Management issues in governance reforms and constitutional change
We have to enhance our government’s ability to help enable development especially before we venture into new political structures.
As a group of former members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 People’s Constitution have asserted, we probably have one of the most enlightened constitutions in the world. These constitutional constitution members include enlightened and truly patriotic Filipinos such as former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., Christian Monsod, the late Sr. Christine Tan, and Jesuit Father Joaquin Bernas. We also have laws galore that should enable better governance. It is the least we can expect, given the oversupply of lawyers in our country and their dominance in governance and the legislature. Where are the pain points, as current management gurus like to ask? It seems to me it is in our inability to execute well and effectively. Perhaps most of these lawyers are better at talking and writing rather than getting things done.
Let me share some of my own ideas, given my insights into development management.
First, there is instability in governance, with too many elections; and a politicized civil service. Perhaps we need to professionalize the civil service all the way down to local governments, especially since we are seriously considering a shift to federalism. We have plenty of highly qualified civil servants in the national government agencies, partly due to the Career Executive Service Development Program (CESDP) that was formulated and implemented by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) as far back as the 1970s. The CESDP, which was patterned after the British model was administered by former Public Works and Cabinet Secretary Jose “Ping” de Jesus of the DAP.
Unfortunately, the professional civil service has been overtaken by frequent shifts in top management of both national and local governments as a result of political considerations. Changes are made from secretaries down to undersecretaries, to even bureau directors. At the LGU level, there are personnel changes in critical posts, every three years or with every election, including LGU administrators, treasurers, social welfare officers, development program managers, etc. Often, the political appointees are not qualified for the jobs. There are, too, the unavoidable learning curves after each election. By the time they have gotten a handle on their jobs, another election could bring about their replacement. We should certainly consider increasing the terms of elected LGU leaders to six years with no reelection, as in the case of the presidency. That should enable each leader to make a difference in one term.
In Malaysia, a former member of the British Commonwealth, the Public Service department is headed by the third ranking Cabinet minister, after the prime minister and Education minister, who is usually next in line for prime minister. Career public servants are paid
competitively with the private sector, and receive access to housing and pension benefits that are often superior to that of the private sector. Perhaps this largely accounts for why Malaysia’s economy (per capita) is at least triple ours, despite their political problems.
Parliamentary systems in governments such as those of Great Britain and France are vulnerable to political changes at the top. However, public service and governance tend to be stable because of the professionalized career civil service which stays on from government to government. Thus, there are better chances at effectiveness and continuity of programs and initiatives.
In concept, I am in favor of a shift to federalism. However, I think it will take more than the current presidential term to ensure the shift does not bring about even more chaos than we already have. We need to work at preparing our civil service for the radical changes that will take place. Right now, we are certainly not ready; and so it is a truly perilous journey if we undertake it sooner rather than later. Our governance problems are not merely structural. They have more to do with our capability for effective governance, even given our current structures. And too much politics has a lot to do with this lack of capacity.
A former student from Sabah who admitted how they envied us our EDSA People Power Revolution once said to me: “However, professor, I think your democracy is too much.” I think he meant, really that our politics is just too pervasive and overwhelming. It dominates our lives and makes development management too cumbersome, hindering our ability to effectively improve most of our people’s lives.
Oh, no, I am not favoring a dictatorship or authoritarianism. I did march for years in the streets as a democracy activist, and I am not ready to just toss our real gains away. I just think that we have to more seriously consider strengthening and professionalizing our civil service. There are resource institutions around that can be mobilized. The Development Academy of the Philippines has been turned into a university. There are many schools of public administration. And we do have the high caliber Master in Development Management Program at the Asian Institute of Management. And the CESDP does have accreditation competence.
What we have to do is institutionalize accreditation and ranking with pay scales of career civil servants all the way down to local governments and to ensure they are protected from undue political interference. After all, in a federal system, the locals will gain more authority and responsibility. In fairness, we also need to enhance the incentive and rewards systems to be able to hire and retain the best and the brightest among them. The course designs also need to emphasize development management knowledge, skills and orientations, beyond mere “public administration.”
Strengthening and empowering our civil service is a must if we are to succeed as a nation. Development is a process of enhancing the ability of our people in their communities to freely take constructive action in order to better their situation to their own satisfaction. This is a tall order that our civil servants must help our political leaders to enable, in support, of course, to private sector initiatives.
Fighting the drug menace and insurgency is important; but it is not enough. We have to enhance our government’s ability to help enable development. This must be substantially in effect before we venture into new political structures. As it is, we are certainly not ready.