A FRIEND told me that governance is really good management, applied in the government setting.
Well, that is only halfway true, because the government side is only half of the governance process.
The other half of course, is the participation of the citizenry, meaning the people who are governed.
The key word here is participation, because if the citizenry will not participate, the process would really be incomplete. Perhaps this is really just a matter of quality, because governance could still go on even if it is half baked, but the end result is bad government.
In a past column, I quoted the saying “You get what you pay”. I say now that that may not exactly be correct in the case of bad government.
I say that because whether or not we get good government, we still have to pay our taxes. Since we are already investing in governance with our money, perhaps it is also time to start investing with our time also, in which case the saying “You get what you pay” would again become applicable. In other words, if we do not invest our time in governance, then we should not expect to get anything back.
Also, I talked about admissibility of electronic evidence as it applies to online voting via internet or mobile means. On second thought, I say now that the bottom line in this issue is the acceptability of online authentication, because online voting is really just one of the transactions that a citizen could do via internet or mobile means, for as long as his identity is already authenticated.
For example, if a citizen could already pay for his taxes online, he should be able to vote online too, because he is the same citizen who is transacting with the same government.
Faster than we could imagine it, the boundaries between internet access and mobile access are fast disappearing. As it is now, many mobile users could already access the internet using their cell phones.
Conversely, all internet users could also send messages and pictures now to cell phones. In many cases, anything that anyone could do via internet means could now be done via mobile means, and vice-versa. Comparing it now with e-Commerce, anyone should be able to vote electronically, in the same way that anyone could now buy anything electronically.
When I write about online voting, I do not mean voting in elections only. I also mean voting in other venues such as board meetings and general assemblies, to vote not on candidates, but on the passage or rejection of resolutions. Whether we like it or not, all of us are residents of a barangay.
All of us also have the rights and obligation to participate in barangay governance, whether we know it or not. By way of comparison, a Barangay Council meeting is like a board meeting, whereas a Barangay General Assembly (BGA) is like a stockholder’s meeting. What this means is that all of us could vote for or against BGA resolutions, if and when we attend BGA meetings, at least physically for now.
Every now and then, some Barangay Councils or Village Associations would conduct referendums on some issues, and absentee ballots are usually honoured, as long as these are signed by the registered voter or member. That is actually the same as online voting, provided that the identity of the voter or member could be verified or authenticated.
Putting it in another way, whatever could be manually signed by a voter or member could also be electronically signed by him. This is where the issue of admissibility of electronic evidence would come in, because the electronic signature is in effect the electronic evidence.
Because of the fact that the Local Government Code (LGC) and the Electronic Commerce Act (ECA) are both in place, there may be no need for another law that would allow online voting in BGAs. As far as I am concerned, the only remaining issue is the quality of the authentication process, whether or not it is acceptable to the Local Government Units (LGUs).
Generally speaking, this would have to involve the use of biometric technologies, if not a Private Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology. We are not really lacking in technology options to choose from. We are only lacking in the political will to exercise our political options.
We are also not lacking in our device options to choose from, as far as shooting video is concerned. Even the cheapest and most low tech cell phone could now shoot video.
Since there are millions of cell phones out there in the hands of barangay residents, we actually have millions of weapons to use against bad and corrupt local officials, and we could actually overwhelm them if we want to.
Only a few years ago, it was very difficult to submit a video to a television station. That has all changed now, because multimedia is here, now made more powerful by social media. Anytime anywhere now, anyone could upload a video into any number of video streaming and social networking sites in the internet, and no one needs a television station anymore to bring out anything to catch the attention of the general public. As a matter of fact, it is now mainstream media that is grabbing videos from the internet, to show it in their television stations.
These technologies for governance are already widely available now, and to prove my point, I am willing to give to any barangay their own video streaming and social networking sites, free of cost to them. The only cost to them so to speak, is their own time, and their own commitment to do their part in the other half of the governance process, and to become active in shaping their own future.
Yesterday is now history. The future starts tomorrow./PN
