Coalitions wanted

Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, have been recognized in the laws of many states as expressions of the right to association, but have also come about because of the political and other deficiencies in society.

Since the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, every election in the Philippines has been the occasion for NGO involvement in getting the vote out and educating the electorate—an indication that there are still serious flaws in the electoral system despite the regular (some say too frequent) elections in the Philippines. To address those flaws, NGOs, also known as civil society organizations (CSOs), also attempt to mobilize citizens for civil action towards making elections meaningful, and by implication, towards making better governance and government accountability possible.

NGOs all over the world—and Philippine NGOs are no exception—have had mixed success in monitoring governance and  pressuring governments to act in ways consistent with their own laws and standards; to amend or repeal laws inconsistent with their advocacies; and/or to introduce laws that would reform or correct existing practices that affect citizen welfare. In addition to supporting their constituencies, they have compelled governments to review their policies and assumptions as well as to realize their vulnerability to citizen monitoring and to public accountability.

NGOs are inevitably reformist. But their existence and proliferation is at the same time an indication of the many deficiencies in society and governance as well as of increasing citizen empowerment. They are in that sense both a democratic imperative as well as a democratizing power.

The political, economic, cultural, and other conditions in which they work vary widely, and do have an impact on their capacity to further their advocacies and to monitor government performance. Uniformly, however, their tasks may be described as impossible to difficult, especially in those societies that are emerging from authoritarian rule and are in the process of democratization, where they have had mixed success in convincing states to take those steps necessary to advance the interests of  both the sectors they represent as well as of society as a whole.

Although the Philippines hosts thousands of NGOs engaged in such advocacies as gender equality, human rights, environmental protection, freedom of assembly and free expression, a broad coalition of  civil society organizations which include media, free expression, and transparency in governance NGOs has been waging a more than two decade-long campaign for a freedom of information (FOI) act.

Access to information is recognized by the Philippine Constitution and by presidential executive orders, and, at least ten years ago, was relatively easy for both ordinary citizens and the media. But there has been a reversal of media and citizen capacity to access government-held information since then, as manifested by the imposition of conditions on obtaining such information such as the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of government officials, and an executive order making the testimonies before Congressional hearings of executive department officials subject to Presidential approval.

That other, favored NGO advocacy, making elections meaningful, has at least had limited success, among other reasons because of the nature of political parties in the Philippines (they’re different only in name, their “platforms” being collections of motherhood statements and glaringly deficient in specifics), and such continuing phenomena as the persistence of warlordism and political dynasties.

Signifying both their stubborn commitment to meaningful elections as well as indicative of their limited success, Philippine NGOs wage practically the same campaigns (e.g., educating the electorate, doing research on campaign spending, compelling politicians and parties to make known their programs of government, etc.) every election season.

Obviously this cannot go on forever, and what is needed is significant success rather than limited ones. NGOs need to harness popular support by enhancing public awareness of the issues to which NGOs are committed as an inevitable condition for the advancement of their advocacies.  In this task the mobilization of the news media whether old (broadcasting and print) or new (the Internet) is imperative.

Cooperation between media NGOs such as media advocacy and journalists’ organizations and NGOs focused on the monitoring of governance has itself been fairly limited, however. Media NGOs have to enhance non-media NGOs’ awareness of how the news media work, their ethics, values and principles, through coalitions in which media and non-media NGOs can learn from and enhance their respective advocacies. On the other hand, non-media NGOs need to deepen their media counterparts’ understanding and appreciation of their advocacies.

Although there has been some realization of this imperative, coalitions between media and non-media NGOs have not been so lasting or as consistent as to realize the enhancement of the mutuality of interests that unite them. A long-term, broad coalition on the bases of those interests can significantly advance the common goal of enhancing access to information and free expression in furtherance of government accountability.