INTRODUCTORY
It is clear that a transformation of the world order is under way.
Change is being driven by a complex process of globalization converging and operating simultaneously across several institutional domains of the world order—and on an unprecedented scale. Beyond technological change, however, is the more powerful force—the aspirations for greater empowerment and a better quality of life of common people—most of whom are poor and disadvantaged.
Globalization is a universal set of processes generating a multiplicity of linkages and interconnections which transcend the states that make up the United Nations system. On one hand, decisions and activities in one part of the world can have immediate significance for peoples and communities in quite distant parts of the globe. And, on the other hand, there is an intensification in the levels of interaction, interconnectedness, and interdependence among separate states and societies. The consequences of globalization, however, are not experienced uniformly across the globe—nor even within the same state or community.
Globalization has a differential reach and impact—reflecting existing asymmetries in the structure of power relations at both the global and national levels. Interconnectedness and inter-dependence are a condition made irreversible by the rising expectations of ordinary people around the world, fueled by the revolution in information and communications technology and by the globalization of the market economy.
East Asia has been in the global limelight these past several years—first, because its galloping economics were held up as models for other developing countries—and then, because of the dramatic decline of these economies beginning in July 1997. Before the turmoil, authoritarianism had been widely regarded as the accepted paradigm for governance to insure the vigorous growth of the East Asian countries. But when the financial crisis struck, people began to extol the virtues of democracy and to lay the blame for the economic collapse on the authoritarian regimes.
No—I am not going to claim that it is to the credit of Philippine democracy that my country emerged as the least damaged by the Asian contagion. After all, critics will point out that, prior to the crisis the Philippines had been lagging behind its vigorous neighbors—and, in the words of some, it is Philippine democracy which is partly to blame for that earlier condition. But, as we all know from recent events in the Asia-Pacific region, and on the basis of our national experience in the Philippines, democratization, human development and the market economy have combined to empower common people more than ever before.
While economic growth may begin without democracy, democracy is possible only under the market economy, which helps create the private realm—called civil society—that enables political and social freedoms to flourish.
In turn, democracy, as it develops, consolidates development. The sense of self-worth that democracy nurtures in ordinary people sustains civil society and liberates the entrepreneurial spirit—which is likely to lift development to peaks of innovation and creativity.
In this forum of eminent experts and concerned citizens on the subject of human development—it is necessary to talk about democracy because democracy is what makes human development happen.
PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT: GOVERNMENTS REACHING OUT
When the concept of human development was first introduced, I sensed that it had a basic affinity with our hard-won democracy in the Philippines.
As we sought to institutionalize "people empowerment," many of us began to realize that human development is the key measure of the progress we make in empowering ordinary Filipinos.
"Empowerment" means the reaching out by government to the people—dialoguing with and listening to them, consulting them, bargaining with them—and soliciting agreement and consensus from them.
Empowerment is about common folk participating in decision-making bodies that directly affect their families and communities. It also means being represented in policy bodies where their well-being, interests, opportunities and potentials are recognized and enhanced.
People’s involvement in public business, however, does not come easy. There are many barriers to it. For instance:
--How can we get people to invest time, energy and passion in deepening democracy if their main effort—everyday of their lives—must be devoted to making both ends meet?
--How can we expect people to make good decisions for themselves—and for the country—if their bodies and minds have not been properly nourished?
People empowerment, therefore, requires investing in human development—training, education and health, in particular—so that people are better able to take advantage of opportunities out there in the market and to take part both in the consultation process and in consensus-building.
In other words, human development is an important requirement for an effective democracy and a progressive economy.
Since my early years as an infantry captain, I have come to realize there is more to this symbiotic connection between democracy and human development. Democracy does not automatically insure development, and neither does sustained development reliably guarantee people’s freedom?
Yet, human development does not only strengthen democracy—indeed, it is also reinforced by democracy. The two reinforce each other.
And in my honest belief, human development cannot be complete without democracy—without people empowerment—without people being placed at the center of development.
If we look at human development indices, it would seem the countries affected by the Asian crisis have been doing a job—investing heavily in human development priorities.
The peoples of these East Asian countries, we assume, have had high or improving levels of education, sufficient incomes and properly-nourished bodies. But to say that the material benefits of education, health and income are all there is to human development would ignore or marginalize the higher aspects of human aspiration—to compete, to excel, to move up and to succeed. The late Mahbub ul Haq of Pakistan—who is considered the leading proponent of the human development model and who devisedt he human development index (HDI)—teaches us that, like any other index, HDI is only one of the many indicators of human development.
THE PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE OF DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION
During the period 1983-1985, the Philippines was going through a painful, costly crisis comparable in depth and effect to that of Indonesia these past two years. The cost of living was rising—family incomes were falling, jobs were being lost—and the people were angry in the streets.
By virtue of a non-violent, peaceful and people-empowered revolution in February 1986, we Filipinos transited from authoritarianism to democracy. And a decade later, we continue to defend and reinforce that hard-won democratic condition.
Despite the economic crisis, no one would have thought of ranking Philippine human development, vintage 1986, below that of our economically more prosperous years of the late 1970s, which was a period of martial law.
The Philippines experience is one of proving, the hard way—that democracy, the free market system and human development are not incompatible but are essential components that must be integrated for the attainment of a higher quality of life. Indeed, they are its necessary ingredients. For ultimately, human development is all about freedom—the freedom to enlarge people’s choices.
The HDI authority Mahbub ul Haq tells us:
"The most basic choice is the freedom to make a choice, rather than have someone else make it…indeed, freedom cannot be separated from human development…while the paradigm of economic growth can be indifferent to political freedom, the paradigm of human development cannot."
In short—human development cannot be measured by a simple or mechanical increase in people’s incomes and in the provision of social services and economic sufficiency—important though these material benefits may be.
It is not enough for people to be healthy, wealthy and wise; they must also be free and capable—free to decide and to do things for themselves so that they they may attain the fullness of their potentials. I guess this is what many leaders—past and current—fail to understand fully. Leaders should stop thinking of people as children whom they must feed, educate, entertain and humor. Children, after all, grow up to become adults who develop their own minds and who want to do things their own way. Neither should leaders see people simply as "resources" to be inputted and harnessed like work animals, machines or financial capital to achieve economic growth. Rather, leaders must realize that people want to acquire and make use of their knowledge and possessions—modest though they may be—to improve their lives according to individual preferences and capabilities.
In the world of the 21st century, being able to take part fully—not just in productive work but in the upliftment of the community’s cultural, social and political life as well—is in itself essential to human development. As our good friend and mentor, the Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen puts it—"Political and social participation has intrinsic value in human life and well-being. To be prevented from participation in the political life of the community cannot but be a major deprivation, even if leaders of authoritarian governments try to persuade us that governing is best left to efficient bureaucrats."
THE CHALLENGE FOR LEADERS OF THE 21ST CENTURY
So what do I see as the human development challenge for political leaders in our time and beyond? To me, the challenges for leaders today is not so much how to provide for the needs of the people, but, more importantly, how to enable people to take charge of providing for their own needs.
For the leaders of newly-emerging democracies especially, the challenge is to break down the barriers to people empowerment inherited from the paternalistic and dole-out culture of the authoritarian system and to empower citizens to become more self-reliant and to be more caring about others.
Emerging democracies should not be afraid to try out new civic routines and institutions. And to involve people in economic management and governance. I am not saying this simply for the sake of what we know as "human rights." I am saying this because I have seen how vast people’s capabilities can be—to uplift themselves, their communities and their national societies as they exercise their new-won freedoms.
A COMMUNITY SUCCESS STORY
In the Philippines, there is a community-based poverty monitoring system in Davao de Norte province in our main southern island of Mindanao. The process was set up in 1993, early in my term as president as part of our Social Reform Agenda (SRA). That was a time when we were testing various ways of getting communities involved in identifying their own needs (their minimum basic needs or MBN), their own problems and their own capabilities—as a tool for community-based planning and local action. Using a simple checklist of minimum basic needs, community volunteers surveyed households to determine the 10 unmet needs of their village and to identify the specific families at risk; and "green" for those families whose basic needs were somehow already being met.
This simple information system was used as a basis for identifying problems and, just as important, for enabling the community to identify the endangered families and for planning activities to ensure these would be met. Some of these plans could be implemented using resources available in the community. Other had to be presented to local government officials for inclusion in the local government plans and programs. Still others were used as a basis for getting support from outside sources—from non-government organizations (NGOs), church groups, business companies, media, academic institutions, and other donors. These people-initiated and people-implemented system proved to be an effective way of monitoring povery—and doing something about it.
In short, the residents of the community, working cooperatively in a logical manner, combined to forge solutions to attain a shared vision. The MBN approach was later adopted and spread by the provincial governor and by the Ramos cabinet who worked to computerize the system and to expand its coverage. This now has become a national framework and process embodied in a landmark law enacted in 1997—Republic Act 8425 entitled "An Act Institutionalizing the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Program."
DEMOCRACY’S SUCCESS DEPENDS ON THE VIGOR OF ITS PRACTICE
That Davao del Norte vignette is one little success story in the struggle among the emerging democracies to deal with their poverty. But stories like that are still few and far between. As Dr. Amartya Sen teaches: Democracy’s success depends on the vigor of its practice. Replacing authoritarian regimes with representative systems is the relatively easy part. Democracy’s trappings—elections, parliaments, free newspapers, independent judiciaries—are relatively easy to assemble. Making them work properly for common people is the really tough job. Technocrats with their fancy blueprints can easiy preempt—and suppplant—people’s participation. Local pockets of authoritarianism—political dynasties, business cronies, influence peddlers, and the unreformed military—may persist many years after an open political system has been established at national level.
Among the lessons to be learned from the Asian economic turmoil is that the depth and vigor of democracy make a great difference. Let me quote Amartya Sen once again: "The recent problems of East and Southeast Asia bring out—among other things—the penalty of undemocratic governance."
The Philippines may not be the best—perhaps not even a good—example of how democracy can contribute to a dynamic economy and to sustained and equitable growth. We may not be ahead of our Asian neighbors in achieving fast growth and higher family incomes. But I dare claim that we Filipinos are steadily, consistently moving forward in providing that important aspect of human development—freedom—and we are determined to keep things that way.
All these I call our caring, sharing and daring for each other, and as the Philippines enters its second century of independent nationhood, I can think of no worthier set of values to help us win the future. Caring and sharing may be easy enough to do—but to dare to participate, to dare to commit, to dare to give than take, to dare to sacrifice—that would be the supreme test of civil responsibility and leadership!!!