Participatory democracy is a new buzzword in the development circles that is fast gaining popularity. Upon hearing it for the first time however, my initial reaction was that it sounded like an oxymoron, thinking that in the first place, democracy is supposed to be participatory.

On second thought however, I realized that sometimes, under certain conditions, democracy could actually be exclusionary and worst than that, it could even be discriminatory. I realized further that even if democracy is supposed to give equal rights to everyone regardless of economic standing, which is not always the case, because some people who are more economically advantaged would then to have preferential treatment over those who are not.

In past articles, I wrote about inclusive growth as being a misnomer, wherein I argued that the proper term should be inclusive development, based on my contention that growth could not be planned and only development could be planned. Regardless of whether you would agree with me or not, what is more important is to recognize that inclusive growth or inclusive development being the economic side should be directly correlated with participatory democracy, being the political side. Given the reality of social discrimination, it could safely be said that with more economic inclusion, there could be more political participation.

In its pure form, an election in a democratic country could already be considered as an exercise in participatory democracy. In its corrupted form however, the meaning is lost because of vote buying and because of command voting, two anomalies that are definitely economically driven. Because of the dominance of the corrupted form, we are often caught in abnormal situations wherein the poor people are excluded from democratic participation by the same politicians whom they voted for, but not out of their own free will, or shall we say, not out of their own intelligent choices. Despite these grim realities however, there is still hope for democracy to prosper, if only the laws pertaining to citizen participation would be followed.

From the local level all the way up to the national level, there are many provisions in the laws for citizens to participate in the democratic process of governance. As it is defined, governance is a process that should involve not only those who govern, but also those who are governed. As it is usually interpreted, the citizens (those who are governed) are represented by the civil society, being the aggregate term for all Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), Socio-Civic Organizations (SCOs) and People’s Organizations (PO). In the past, the term “civil society” has suffered from negative publicity, but we have no choice but to cleanse its public image.

Under the Local Government Code (LGC), the civil society could participate in the Local Development Councils (LDCs) that are supposed to convene from the barangay level all the way up to the regional level. For example, at the barangay level, there is supposed to be a Barangay Development Council (BDC) that should have a certain number of civil society representatives.

Actually, the regular Barangay Council becomes the BDC when it is convened together with the civil society representatives. At the regional level, the Regional Development Council (RDC) also has civil society representatives. The LDC system stops at the regional level, but in theory, the data from the local level goes up to the national level by way of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).

To a large extent, the legal provisions for the people’s initiative and recall elections could be said to be the very useful expressions of participatory democracy. For those who are not familiar with these provisions, people’s initiative is a process for passing new laws that practically bypasses Congress.

By using this provision, it is actually now possible for the people to pass their own laws on their own initiative. On the other hand, recall elections is a process through which the people could remove any elected official that is already unpopular. Of course, the official in question could still run in a recall election but if he is defeated, he is already out of office.

The problem with participatory democracy in the Philippines is the lack of interest on the part of the people to participate. That is also true in the case of Barangay Assemblies, the meetings that are supposed to be held twice a year, as required by the LGC.

In theory, the Barangay Assemblies could overrule all the decisions made by the Barangay Councils. It could even pass its own resolutions that would have to be honored by the Barangay Councils. There is nothing like it at the national level, because it is like having regular people’s initiatives. That is so because all voters in the barangay could attend the Barangay Assemblies and each one of them could vote.

What could be the reasons why there is a lack of interest on the part of the people to participate? Is it the lack of education, or the lack of encouragement? Could it be the lack of hope that anything could still come out of the democratic process? Could it be that our people are too busy with just trying to survive, so much so that they are just too busy to participate in anything that takes away their time to make money?

Perhaps that could be the reason why many of those who are inclined to be active in the civil society would tend to be affluent, meaning that they have all the time to participate. There is apparently no problem with that kind of dominance, for as long as their heart is also for the people. Email bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639956441780