TRINKLED

Decentralization and new politics -- Miriam Coronel Ferrer

The publics warm reception given to Grace Padaca of Isabela, this years Ramon Magsaysay awardee for government service, indicates how hungry we are for local leaders who will break the old patterns in Philippine politics. How Grace defeated the Dy-nasty that lorded the province for decades was simply amazing. For the same reason, public sympathy remains in favor of governor-priest Among Ed Panlilio, who continues to battle the proxies of the mighty jueteng and lahar lords of Pampanga.

Winning in elections that are only somewhat free and hardly fair is tough enough, but the greater challenge to all governors and mayors is to bring about change in their communities, especially with the powers and functions that have been devolved to them by the Local Government Code. In her term of office, Grace has paid back two-thirds of Isabelas debts and enhanced delivery of social services. Among Eds policing of the multibillion quarry business, to the consternation of those who were raking money from diverted fees, has raised provincial revenues tremendously in his first months of office. But faced with powerful political enemies, they will continue to need public support inside and out to help them sustain their initiatives.

***

Decentralization refers to the transfer of responsibility for planning, managing and resource-generating from the central to the local authorities. Its advocates argue that leadership closer to the people results in greater efficiency, equity and accountability. Decentralization also enables more direct citizen participation in governance, since citizens can keep vigil over their leaders right at their town centers and municipal halls.

Decentralization coupled with urbanization and a bigger middle class contribute to more expectations from the electorate. More voters now realize that what they need is professional, development-oriented leadership who can steer their locality to progress. Thus, those who have been proven to be good managers and planners are celebrated. Jess Robredo of Naga City is perhaps the most recognized among them.

Also, it helps if the politicians main source of wealth came from the practice of their profession or lies outside of the locality. In contrast, trapos who usually have large properties and other business interests in the same locality have many conflicts of interest.

But has decentralization produced enough transformative leaders or merely led to the same, wrong people, the same ruthless trapos, capturing the benefits of devolved powers for their own gain? Local politics, after all, is the base of the patronage tradition and the coercive political machines that run our politics. Clientelism at the local is more rampant because of more defined terms of exchange like jobs or financial aid. On this point, we are reminded of the former Paranaque mayor Joey Marquez who, hounded by controversy over the non-renewal of contracts of several janitors, street sweepers and staff of the municipalitys solid waste management department, exasperatingly explained away his problem: Its hard to find jobs for all your constituents. But we try to employ as many people as we can.

Interesting, decentralization has produced one other unintended type of local government leader: one who ably combines bossism and does not hesitate to use brute force to govern his fiefdom, but who at the same time has a developmental bent. Among those who fit this modernized Boss of local politics are Manila mayor Alfredo Lim whose spray-paint offensives against suspected drug pushers in his previous term were the subject of a court complaint; Cavite governor Johnny Remulla who laid the foundation for the industrial estates in Cavite, a feat achieved by forcibly evicting farming communities; and Davao City mayor, three-termer Rodrigo Duterte, notorious for his self-styled Davao Death Squad accused of liquidating suspected criminals. Duterte, in particular, is grudgingly admired for curbing lawlessness and perking up the local economy.

While effective in projecting strong governmental presence as demanded by decentralization, the preponderance of old and new local boss-types threatens human rights. Political violence and development aggression, or development at the expense of the poor, the powerless, and the environment, mark their terms of office. Journalists, broadcasters, community leaders and even their fellow politicians are victims of their low regard for the rule of law. Such threats may become graver once the police force is fully devolved to the LGUs. The police can easily become the armed goons of the local chief executive, if they are not already.

Whatever their brand of leadership, most local government officials remain keen to be in the good graces of the President so they can access funds and secure the fast release of their internal revenue allotments. Largesse from the national government enhances their local standing in the eyes of their constituents. Friendly relations could lead to their inclusion in the government slate for the next election, with all the material advantages of running under the party of the incumbent.

Evidently, decentralization per se has not produced enough new politics type of local executives. It has not by itself created a new political culture where leader-citizen relationship goes beyond personalistic or patronage ties. Nor has it put an end to the impunity of the powerful.

Decentralization to succeed will have to take place alongside reforms in the electoral and justice system. Civil society and the local media would need to be further protected and empowered to play watchdog roles. The electorate must be freed from the debasement of poverty which leads them to sell their votes. Many amendments to the Local Government Code and other structural changes are still needed to secure the advantages of localized autonomous governance.