Lessons from the Philippines

BY LYNN Ockersz

IF there is one state in Asia which has demonstrated the effectiveness of "people's power" in peaceful governmental change, it is the Philippines. The role played by "people's power", for instance, in the ousting of the Philippines' dictatorial ruler of the Seventies and Eighties, Ferdinand Marcos, is now the stuff of legend.

In those trail-blazing developments, what stood out as remarkable was the fact that not a shot was fired. People literally crowded Manila's streets in their hundreds and thousands for days, in a monumental demonstration of popular opposition to the existing regime and this ensured the beginning of the end of the hated Marcos regime.

Popular peaceful opposition and not street violence brought "normal life" to a grinding halt in the Philippines, during those eventful days, and ensured the ungovernability of the archipelago, paving the way for the collapse of the regime.

The observer is thus forced to go down memory lane on hearing that a whiff of popular opposition is once again in the air in Manila, this time against the administration of President Gloria Arroyo. Reportedly, the political opposition is seeking to cash in on the widespread belief that corruption in public life is rampant.

Another rallying point for oppositional agitation is election rigging. Thus far, these agitational moves have attracted only a few thousands and hardly qualify for the potent title, "people's power".

However, the current agitation could grow in strength and take on the dimensions of a full-blooded demonstration of "people's power", if the immediate causes for public resentment, such as corruption in public life, are not contained or eliminated.

President Arroyo is not seen as corrupt nor is she accused of nepotism, but perceived inaction on her part to curb corruption could fuel further popular opposition to her administration.

There are lessons here for us in South Asia. The Philippines' public could be said to be acutely sensitive to governmental accountability. The autocratic regime of Ferdinand Marcos provided the backdrop for these issues to be highlighted by the intellectual and political elites of the Philippines, besides the Catholic Church which was never afraid to espouse the common good.

Consequently, a tradition of public protest on issues at the heart of the need for good governance could be said to have grown in the Philippines over the years. What of us in South Asia? How sensitive are our publics to the issue of good governance and how prepared are we to articulate our demand for good governance and issues which flow from it?

South Asia boasts of many long-standing democracies but to what degree are these democracies in the real sense of the term? Do we possess the kernel or the husk of democratic governance?

There is no arguing the point that popular participation in decision-making on issues which affect the public well-being, is the essence of the democratic system of government. By this standard, Sri Lanka, for instance, is no vibrant democracy.

From the highest tiers of government to the lowest, in this country, popular participation in decision-making is at a minimum or non-existent. For, the social actors we have in these institutions of government constitute the ruling elite and not the people proper.

One of the primary reasons for this crippling limitation is the lack of a tradition of sustained social protest on issues that matter. We lack grassroots movements, in the true sense of the term, which effectively galvanize public opinion on important public issues, such as corruption in public life and power abuse.

Therefore, "people's power" could be some time in coming to countries such as our's. Local civil society organisations, thus, need to take a leaf from the Philippines. Meanwhile, power elites would carry on merrily on their course of self-aggrandizement.