WIKIPEDIA defines “civil society” as the “aggregate of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens”.
There are many other ways to define what it is, but what stands out is that it is “distinct from government and business”, and that these organizations and institutions are “independent of the government”.
These definitions would generally imply that there is a process of good governance that should involve the civil society, in effect allowing the said aggregate to manifest its interest and will.
Of course, it is also generally implied that the process of good governance should involve both the formal government and the civil society, implying further that the function of governing should not be the exclusive domain of the formal government.
We often hear discussions about the so-called “damaged culture” and “damaged institutions”, and quite sadly, it is often implied that the “civil society” is one of those damaged institutions, having gotten bad publicity over the years due to the transgressions of some leaders in the past.
One way or the other, it is also implied that the “damaged culture” and “damaged institutions” are symptoms of the Philippines being supposedly the “sick man of Asia”. I could agree that countries could get “sick” as people do, but that does not mean that countries could not “heal” as people do. It does not also mean that countries would die as people do, if and when they get sick.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Philippines is sick or was sick, it would be reasonable to say that it has recovered. Either that or we could say that it is already recovering.
It would be relevant to say at this point that the Philippines is the only one country that we have, and we really have no choice but to make it well, along with its “damaged culture” and “damaged institutions”, and including its “civil society”.
Come to think of it, there is really nothing wrong with the term itself, except that its image or reputation has been damaged. Having no other alternative, we really have no other choice except to repair the image or reputation of the “civil society”, and then move on towards the task of nation building.
Being independent of the government is one thing, but the real question is whether or not the NGO is doing its part in the process of governance.
That question is more relevant than ever, because just like the term “civil society”, the acronym NGO has also been damaged or shall we say it has been compromised. It is good that the Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC) is doing its part in filtering out the bad eggs, but there is also a need to support the certification of all other NGOs that are good to go but do not have the resources to do so.
For all intents and purposes, it could be said that some NGOs are doing their work independent from the government, while the others are doing so in partnership with the government.
It does not really matter whether NGOs are working independently or in partnership with the government, as long as they are doing their part in the process of governance. What does that process entail?
As I see it, good governance has four basic components, namely policies, programs, plans and projects.
By definition, a project needs to have a beginning and an end; otherwise it is not a project. Before a project could be started however, it needs to have a plan. Without a plan, it could also not be a proper project.
By expectation however, all plans should be derived from programs, and all programs should be based on policies. You might wonder why I am giving importance to this sequence, but needless to say, there are many projects that are not in line with programs and policies, and some do not even have proper plans.
In theory, it could be said that the more NGOs that are doing their share in the process of governance, the less work the formal government has to do. As a case in point, there are many government agencies that are supposed to be providing livelihood services, just as there are also many NGOs that are also doing the same.
That being the case, there ought to be many households that are already liberated from poverty because of these services. That may be so, but there seems to be no data about this. As another case in point, there are many government agencies that are supposed to be providing housing services, just as there are also many NGOs that are also doing the same also. Just the same, no data is available.
In some literature about this subject, it is implied that the formal government and the “civil society” are supposed to work together by way of public and private partnerships (PPP). While that could be done at the national level, it would be very difficult to gather the data, and therefore it would be difficult to measure success or failure.
As an alternative, it would be a better option to implement PPP at the level of the local government units (LGUs). That way it would be easier to gather the benchmark data at the outset, and then also gather the resulting data thereafter, regardless of success or failure. Although the local efforts may just be small steps, everything could add up, and the national data gathered thereafter would show its effects./PN
