Participatory governance: Real or lip service?

Obviously it is still largely lip service in many LGUS and national agencies because the mindset, culture and policies that breed such system remain well-entrenched.

The idea of participatory governance has gained prominence and popular interest in the Post EDSA when formal democratic processes were restored, a populist 1987 Constitution was crafted, passage of Local Government Code of 1991, and later the Party-list System. All this spawned the rapid growth of Civil Society Organizations (CSOS) and active citizens’ engagement in local and national governance.

Some structured and less formal experiences in citizens’ participation in local governance have been documented. A number of these have contributed to increasing local government transparency and accountability, and quick delivery of social services, especially in the situation of calamities, and where CSO figures have won local political seats.

These experiences however remain limited and unsustainable due to a number of gaps; incentive gap, capacity gap, and power gap. Lessons learned from these experiences were also not translated into policy and legislative agenda.

In general the prevailing policy, structure and practices of governance in most national government agencies and LGUS are still characterized by being ‘unfriendly’, ‘biased’, ‘distrustful’, and in some cases, even ‘hostile’ to CSOS and citizens at large. Among agencies there is lack of consensus in their appreciation of participatory governance and therefore their practices don’t only vary but many times run in conflict with each other.

There is an apparent dominant mindset and culture on the part of the government, national down to LGUS, that participatory governance is a pernicious approach as it is ceding government power and resources to the CSOS

and citizens, and therefore the government losses its grip on power, or simply become vulnerable to self-decapitation. Well it need not be.

My own definition of participatory governance is that of the state’s exercise of power and authority with the effective participation of stakeholders (CSOS, private sector and citizens at large) to ensure transparency, responsiveness, accountability in meeting the citizens’ socio-cultural, economic, political rights and needs, and achieve the holistic and sustainable development of the society or specific territory.

In a private corporate set up, good governance creates a strong future for an organization by continuously steering towards a vision, keeping the organization intact, and making sure that day-to-day management is always lined up with the organization’s goals and satisfy the needs of its members. At its core, good governance is about good, well and right leadership.

International agreements have made some definitions that are also useful. One is the UN 1986 Declaration of the Right to Development which defines participatory governance as ‘The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised.’

The other is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which says ‘Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity … To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Thus the universality of the right to participate has been recognized beyond dispute, underlining the intrinsic value of participation in all spheres of public life.

Right now, the levels of citizens’ participation range from mere information that is providing the CSOS and citizens at large with basic information, consultation to seek CSOS’ feedbacks and views on certain issues, collaboration with CSOS in particular aspects of decision making or of a project, and co-leadership which places decision making on certain issues and projects in the hands of the CSOS and citizens.

Information and consultation are still the prevailing mode of participation. Collaboration is still limited and unsustainable even in existing local development council