Making social accountability happen

By Dr. Antonio G.M. La Viña

This is the third of six columns on social accountability. In the first column, I wrote about why social accountability was an imperative of good governance while last week, in the second column of the series, I discussed its mainstreaming in governance processes such as the peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. In this third column, I write more in-depth about social accountability—what it really means and how to make it happen.

As with all things new, social accountability requires the aging of practical experience and studious analysis to produce the proverbial finest wine: governance that is to the people’s taste and liking. In the past four to five years that the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability has been in existence, beginning with Africa in 2007, the network, through its regional affiliates, has continued to refine the social accountability concept with each workshop and pilot project.

The Affiliated Network for Social Accountability—East Asia Pacific (ANSA-EAP), for example, believes that the quality of good governance is a result of the transparency, accountability, and public participation in government policy-making and implementation, held against the bad practices of corruption, waste, inefficiencies, ineffectiveness and government apathy. Transparency, accountability, and participation are necessary for responsive governance, and they have to overcome bad government practices. In developing-world countries, bad governance may be the norm rather than the exception, and people will find a lot of opposition from entrenched interests and uninterested public officials in ensuring good governance. Here in the Philippines, we have obstruction, lack of cooperation, and delays in the investigation of anomalies and crimes, inhibiting accountability; the Freedom of Information Act still has yet to be given priority, leaving people in the “governance dark”, inhibiting transparency; and many fear reprisal for exposing corruption and crime, while others feel powerless in the face of bad governance, and simply remain apathetic, inhibiting participation.

Social Accountability in the MILF Negotiations

By Dr. Antonio G.M. La Viña 

This is the second of a series of columns I am writing on an emerging and powerful tool for good governance called social accountability. Originally, I planned in this column to discuss how we, as a society and as a body politic, can mainstream social accountability into our governance processes. I will still do that but, to illustrate the points I want to make, I decided to use as a jumping point two events this week that reminded me of how important social accountability is for good governance. Last Sunday, we celebrated the 28th anniversary of the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. Since yesterday and continuing today, the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) are meeting in Kuala Lumpur to negotiate a peace agreement. In both cases, the aftermath of Aquino's assassination and the conduct of peace negotiations, the mainstreaming of social accountability would have (in the investigation of the former) and will (in how the outcome of the MILF peace negotiations will be accepted) make a difference.

I am particularly concerned that there is speculation that there is already a done, secret deal on Mindanao peace, one that has not been consulted with the people, especially the stakeholders from Mindanao. As a former participant in the peace negotiations and as someone who has observed these processes for a long time, I am confident that there is no such secret  agreement, the Tokyo meeting of President Aquino with MILF Chairman Murad notwithstanding. There is a long way to go before the peace negotiations reaches the final stages and I am sure the government and the MILF panels, who are trustworthy and experienced people, will be consulting with their respective constituencies at the appropriate time. However, if we have mainstreamed social accountability in our governance processes, there won't be as much speculation and unfounded fears as we are seeing now.

The Aquino Government’s Commitment to Social Accountability

Keynote speech by Sec. Florencio B. Abad delivered last June 27, 2011 during the ONE. ANSA global event

In his inaugural speech on June 30, 2010, the Philippines’ new president, Benigno Aquino III, addressed the Filipino people and said, “Kayo ang boss ko (You are my boss).”

In those four words, President Aquino expressed his unqualified commitment to  accountability to the Filipino people. No Filipino president has ever expressed this as directly and simply as he has.  

President Aquino is a non-traditional politician who came to power in a non-traditional way. He never aspired to be president, but the death of his mother, the former president and revered democratic icon Corazon Aquino, caused the people to turn to him and say  “You must continue the legacy of your mother.”  

Cory Aquino’s death came at a time when the Filipino people were growing hopeless and cynical under a government that was mired in graft and corruption. After marching for 20 hours to bring their beloved leader to her final resting place, the people realized what a great loss Cory Aquino was, and how they had allowed the corrupt leaders at the time to squander the gains that the country had made under Cory Aquino’s leadership. 

It seemed as if the death of Cory Aquino gave the people the resolve not to let good government die with her. It rekindled in their hearts the fire that brought about the people power revolution of 1986, which toppled the dictator and catapulted Cory Aquino to power.  

Social accountability, an imperative

By Dr. Antonio G.M. La Viña

This is the first of six columns I intend to write about “social accountability” and the Affiliated Networks for Social Accountability. I decided to write this series because social accountability is an idea, a powerful tool for good governance, whose time has come. ANSA, on the other hand, is a global network of institutions and researchers dedicated to promoting social accountability concepts and practices, and in developing citizen engagement by leveraging demand-side governance: helping people connect with their governments, and make them accountable for public goods and services. I am grateful to my writing collaborator Christian Laluna and the ANSA team in the Ateneo School of Government for assisting me with these columns.

What has been called the “Third Wave of Democracy” by Samuel Huntington describes the growth, around the end of the Cold War and the following years, in the number of countries which have granted their citizens the right to vote at large for their government, and guaranteed their civil liberties and human rights such as the right to free speech. It remains an admittedly incomplete picture, though, because civil liberties and periodic elections are two out of three ingredients for a sustainable, stable democratic state. Voting and human rights are not merely ends in themselves, but the tools by which citizens can ensure their prosperity, welfare, and stability. In the political environment, this is achieved through the policy process—in short, through governance.

This is where the ball is often sadly dropped. As the Philippine experience will attest, it is very difficult to translate electoral gains into policy gains: ensuring that the public servants elected into office execute the mandates for which they were elected. As well, Filipinos certainly enjoy many liberties—one of the most free presses in the region, if not the world; a political culture built on the foundations of the EDSA People Power revolutions; an expectation of democracy, even in spite of the occasional cynicism about Philippine politics. Yet for these advantages, we still face the challenges of bridging the gap between the rich and poor; effectively delivering basic services such as education, health and welfare; protecting the environment and marginalized peoples; and ensuring fairness and justice in the distribution of public wealth. Corruption still plagues governance, as recent headlines show.