PUNCHLINE
Ike Seneres
As a member country of the
United Nations (UN), we are bound by our international obligations to comply
with global development measurement programs such as the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) and the Human Development Index (HDI). Part of these obligations
is to report factual and truthful data from below, and to accurately integrate
these data at the top.
In
theory, all the data from below are supposed to be subsets of the data at the top,
meaning that there is no other proper way to gather the data but to collect it
from below, as a necessary step prior to integrating it at the top. As it is
meant to be, the data at the top are not supposed to be estimates, but are
supposed to be aggregates of the component data from below.
Just
to set the record straight, we have to clarify the difference between a census
and a survey. A census is supposed to be a general count of all qualified
respondents in a defined data universe. On the other hand, a survey is a
limited count of random respondents, usually involving only a sample data
universe of about 1,200 people more or less.
Very
clearly, we should only report census data to the UN, and not survey data, as
far as MDG and HDI data is concerned. Very clearly as well, the census should
be conducted at all levels, from the barangay level all the way up to regional
level, and it is at that level where the integration of the national aggregated
data should start and end.
Although
the data outputs that are being targeted by MDG and HDI are very much different
from each other, there are six common components, and for easier recall, I have
come up with the acronym JEWELS for that purpose, which is short for Justice, Education, Wellness,Employment, Livelihood and Safety. All of these components
could be delivered either online or offline.
Among
these six components, development measures are very clear for Education, Wellness,Employment, Livelihood and Safety. That leaves only one
component that has no clear development measure, and that is Justice. The measure for
education is the illiteracy rate, the measure for wellness is the mortality
rate, the measure for employment is the unemployment rate, the measure for
livelihood is the poverty rate, and the measure for safety is the crime rate.
As
it is now, various facilities are already available for telelearning, for
telemedicine, for telematching, for telemarketing and for telesafety. Again,
what are lacking are facilities for telejustice, which is not really surprising,
because the development measures are not clear for the justice component
either. In some countries, the development measures for safety and justice are
combined.
For
lack of a better term, it would be good if we could come up with a development
measure that we could probably call the “injustice rate”. There are many ways
of measuring injustice, but again for lack of an official definition at this
time, we could probably start by counting the “injustice rate” as the
percentage of people who do not have access to the services of lawyers.
Again
due to the lack of an official development measure, I have come up with the
acronym CRES, which is a complete policy framework that includes Criminal Justice, Restorative Justice, Environmental Justice and Social Justice. Varied as they
are the common denominator in the framework is still access to the services of
lawyers.
For
practical reasons, I think that it would only be possible to measure
“injustice” in terms of being denied Criminal Justice. We could define this to
mean not having access to the services of a lawyer, such that a complainant
could not get to the point of being heard by a prosecutor. Fortunately, access
to the services of a lawyer could be made possible either through the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO) or through the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and other lawyer groups.
Over
and above the complex conceptual frameworks, it is easier to understand that
access to Justice means access to lawyers, access to Education means access to
teachers, access to Wellness means access to doctors, access to Employment means access to
employers, access to Livelihood
means access to buyers, and access to Safety
means access to policemen.
All
told, the true measure of good governance is really the ability of local
government officials to lower the ratings of their jurisdictions in all of the
development measures namely the injustice rate, the illiteracy rate, the
mortality rate, the unemployment rate, the poverty rate and the crime rate.
These should be the campaign promises of local politicians, and their lack of
performance in lowering these ratings should be the basis for their removal by
way of recall elections.
Again
for practical reasons, good governance is too important to leave in the hands
of local politicians. Ideally, all local residents should get involved in local
governance to make it good, not only to remove corruption, but also to lower
their ratings in the development measures. The truth is, it is corruption that
prevents the achievement of high ratings in these development measures.
No comments:
Post a Comment