Going beyond the material

ANY governance framework--such as the one used for work-life balance in personal governance — tells us that beyond the financial and material aspects of any governance unit, there are equally important aspects that need to be seriously taken into account when formulating and executing a transformation program. The financial and material aspects, of course, must have their place under the governance sun. But the moralspiritual aspects cannot be relegated to the background; neither are the cultural, technological, social, politicalinstitutional, environmental aspects to be taken off the radar screen.

Outside of taking into serious account all the key relevant aspects — -that are critical to any governance unit’s long-term future — there is also the absolute need to raise key questions and present smart, strategic answers to them. Among these questions, three are a “must,” and they are:

• What are we good at? As a country and as a people, we need to be clear about the answers we give to this question. What, indeed, is our comparative advantage as a people, and how might we put this to good use in view of the rapidly changing external circumstances?

• In a dynamically changing world environment, what threats must we manage and face in smart and creative ways so we can fend off negative consequences that may come our way; and what opportunities must we seize in order to take best advantage of changes such that they benefit us?

• What niche can we carve for ourselves as a people so that we can make a positive difference in trying to make the world more united and peaceful, more just and progressive? And from that niche, how may we aim to punch above our weight in strengthening the human community as a family of nations?

In framing answers to these questions, we have to take into account that the answers may have to be tweaked and refreshed at regular time intervals. In this regard, the experience of the AFP is well worth considering: while they have a long-term horizon within which to realize their governance “vision” (up to 2028, or at the time in 2010 when the AFP formulated its transformation road map, some 18 years into the future), they decided to have a few intermediate base camps to reach during those 18 years. The first base camp was 2016 (6 years from 2010); the second was 2022 (another six-year period); and the third base camp is 2028, the end of the “vision” horizon.

• For the country as a whole, with a much longer vision horizon---one of 54 years (from 2016)---there can be several intermediate base camps, one for every 6-year period. The first one comes in 2022; and there will be 8 others coming in sequence every 6 years.

• This allows for a specific “vision” that the country must aim to realize every 6 years. This provides a greater sense of immediacy and concreteness to governance objectives that need to be attained within a reasonably short period of time. Coincidentally, the 6-year period happens to fit well with the term of an Administration. Moreover, the performance scorecards can be put together for every 6-year period.

• Nonetheless, the governance discipline calls for a degree of continuity and inner consistency between what we as country and as a people should aim to accomplish every six years with the over-arching demands of “dream Philippines”. Such a long perspective would enable us to focus on the basic essentials we need to take very good care of, as we contribute to the building up of a country that we dream for ourselves, our children, and grandchildren.

It is against such a background that we focus on individuals, families, and schools as the micro-governance units serving as building blocks for our “dream Philippines.”