How not to rehabilitate Marawi

Manny Valdehuesa .

IT’S been a long time since Marawi exploded with surprising intensity, causing Martial Law to be declared in Mindanao, followed by five months of fierce fighting and bombardment—which no Philippine city has had to endure except Manila during World War II.

In the wake of the horrible devastation of the city’s core of two dozen barangays and the displacement of their citizens, people are still complaining that they see no light at the end of the tunnel. They continue to suffer for more than a year already. And little or nothing is heard about their own local governments.

Hardest hit, have their governments been swept aside as other agencies undertake the recovery and rehabilitation efforts? Have they been abolished, or simply disregarded, their role arrogated by the administrators of Martial Law?

If so, it is tantamount to abolishing them without due process, their constituents disenfranchised, disempowered. This is not acceptable in a society that professes to be a democracy.

***

No matter what, the constituents of these barangays are its primary stakeholders. They have inherent right not only to be informed of what’s being planned for their rehabilitation, but to be intimately involved in its planning and implementation.

It is wrong for the national or regional government to disregard these primary governments and their officials—who include the constituents. The latter are official members of the Barangay Assembly, which is every community’s supreme governing body—and therefore must have a say on whatever is being planned or undertaken within their jurisdiction.

It remains the duty and responsibility of people in affected communities to do their part in the rehabilitation and restoration process. Going over their heads, leaving them out of the loop in decisions and plans, even if the same are meant for their benefit and welfare, not only violates the principle of subsidiarity, it disempowers them as sovereign citizens and as the community’s primary stakeholders.

It also disenfranchises them as the very citizens whose authority provides the basis for upper governments and agencies to do anything or to exercise any power in society. It is an insult to them and to their barangays to have the upper-level governments and agencies belittle their role and right to determine how they are to be assisted or rehabilitated. And it weakens grassroots democracy.

***

Moving in unilaterally, peremptorily taking over a conflicted community without involving the citizens in them, is bad practice. Martial Law or not, it is unwise and counterproductive. It discourages citizens from taking primary responsibility for themselves and for their own community. It prevents them from exercising discretion, to determine how they would like to be assisted and rehabilitated, and how their community and government are to be restored to full operation.

Sure, let the upper-level governments and external agencies be always at the ready to assist the primary governments and the stakeholders in them. But they should never deprive citizens of their role and inherent right to take responsibility for their affairs.

This presumptuous practice has been going on for too long and has kept Filipinos irresponsible and politically immature. It is why they remain ever dependent on leaders with a patriarchal attitude and whose style of governing reeks of the feudal system.

Dependence on trapo leaders perpetuates the reign of political dynasties that feed on patronage and make a livelihood of politics.

***

To tolerate this dysfunctional situation plays into the hands of Martial Law supporters who are determined to enforce their version of “good governance” as one that flows from the barrel of a gun. There will be no end to bloodletting and extrajudicial killings.

Unless and until Filipinos learn to take responsibility for their community’s governance, they will remain politically immature. They will continue to be dependent on presumptuous “public servants” who strut around thinking they are the masters.

They will remain politically irresponsible. Autonomy-deprived citizens become incapable of self-government, making them easy prey for manipulative oligarchs to exploit and abuse.

Food for thought for the advocates of federalism: can a citizenry that is unfit to govern even their small community be expected to make a federal system work?

(Manny Valdehuesa Jr. is a former Unesco regional director for Asia-Pacific; secretary-general, Southeast Asia Publishers Association; director, development academy of Philippines; member, Philippine Mission to the UN;  vice chair, Local Government Academy; member, government peace panel during the administration of Corazon Aquino; awardee, PPI-Unicef outstanding columnist. An author of books on governance, he is chairman/convenor of Gising Barangay Movement Inc.. E-mail: valdehuesa@gmail.com)