[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=”]
[/av_textblock]
[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’FAITH, HOPE & CHARITY ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY IKE SEÑERES
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Friday, November 17, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
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. (To be continued/iseneres@yahoo.com)/PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
