THE DISCIPLINING EFFECT OF WORKSHOPS

-->

I only encountered workshops when I started working already. At least the term “workshops.” It’s really just small discussion sessions that are usually facilitated. There are rules set, questions answered, and flows pre-agreed. Workshops actually become most interesting when the backgrounds of the participants are very varied and contrasting and so ideas brought to the table for discussion are so different. The discussion becomes so lively and debates are heated. These are the workshops I’d like to attend. These are the workshops where you can learn new things.

At first, the naïve me hated the people who start the debates and who I’d so easily reduce to stupid people only because they think differently. I hated even starting conversations with them. I’d get frustrated with them not sharing my opinion on the issues. That is the whole point of the ‘dialogue’ (if you like) – to see different perspectives to the problem and perhaps find solutions that are out-of-the-box. But hey, if I talked to ‘like-minded’ people only, why not just talk to myself then and save the effort, time, and money of participating in workshops that would seem like monologues anyway. So then, I realized the importance of diversity of opinions, perspectives, and ideas.

But as workshops are designed, the different ideas, opinions, and perspectives get actually managed and processed a certain way – the way the designers would wish them to flow. The interesting observation I make when these workshops are held is that people start out so differently… different languages and terminologies even. At the end of that 3-day workshop, people use the same terms, language and come up with the same ideas. I wonder how that all happened. It’s the grand design. Yes folks, workshops are scheming efforts to discipline ‘development actors’ to think a certain way and to arrive at solutions that have already been pre-determined. Yes, yes, and yes… we are all used to fulfill that process of consultation and participation that will ‘legitimize’ the technical assistance/advice that is then disposed of.

So before we even congratulate ourselves for a job well done at workshops, examine the process. Was I converted to think just like everyone else (the mainstream)? And don’t be ashamed to bring out so openly your agenda in the workshop. As a participant, you don’t come empty-handed. You are there to convert and not be converted. The process (and the rules) can either work to your favor or against you… understand how you can make use of it for your very objective. Yes folks, workshops are ways to process ideas and the idea that could be yours if you so work it.

So, if workshops are meant to discipline then make sure, you are the driver of that disciplining exercise. Drive the idea to your agenda. Do not be driven. The process is only as good as the driver. Whoever drives it takes the idea to the promise land.

SAFE AND SATISFYING SEX

It's wonderful that finally the subject of satisfying sex has entered national consciousness and is part of the national conversation. It's about time that traditional notions of sex as an obligation to the male spouse is debunked and women take charge of their bodies, and proudly claim their sexuality and sexual needs.

Movie Review: Argo

Loved the movie. But as it appeared, the movie has once again rewritten history, increased several notches the role of the Americans and devalued the contribution of the Canadians to this epic tale of international cooperation.

So to balance off the American hubris, here's a little something from Ken Taylor, the supporting cast to the great American tale of Hollywood-like rescue.

'Argo': Former ambassador Ken Taylor sets the record straight

Indecisiveness on the Corona Impeachment Trial

The dilemma is that if one takes side one way or the other, there are grand repercussions that may not be easily corrected.

A full-blown impeachment trial is least likely to result in the removal of CJ Corona. If Corona remains CJ,  GMA will likely go scot-free. The Supreme Court will be an easily available court of resort for her. In the meantime, Corona becomes untouchable for one year because of the prohibition. PNoy and allies will be shamed and power reclaimed from them in 2013. The political balance changes and the politics of the past returns. This is rather scary.

It will work best if Corona resigns the earliest possible time but not just yet without convincing evidence from the prosecution panel. In other words, the drama has to unfold but deservingly through the hard work of the House team. Let this not happen so easily for the House. Why? My fear is that the impeachment instrument becomes very accessible and easily abused by our politicos to bully and harass a perceived obstacle. The way this was handled, it seems so easy for the House to gather the numbers they need to pressure an impeachable officer to resign without really intending to go the long haul. It's a bluff. Whoever blinks first loses.

I hope the prosecution does its job well - convincingly present evidence that shows how CJ Corona has betrayed the people's trust in him and his office. If not, we'll have to face the consequence of having another Arroyo back in the helm of power. Quite soon, don't you think?

Fearless Forecast on the Corona Impeachment Trial

This is going to last longer than expected.

The win solution could have been that Corona resign before end January. Then everything goes back to normalcy. This could have happened with a bombastic opening - a confidence-building speech for the public to be ensured that this process is a sure win. As it was executed though, it looks like the fight will be neck to neck and the people at the losing end of this tedious process.

If the trial drags on to February, Corona would be on a winning streak. The people would be losing every minute and resources used for this trial. Without an angry civil society on the side of prosecution and an apathetic public, Corona gains ground. It is less likely that the Senate (the impeachment court) gathers the votes needed to convict him.

If Corona is not convicted and removed from office, GMA will surely ride the wave of victory and go scott-free re the case of plunder. And whatever manipulation Corona makes in favor of GMA will not be ripe for another accountability mechanism because of the 1 year prohibition. And of course the political configuration changes in 2013. PNoy and allies will not win the elections and likely, the "return of the comeback" shall happen. This is not looking well.

So yes, if the gameplan is to pressure Corona to resign, I'm in. The alternative is rather scary.

Impeaching Corona Part II

With 188 votes from the Congressmen, clearly this is the perfect time to do the difficult task of impeaching an impeachable officer. From the looks of it, it was more difficult to impeach Gutierrez than Corona if we only let the numbers speak. And at that, the evidence against Gutierrez are far stronger than those against Corona. Of course, it is the political context that drives all these.

This is the perfect time for the President to make everyone fall in line. How? It is not too early for the 2013 elections and not too close as well. With the popularity of the President and the budget powers vested in his office, Congressmen would surely want to be in his favor for the following reasons: 1) They'll want the President's winnable endorsement for the 2013 contest or if not, 2) They'll want the President to give them projects (pork-barrel) so that they can 'raise' funds come 2013. Yes, the President's political capital is a BIG FACTOR to create all these movements.

If this had happened after 2013, the President's influence will have surely waned. He will not be as popular as he is now. And the political game then will be defined by the 2016 elections. More than PNoy, I expect that VP Binay will have greater political influence and leverage with Congress as a Presidential candidate for 2016.

Interesting times indeed.

Impeaching Corona

It is dangerous for one branch to arrogate upon itself to reform the other branch. It is one thing to critique and another thing to mobilize resources and cross the line to ‘reform a co-equal branch.’ I believe that the excesses of the Supreme Court will be corrected by members of the Supreme Court. And this is where personalities like Justice Sereno come in.

It is another thing of course for civil society groups to mobilize and organize mass demonstrations to make the SC accountable even to the extent of impeachment. 

Hyperpresidentialism and People Power

When People Power 2 happened, I was of the opinion that this is the fall of the Presidency as an institution. I was against it, coming from a very consitutitonalist/ institutionalist perspective. I was a first year student at the Ateneo School of Law...under Fr. Bernas no less. Let it be noted though that Fr. B and the school helped mobilize support for Edsa 2. I did not attend. I was marked absent that day.

I argued in class that there is no difference between extra-constitutionalism and unconstitutionalism. But of course, Fr. B would explain otherwise, thus the justification for the school to be part of this extra-constitutional mechanism of accountability.

In hindsight, delayed at that, perhaps the evolution of people power as an accountability mechanism may be historically correct, appropriate and culturally sensitive given the kind of presidential system that the Philippines has. 

Many of the dysfunctions and abuses that arise in Philippine governance are hinged on the hyperpresidential system of the Philippines. The strong President has many powers that affect party politics and functionality of checks and balances. These are the powers of the purse (contrary to the perception that this power belongs to the legislature) and appointment. The president, once seated, seems to be beyond the reach of 'accountability'. The legislature's check/balance through impeachment is effectively counterbalanced by the pork barrel. The president seems to be 'infallible' until PEOPLE POWER. 

So maybe as a friend of mine has said, maybe we are at the point of finding that equilibrium in Philippine politics and perhaps unique only to the Philippines. Perhaps it is not a question of parliamentary form of government vs. a presidential form of government. Perhaps it is a question of what kind of presidential form of government will work for us. And perhaps given the hyperpresidential system that we have, the matching balance is the people power which makes the President more vulnerable (not beyond reach) and directly accessible by the people. 

Hyperpresidentialism and people power are uniquely Filipino. Taken separately, these concepts are viewed 'bad' but perhaps present themselves as opportunities for change if taken together. A strong president may just be needed to change elitist politics engendered in party politics - we know that parties are still captured by the elites albeit more professionalized. But we'd want a strong president that roots his loyalty to the people (not populist but people-centered). The hyperpresidential-people power formula may just be what will work for us.

Again, we are still finding that political-accountability equilibrium. There will be shifts - small and large. This is an exciting time to see the shifts and towards what direction. Interesting times.

Have appointments watch projects been a failure?

In the past week, I've come across the statement that the appointments watch projects have not been successful. I did not react violently to this observation. I haven't really thought about it. The third time that I was told this, I had to pause and think about it more seriously.

I think I've reached an answer this time.

Have appointments watch projects changed anything in the governance landscape?

From an INSTITUTIONAL REFORM perspective, I dare say YES. The appointments watch projects have successfully advanced transparency and accountability in key stages of the appointment process.

The JBC public interviews have become more transparent than before. Now, the public interviews allow the general public to view the proceedings. Those that cannot be accommodated by the small hearing room can view the proceedings from outside through a projection screen and a good audio system. We can now bring our mobile phones inside the room and blast out text messages for updates. We can also bring our laptops and tweet updates about the interview.

The JBC voting process has also become more transparent and subsequently should make it easier for the public to exact accountability from the JBC. The votes are now published. Further, the individual votes of the JBC members are made known to the public. We now know who voted for whom.

Of course, there is yet a lot more to be done to institutionalize reforms that advance transparency and accountability in the entire appointments process.

From a POLITICAL ECONOMY perspective, we cannot claim success. However, I would not say that there is no impact at all. Suffice it to say that the project did not really aim to influence the President's decision as the appointing power. Only in one project did we put forward names of individuals to be considered by the President - the Comelec Appointments Watch. There were no lobby efforts also.

While we haven't really looked in this area more closely, I think somehow the project has made a dent in the political economy of appointments (perhaps theoretically). Theoretically, if we have been visible enough to have gotten the President's attention, whether by making the issue more known to the public or through the media, we'd have influenced the INCENTIVES STRUCTURE of the appointments-making process. The appointments watch projects will have factored in the decision-making battle of the President. Oftentimes, the President has a diminishing political capital. S/he starts with her highest possible political capital upon election and then after spends this on difficult decisions s/he makes as the chief executive of government. Theoretically, if the appointments watch projects have made the appointments issue a people's issue, then the President's decision to appoint will be weighed more carefully in terms of the available political capital of the President. Questions like "Is making a bad appointment worth that much political capital to be spent?" will be asked. "OR will the appointment improve the President's political capital?"

This, to my mind, is the value of the appointments watch project in the political economy.