A German political scientist, Dr. Monika Ballin, wrote a short paper entitled “Local Government and Civil Society.” That paper is mainly for the participants of an online seminar of the same title, sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty. The seminar started last week, running for two more weeks, and I was lucky to be selected among the 68 participants from many countries, mostly from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and a few from Europe.
I like a number of definitions and points raised by Dr. Ballin in her paper. Among these are the following:
One, local government is a local, non-national authority, with local responsibility and limited autonomy and is part of the organizational structure of the State. But local government with a high degree of autonomy is always in strong opposition to centralistic political movements and authoritarian structures.
Two, the principle of subsidiarity applies: responsibilities as much as possible should be done at the lowest level, and only when a responsibility exceeds the capacity of one level that the next higher level should be entrusted.
Three, decentralization and privatization: responsibilities need to be shifted from the top down, and responsibilities which are not in the national or local sphere have to be privatized. Local authorities must have their own sources of funding to assert their fiscal autonomy.
And Four, civil society is the final stage of a functioning local government. If all means of decentralization, deregulation and privatization have been implemented and citizens have been involved as comprehensively as possible, civil society has emerged. There will be a “Lean State” where State structure exists only where it is absolutely necessary, and the State at any level is not carrying out any task and duty which private businesses or citizens themselves can do for society.
I say “Amen” to all four points, especially the last one. The four core advocacies of our think tank, MG Thinkers, Inc. – small government, small taxes, free market, individual responsibility – unsurprisingly fit in these ideals and goals of civil society. Less government responsibility (and less taxes and bureaucracies), more individual, parental and enterprise responsibilities.
The purpose of political decentralization and devolution is to shift some responsibilities from the national to local governments. Unfortunately, for many countries, this did not result in greater individual freedom and citizen empowerment and self-administration, but greater power, regulation and intervention by local governments. I do not think this is consistent with liberalism philosophy.
In a number of economic competitiveness studies done by various institutions, like “Economic Freedom of the World” (EFW) by Fraser Institute, or “Doing Business” annual reports by the World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC), or “Paying Taxes” annual reports by the WB and Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), it’s those small economies with small local governments units (LGUs) that have the fewest taxes and business regulations, like Hong Kong, Singapore and Maldives. While some countries with plenty of LGUs, even though they have decentralization or devolution law like the Philippines, have the most number of taxes and business regulations (eg. http://www.doingbusiness.org/documents/Paying_Taxes_2008.pdf).
This is because of duplicating business requirements, taxes and fees being collected, by both the national government and LGUs (provinces, cities or municipalities, and barangays or villages). The devolution of certain social services from the central government to LGUs like public health care, basic education and agricultural extension has emboldened many LGUs to create new taxes and fees, new rules and regulations – on top of taxes and fees, rules and regulations created and collected by national government agencies.
From the discussion by Dr. Ballin, to which I fully agree, the spirit of attaining a condition of civil society is not decentralization per se, but “degovernmentization” of many social functions, of ridding government and State intervention when individuals are free and responsible enough to be fully accountable and answerable for their actions and inactions. This is consistent with Friedrich Hayek’s observation that freedom and responsibility are closely intertwined, that a person cannot enjoy freedom unless he is ready to take responsibility for his life, his family and his community. That fear of responsibility is fear of freedom itself.
When I first mentioned the term “degovernmentization” to some friends here in Manila, their immediate reaction and question was “Are you proposing abolishing government?” No.
“Decentralization” does not mean abolition of the central government, but merely the transfer of some functions from the central to local government. “Deregulation” does not mean abolition of all regulations by government, but reduction of too many regulations, liberalizing the economy to facilitate entry of new economic players. “Demonopolization” does not mean abolition of the incumbent monopoly corporation, but allowing other players and competitors so that the previous monopolist becomes one of the many players. So “Degovernmentization” does not mean abolition of the government, but reduction of many functions and responsibilities currently handled by national or central government, and local governments, and giving such responsibilities back to the citizens, as individual and parental responsibilities.
There will always be a role for the State, a function that individuals and small communities cannot perform effectively. In its most basic and limited role, the State has the function to protect the citizens’ right to life, right to private property, and right to liberty. There will always be bullies, lazy and irresponsible people who will attempt to sustain their existence and that of people close to them by robbing other people their three rights mentioned above. These are the terrorists and murderers, robbers and hold-uppers, carnappers and pirates, rapists and kidnappers, and so on. Thus the State exists to become a “bigger bully,” better armed and equipped, than this group of people. The State also needs to maintain a credible and independent justice system that can render impartial and quick judgment on cases that involve critical disputes between and among the citizens.
The concept of “civil society” though is among those most misunderstood in the world today. Many people who regard themselves as belonging to civil society are actually in the forefront of advocating for more government regulations, trade protectionism, and higher taxation (the usual slogan, “tax the rich!”). In their hearts and mind, there is deep hatred of markets and big corporations, deep suspicion of assigning individual and parental responsibility, deep disrespect of inequality and diversity among people. So what those “civil society leaders” want is an even bigger government, and prevent the emergence of real civil society where citizens’ self-administration of their own lives, households, communities and workplaces, are respected and encouraged.
On another note, the ongoing renewed military conflict between the secessionist Islamic army and the government armed forces in southern Philippines, is mainly a result of never-ending claims by the former for political and economic control of many provinces and cities that they claim to be their “ancestral domain.” Political decentralization under the Local Government Code (1991) did not work to solve this problem. Another law and political structure, creating the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was enacted and implemented, but after more than a decade, the same problems resurface.
The ultimate goal of the rebel Islamic army in the south is a separate State, an Islamic State with its own geographical area of control. It does not want decentralization or a stronger and “autonomous” local government because it will still be part of the administrative apparatus of the Philippine State.
Asserting a “civil society agenda” at this time in the current conflict in the south is a secondary issue. Because the main issue is the assertion of the Islamic rebels to have their own central government, while the central government of the existing Philippine State is ambivalent at least, or opposed to this move at most.
Civil society by nature relies on the voluntary acts of citizens for self-administration. Even the financial backbone to sustain voluntary organizations (from corporations to cooperatives, labor federations, student councils, neighborhood or village associations, churches, sports clubs, civic clubs, etc.) comes from voluntary contribution. Civil society therefore, is pacifist and non-coercive. And it is this non-coercive nature that directly and explicitly separates it from organs of government, where almost all of them were created and sustained by non-voluntary means through taxation.
Both sides in the south, the Islamic rebels and the Philippine State, though fighting, have a common trait: to foster or expand the coercive nature of their respective governments, and in the process, kill or stop the emergence of civil society.