Good Governance and Traffic Management

Thursday, 19 May 2011 09:47

Written by Louie C. Montemar

A news article in one leading Manila broadsheet has underscored it well—the current leadership in the Philippines is premised on the promise of “Good Governance.” The paper noted how President Aquino won on a platform of good governance with the campaign slogan “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap!” (“If there’s no corruption, there’s no poverty.”) This appears to have resonated well among Filipinos—as it had in other elections in the past. President Aquino’s case however is most notable as, in the beginning of his government, he received a very high trust rating (+83), the highest in history. That rating is now slowly going down, but not exactly because of corruption. Good governance is not just about "corruption".

In 2008, the perception of corruption in the public sector was so bad that three out of five respondents in a public opinion survey saw “a lot” of corruption in the public sector (Social Weather Stations, 2008). The survey also shows that bribery is still believed to be highly pervasive in government transactions with a great percentage of Filipino managers thinking that “almost all/most companies need to give bribes in order to win government contracts” (from 2000-2007). Most managers think that almost all/most companies in their line of business need to give bribes to win government contracts. This was at a record high of 57 percent in 2002/03 and 2003/04 during the eight-year period and lowest in2006 with 47 percent.

Like this survey of public perceptions, there are many other studies that have attempted to measure “good governance” or some dimensions of it. An approach used by Transparency International shows the “least corrupt country” and the “most corrupt.” The premise of course is that corruption is the inverse of good governance. Following Transparency International (2007), corruption is “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Good governance “assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account, and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.”

From Transparency International, in 2007, we find that the “best governed” country (where one may purportedly find “good governance”) would appear to be Denmark. Myanmar (and Somalia, which is at the bottom of the list) are the “worst governed.” Of the over 170 countries ranked, the Philippines is at 131 because of comparatively high rates of corruption or reports of bad governance practices.

In another measure, that of the Global Integrity index, the Philippines is described as being of a “moderate” level in terms of governance/corruption, given several items or dimensions. Government accountability is one area that needs much improvement, especially in the areas of Legislative Accountability, Judicial Accountability and Budget Processes where the Philippines is “weak”, as Global Integrity measures it.

Given these which were reported prior to the last national elections, it certainly should not be surprising to see a candidate win on the promise of good governance.

Last February, less than a year after the last elections, at the officail ceremonies to commemorate the EDSA people power uprising that toppled the Marcos dictatorship, President Noynoy Aquino reiterated the importance of “good governance and [the] responsible spending of people's funds” as being “pivotal in keeping the country united”. Much indeed has to be done given estimates, for instance, that only 25 percent of each procurement Peso in the Philippines gets to its intended target.

Beyond the usual indicators of good governance, recent events related to traffic management have again underscored the general disposition and political culture that we have in our streets especially in the Metropolis. Traffic management is a good study and metaphor for governance—a good fount for some political philosophizing.

Consider this question: If a cop receives “kotong” (bribe) from a traffic violator and lets the errant citizen go scot-free, who is more corrupt, the cop or the briber? Asking my students this question in handling my classes here at DLSU in a subject called “Citizenship and Governance,” I have received many interesting responses and have been offered various conflicting perspectives. In the final analysis, however, I have to point out especially to the many who say it is the “traffic violator” that the one who holds office or the one who wields power has more responsibility. I have to point out that it is the officer who has the final say on the matter and therefore takes final accountability over the scenario and whatever really transpires. With power comes responsibility, fans of the most recent Hollywood versions of Spiderman are wont to say. In this case, indeed the police officer has to be either the hero or the heel. No fine lines here. But of course the other is also shows unpalatable behaviour, an action not worthy of the label “good citizenship.”

Now consider this “traffic accident” that killed veteran journalist-professor Lourdes "Chit" Estella-Simbulan. Initially, reactions we got about the case highlighted the irresponsibility and guilt of the driver, Daniel Espinosa. But then a conscientious radio reporter, Allan Gatus, brought to light the information that the driver was actually a repeat offender, having been involved in four violations in the last two months! Driver Espinosa may have eluded sanctions by moving to other bus firms, the radio report suggested. If this is true, the government, after all, shares grave responsibility for this tragic loss. Our traffic enforcers, in particular, should have been able to sanction heavily such an offender before he committed his last (hopefully) and most grievous blunder.

So we are reminded to ask, where are we now since this President sat in office? It wasn’t so long ago when this President fashioned himself a model citizen by diligently observing traffic rules. He projected himself as not being above any traffic rule. “No to wang-wang!” his followers chorused. But look, someone was just sitting there inside that taxi, violating no traffic rules. Another citizen erred—an errant citizen, however, who should have not been driving on that Friday the 13^th if only certain government officials did their job.

No to wang-wang, indeed. But more resoundingly we should cry “No to buwang-wang!”

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites