Direct democracy and the parliamentary system

Manny Valdehuesa .

A COMMUNITY develops or progresses from the many individual and group efforts of its inhabitants. And its well-being advances to the extent that these efforts—economic, social, cultural, technological—are orderly and coordinated.

Orchestrating these, while maintaining harmony and providing basic services, is the paramount task of government. Good government is the key to development and progress.

Unfortunately, good governance is not accorded serious concern in the barangay, the basic unit of our Republic. The unconcern of the middle and upper classes that reside in them accounts for much of what is missing and wrong in the way the barangay is governed.

Much of the blame lies with the Department of the Interior and Local Government. It has failed to explain the nature of the barangay’s government and its essential processes. Apart from lecturing barangay officials on procedures involved in its operations, they do not explain the larger implications.

They do not touch, for instance, on the fact that it only in the barangay can genuine democracy can operate literally; that on the barangay hinges the legitimacy of the government and its bureaucracy.

It is only in the barangay where the definition of democracy—as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”—can be exemplified. Meaning, only in it can the people directly and actually govern. The direct form and process of democracy is impractical at upper levels.

In a municipality or city it would be unwieldy and impractical for all of the people to assemble in one venue in order to determine or deliberate on the details of governing. But in a barangay, it is possible to do this (in average-size barangays especially).

That the DILG has tolerated the anomalous growth of many barangays, such that they rival the population size of towns and cities, is a major oversight of that department. Outsized barangays need to be redistricted in the interests of good governance, so the people can be enfranchised and enabled to participate.

The direct form of democracy that operates at barangay level is distinct from the representative democracy that operates at upper levels.

Unaware or ignorant of this distinction between the two levels, barangay chairmen behave as if they are a “little mayor” or a “little president” with command authority and command responsibility. They act as if their authority is theirs alone to exercise, requiring no consultation, participation, approval, or reporting to their constituents.

Thus, the fact that barangay leaders bear the title of “Chairman”—not “Captain” is belittled. It is lost on everyone that their principal duty is to preside over the processes of “government by the people.” The people govern directly through their Barangay Assembly, of which they are all members. This Assembly is a de facto parliament—a legislative governing body.

As a parliament, their individual and collective role is to identify and define problems and priorities in the community in a collegial manner. Through their deliberations and decisions in the Barangay Assembly they conduct the business of government. And this is why they must convene regularly and not just twice yearly as the DILG mandates; this violates the law—which bids it mandates to hold at least two assemblies—meaning as many as needed for the purposes of good governance.

It is the people themselves who must take up what programs and projects are to be initiated and approved. It is they who decide on the barangay’s finances including its budget and other financial concerns. (Cf. Sections 397-398, R.A. 7160, The Local Government Code of 1991).

Today, both the chairmen and the constituents remain ignorant of the parliamentary nature of the barangay’s government. They do not know that the Barangay Assembly is their local parliament except in name. They are unaware that they constitute their community’s supreme governing body. It never occurs to them that, collectively, their powers supersede those of the chairman and the sanggunian.

As a result, no barangay official has ever been removed or replaced by the people no matter how corrupt or incompetent, although the people have the power of Recall (Sections 69-75).

And no one appreciates the nature of the government of the barangay, which operates like the direct democracy of the villages of Switzerland and Israel—which in turn they derived from the direct democracy of Ancient Athens.

Because of this ignorance and the anomalous practices it has engendered, no one can claim that our barangays are the bulwarks of democracy that they’re supposed to be.

Compounding matters, barangay chairman actually think of themselves as a ruler or governor instead of the chairman that they are. They view the people as “the governed”—referring to themselves as “Kapitan” or “kapitana”—unaware that these terms went into disuse at the end of the colonial regime when barrios were commanded by real soldiers of the Guardia Civil.

Nowhere in the law is the term “kapitan” or captain found. But its persistent use lets the trapos get away with their failure to preside properly over the community of their peers. Unless this position title and its job description is clarified and explained, direct democracy and the parliamentary system at the grassroots cannot operate properly to animate the life of our shaky Republic.

For a sovereign citizen to address the Chairman as “Kapitan” is to demote himself to a mere orderly or foot soldier of a self-appointed commander or captain.

(Manny Valdehuesa Jr. is a former Unesco regional director for Asia-Pacific; secretary-general, Southeast Asia Publishers Association; director, development academy of Philippines; and  vice chair, Local Government Academy. He is chairman/national convenor, Gising Barangay Movement Inc.. E-mail: valdehuesa@gmail.com)