Citizenship and Deliberative Democracy

On February 25 this year, we commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution. For PA scholars and practitioners, the EDSA Revolution is more than a historical bookend to roughly two decades of dictatorial rule, eventually dismantled by collective consciousness and will of the Filipino people. Rather, EDSA remains the catalyst of the redemocratization project that has shaped Philippine PA and governance through the years. This virtual issue explores how the enduring ideals of the “People Power,” i.e., citizen participation and deliberative democracy, transformed into concrete strategies and emerging areas for reform.  

This virtual issue aptly begins with foundational reflections from Philippine PA scholars who lived to see the transformation of public sector institutions before and after EDSA. Abueva (1988) and de Guzman (1988), tackling post-EDSA redemocratization, both highlighted decentralization as a primary strategy to empower people and communities as active partners in achieving development goals. The authors envisioned a systematic dispersal of power to allow for multisectoral decision making, which helps craft more responsive solutions to societal and governance problems. De Guzman further outlines the pillars of redemocratization: transparency in the implementation of reforms; establishment of NGOs as alternative service delivery channels; and a leadership selection process that reflects the genuine will of the constituency. Cariño and Guiza (2001) show how these prospects for citizen participation and deliberative democracy came into fruition in local governments; they documented "good practice" cases, where devolved provinces supported the democratization of the municipalities and barangays within their jurisdiction.

Tackling the concept of citizenship, Manalo (2004) argues that citizen participation requires a clear “ideological anchor,” i.e., civic republicanism, to prevent it from being manipulated or co-opted by those with greater resources. This theoretical grounding is necessary to transform Public Administration into a practice of democratic governance. In the same vein, Ferrer (2005) puts premium on “people-initiated” versus “LGU-initiated” initiatives, suggesting that genuine development hinges on community ownership and empowerment. Alampay et al. (2019), in their article on local government-volunteer collaboration in disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), offer various examples of LGU mechanisms that enable opportunities for civic engagement and shed light on the “tension between cooperation, collaboration, and control” that shape LGU-voluntary sector interactions.

Some articles in this issue interrogate the individual capacities of citizens as active participants in the attainment of development goals. Alampay (2017) introduces a culturally sensitive framework for active citizenship, describing a progression from kamalayan (awareness) to kamulatan (consciousness) to paninindigan (conviction). Meanwhile, Pulangco et al. (2019) shed light on the unique role of the persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) in disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) initiatives in Philippine prisons. The authors point out that, in fact, the lack of prison resources has made PDL participation in disaster management a practical necessity for effective governance.

Deliberative democracy, another important theme highlighted in this virtual issue, requires concrete, effective mechanisms. Ilago (2016) provides a critical look at the Bottom-up Budgeting (BUB) mechanism, framing it as a reform attempt distinct from purely “technocratic” public financial management. However, he cautions that we should not expect “radical transformation” of local decision making, given the historical constraints. On the other hand, limitations of current structures are further analyzed by Medina-Guce and Galindes (2017). They argue that the Local Government Code (LGC) focuses too much on “administrative indicators,” while failing to address the actual roles and capacities that civil society needs to influence decisions. Gleaning from these findings, Medina-Guce and Galindes call for the inclusion of citizen participation in the core agenda of future LGC amendments. Meanwhile, looking at infrastructure as a mechanism for deliberative democracy, Martin et al. (2011) explore how ICT enables NGOs to mobilize and promote their advocacies. The authors argue that certain barriers, such as slow bandwidth connection and lack of basic knowledge, still hinder the full potential of technology in facilitating government-to-citizen communication and engagement. 

These works offer critical insights into how the democratic ideals brought about by the 1986 EDSA Revolution have been applied in Philippine Public Administration through the years. We invite our readers to reflect and take stock of the gains and challenges in governance outlined in these articles, and see how the public sector may better reflect the notions of citizen participation and deliberative democracy envisioned post EDSA.