The Philippines needs radical structural, political and electoral reforms to steer it away from decades of personalistic and into good governance, according to a study.
This was the gist in a special paper, “Lessons and prospects in Philippine political governance: cutting across regimes from Marcos to Duterte,” presented by Dr. Rizal Buendia -- Philippine Country Expert, Global V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg and a Non-resident fellow of the Stratbase Albert del Rosario Institute -- at an online forum organized by leading think tank Stratbase ADR Institute.
The study analyzed governance in the country under seven presidents spanning more than 50 years in terms of transparency and accountability, electoral politics, political party system, political participation, and populist politics.
“Philippine governance has divided national and local government along lines of personal, organizational, and political interests that consequently endangered national unity and nationhood,” Buendia said in his study.
The study yielded several conclusions – first, that the lengthy absence or inadequate mechanism and national policies in addressing transparency and accountability has not controlled nor resolved corruption in government.
Second, that the country’s political institutions have been corroded by personality-based governance.
Third, that the party system has been weakened by dynastic and clan-based electoral politics and non-principle/ideological based political parties.
Fourth, that political participation has been hijacked by patronage politics and elitism.
Lastly, that populist politics has threatened and restricted democratic rule.
“We need an enlargement of social and political structures and institutions that encourage the amplification of democratic rule,” he said.
Among other issues, Buendia said the country needs (1) policies that bolster a transparent and accountable government to address graft and corruption; (2) a mass-based electoral system to reduce and neutralize the power of the elite, the privileged, and the powerful, (3) a resilient multiparty system based on platforms, programs, principles, and ideologies to fortify representative democracy; and the (4) institutionalization of holistic governance to thwart and to impede the fragmentation of society.
Buendia emphasized that only new approaches will solve the multi-faceted problems that cut across socio-economic and political boundaries.
For example, the adoption of a multi-party system will allow the parties to develop their potential and coalesce with others of similar ideology.
“It reinforces the use of proportional representation and prevents the leadership of s single party from controlling the legislature without a challenge,” he said.
Another new approach is the use of online governance, where integration problems of administrative activities can be solved professionally and administratively rather than politically.
In his final analysis, Buendia said that political leadership will play the most important role in achieving the momentum that the holistic governance ideals – which directly addresses the needs of the public – demand.
“Holistic governance promotes an integrated government organization. The integration requires the changing of values, structure in government operation,” he said.
In his opening remarks during the forum, Stratbase ADR Institute president Professor Victor Andres “Dindo” Manhit said that whoever wins the election, the need for a forward-looking governance outlook will remain.
“I would argue that it should be three-pronged, anchored on the collaboration of government, private sector and civil society,” he said.
“Institutional government reforms must be future-oriented and strategic.”
Manhit underscored the crucial exercise of choosing next leaders well.
“We need to demand transparency, accountability and integrity in government. We should consider the character and capacity of those wooing our vote,” he said.