‘The good, the true’ way vs. corruption: Achieving good governance and successfully stamping out corruption in government requires changing mindsets and behavior of both political leaders who have long exploited patronage and power and the citizens. JES AZNAR

The history and experience of most nations show that no matter a country’s level of development, while there is government, there will always be some degree and variation of corruption, with officials using public office for private gain. In the Philippines, in particular, the country's underdevelopment is largely attributed to a failure to institute good governance. We have traditionally had a weak state apparatus which has prevented our country from providing an enabling environment to improve living conditions for ordinary people.

The 2010 corruption perception index (CPI) released by Transparency International (TI) ranked the Philippines 134 out of 187 countries surveyed. While this is a slight improvement over its ranking of 139 in 2009 and 141 in 2008, the Philippines consistently places near the bottom of corruption surveys.

Why so given the various initiatives against graft and corruption that includes administrative measures, legislative action, and greater people participation? Many policy and structural initiatives have also been made to address this problem. Yet the perception is that little has changed and new laws and proposals to create new bodies to address corruption have been met with cynicism by many sectors – including the civil service– and a general public jaded by a situation of continuous non-implementation of laws.

And yet while it acknowledged that much remained to be done, the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2004-2010 stressed that progress has been made to enhance transparency and accountability in the public sector. The plan listed several issues it considered needed to be addressed in managing the fight against corruption. Among these were: (a) weak enforcement of anti-corruption laws; (b) the need to reinvigorate the anticorruption agencies and improve their coordination; (c) low social awareness and high tolerance for corruption; (d) the need to institutionalize government-civil society-business collaboration; and, (e) the need to strengthen integrity and accountability in government-business transactions.

In the Philippines, the pervasiveness of corruption in government institutions, systems, procedures, culture and leadership renders the need for a holistic, multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary answer. From a public administration and governance standpoint, addressing the problem of corruption requires the expansion of targets of reform, going beyond the enactment of new laws and of the creation of new bodies. In addition to institutional reforms that include reforms in policies, structures, systems and procedures, reforms should also include those targeted at changing mindsets, behaviors and values of the governance actors (government, business and civil society).Third, reforms should also be targeted to strengthen leadership and political will of implementers (both the national and local levels). Lastly and equally important is the citizens’ engagement in the fight against graft and corruption. Encouraging citizens and engaging them in the fight against graft and corruption make our intentions more powerful. The following figure represents our evolving framework for reform:

Reforming structures, processes and institutions

Insofar as the Philippine politico-administrative system is concerned, comprehensive anti-corruption structures, processes and institutions already exist. Since 1940, over 40 anti-corruption laws and policies have been passed with major laws (including the Revised Penal Code, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and RA 6713, the Ethics and Accountability Act) and the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (ARTA) (RA 9485) and the Government Procurement Act (RA 9184) to redefine procedures in government purchasing, and to enhance transparency, competitiveness and public accountability in government procurement.

Similarly, many anti-corruption bodies and inter-agencies have been organized and constituted through the years. Since 1950, close to 20 such bodies have been organized including the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan, Commission on Audit, Supreme Court, National Bureau of Investigation, the Anti-Money Laundering Council and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, overseeing anti-graft and corruption initiatives. We are therefore not lacking in anti-corruption laws - neither are we lacking in any anti-corruption agencies. What we need is honest to goodness implementation and enforcement. Rule of law must be upheld. The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) emphasizes the need to further fine-tune and amend existing structures, processes and institutions to prevent and criminalize corruption and encourage international cooperation, technical assistance from international partners and continuous exchange of information.

One broad structural reform that might be considered is the consolidation of all anti-corruption bodies under one agency to address the problem of lack of coordination and diffusion of powers and responsibilities – and accountabilities – in the war against corruption. A single window anti-corruption approach can be adopted. Looking at the Philippine situation and the proliferation of anti-corruption bodies, Quah (2010) uses the hackneyed but true saying that indeed, “too many cooks spoil the broth.”

The adoption of institutional and structural reforms may include those that further broaden the power of the Ombudsman and strengthen its capacities. The Office of the Ombudsman emphasizes the need for greater policy and institutional powers for the Ombudsman to strengthen its capacity to investigate, prosecute and punish erring public officials including the authority to examine bank accounts and seize assets. There is likewise a need for a witness protection law that does not encourage witnesses to come to the open to facilitate prosecution.

Reforming mindsets and behaviors

One of the most challenging imperatives on good governance is reforming the behaviors and mindsets of the people both from the supply side (the citizens) and the demand side (the government). Change of mindset and behavior is difficult in general, especially where there is still a strong overlap of traditional social systems with state modernization efforts: merit reform is resisted in order to practice nepotism and favoritism in civil service appointment and promotion.

Additionally, public employment patronage that finances competition between political parties and factions continues to be a dominant feature in the politico-administrative spheres of the Philippine government. Culture in particular is a challenge and worse, the “culture of corruption” has been deeply imbedded in the system of the Philippine bureaucracy which traces back through history particularly to the time of the Spaniards.

Ultimately, we need to make corruption “a high risk, low reward activity.” Currently we have the precise opposite. Changing the status quo inevitably involves the imperative to transform the mindsets and paradigms that breed corruption, which in our country, dates back to colonial practices of bidding for appointments and rendering public office as investments that need to be recovered. The meager compensation in the bureaucracy has been of no help either. An active and engaged citizenry and a consciousness of participation and vigilance will breed a culture of transparency, accountability, participation and predictability that are imperative to developing a culture resistant to corruption. This is imperative if anti-corruption initiatives are to be sustainable.

What can be done as far as reforming mindsets and behaviors is concerned? Changing mindsets and behavior is long term and requires investment in different educational systems. At the primary and high school level, anti-corruption education (ACE) interventions can be incorporated in the curriculum of the children. At the college level, ACE can be conducted in partnership with schools of public administration and governance, including the design of the curriculum, internship methods and extra and co-curricular activities of the students.

Political will and leadership by example

In the Philippines, beyond the problem of morality is one of leadership by example. The weak state apparatus which prevents our country from providing an enabling environment to improve living conditions for common Filipinos renders our poverty-stricken public vulnerable to corruption and abusive leadership. Leadership and political will are key to the success of anti-corruption efforts. This is so true in the Philippines where lower level officials and bureaucrats pattern (and legitimize) their behavior depending on the signals they draw from the top. A common refrain among those engaged in petty corruption in the bureaucracy is, “Kung ginagawa sa itaas, kami pa sa ibaba?” (If it is done at the higher levels, why can’t we at the lower levels do it too?).

The role of leadership has been recognized by Bob Klitgaard, a renowned expert on anti-corruption. He asked the question, “Can political leaders nonetheless be drawn into a systematic effort at reform through a combination of domestic and international pressure? Can this systematic effort be made as tamper-proof and non-political as possible? He then suggests the need to subvert corrupt leaders: “if political leaders cannot be drawn into such an effort, or if they undermine it, then we must consider how corrupt systems can be “subverted” through the efforts of the private sector and civil society? It turns out there are many possibilities”

We also need an effective and supportive leader. No matter how good structured the institutions are, no matter how good the laws are, if the leader does not support it, any efforts towards good governance will not succeed if there is no support from the leaders. Effective leaders are able to mobilize collaboration between the national and local public sector, the private sector and civil society to deliver goods and services to the public. Accountability, transparency, participation and predictability through rule of law are translated into experience as processes, tools and instruments. Experience becomes scorecards and benchmarks for political, social, administrative, economic and cultural dimensions of governance. The outcome of effective leadership is decreased incidence of corruption, better service delivery, economic growth and development, and improved living conditions. At the end of the day, implementation of anti-corruption initiatives is key to stopping corruption. And central to effective and sustainable implementation is leadership, and many times marked by political will.

Citizens’ engagement

Citizens’ engagement in the governance process is a new paradigm in reforming public administration. The full extent of engaging citizens in government can fulfill the notion of a famous slogan – “by the people for the people.” Citizens are engaged in government in different ways. For instance, the people could engage in the democratic process through participation in the electoral process but the real essence of citizens’ engagement in the governance process is through an active participation in government decision-making or in the policy-making process.

In the Philippines, this is realized because of decentralization. Citizens must take an ownership of the well-being of the country and must take an active part sharing in sharing their ideas and more importantly in taking part in the governance process. With technology, more voices are heard through the internet. The internet offers different modes of communication such as online meetings, social networking via Facebook or twitter, feedback mechanisms through chat rooms, blogs, and forums which has cut off the expensive mechanisms for soliciting citizen inputs.

In any effort in fighting corruption, reforming and engaging citizens is an equally important reform imperative. The fight against corruption is not the sole concern of the government. The “governance” principle encourages the participation of citizens in the governance process. The fourth framework is a demand side approach aimed at promoting citizens’ engagement in the governance processes and in curbing corruption.

In the Philippines, the civil society has a powerful presence. This was evident in the EDSA people power revolution which has brought a significant transition in our government. People’s participation is now becoming an intrinsic part of the governance process as current mechanisms to engage the citizens indicate. A wide range of channels can be envisaged to support closer citizens participation including the media, political parties, citizen’s watchdogs among others. Chene (2008) offers the following to illustrate the interventions that could build citizen’s demand for curbing corruption. These are:

(1) Free Press. Building the capacity of media to investigate and expose corruption cases can contribute to galvanize public opinion and action against corruption. An example would be the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). In 2000, they packaged investigative reports in a book entitled Betrayals of the Public Trust. Investigative Reports on Corruption, where they exposed corruption which has spawned during the administration of three elected presidents of the country: (1) Corazon Aquino, (2) Fidel V. Ramos, and (3) Joseph Estrada, which were challenged by charges of corruption and malfeasance. The reports exposed corruption cases involved in the Presidency and the Congress, the courts, the environment, local governments and corruption in service delivery. Consequences of corruption in service delivery would be potholed streets, inadequate textbooks and broken chairs in public schools, expired medicines (PCIJ, 2000)

(2) Transparency of government processes and public access to official information. RA 6713 requires government employees to submit their Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net worth (SALN). The Citizen’s Charter as required by RA 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act is one way to promote transparency in government processes.

(3) Decentralization/devolution of public services. This would encourage more participation from the local people. The Local Government Code of 1991 emphasizes the importance of NGOs in local governance.

(4) Participatory planning and budgeting. For instance, the Open Budget Initiative and Crafting the Alternative Budget by some NGOs such as Social Watch are very positive developments that should be considered that would eventually lead not only to meaningfully institutionalizing government-civil society partnership, but also to strengthening the civil society movement as a whole.

(5) Community participation in service delivery

(6) Citizens’ feedback and monitoring of public services. Mechanism would include the Citizen’s Report Card as in the case of the Bangalore’s Citizen’s Report Card and public service audits. The PASADA which was initiated by the Civil Service Commission in collaboration with other stakeholders like the academe is a good mechanism for citizen’s feedback and monitoring.

Reform efforts on corruption entail a deep sense of understanding on its causes, complexities and ramifications of the problem. We have discussed the four broad reform types: reforming institutions, processes, procedures; reforming mindsets and behavior; reforming leadership and political will; and engaging citizens. The reform of public administration in these four categories makes public service more efficient, accountable, effective and transparent. It elevates significantly the standard of public service.

Good institutions, processes and procedures are essential for the effective functions of public administration. In absence of good institutions, there are high possibilities of graft and corruption, inefficiency, incompetency, and redundancy in public administration.

People think how they see and understand things. In other words, their paradigms, mindsets and behavior are the equally critical factors in either contributing or hindering corruption.

Leadership is central to effective and sustainable implementation of anti-corruption initiatives and at many times fighting corruption requires strong political will. Therefore, effective leadership is crucial not only for the reforming process in public administration, but also for high standard functions of public administration and nation. The transformational leader’s characters such as confidence, empowerment, vision span; and good behavior – modest life, shared vision, and being a change agent, make him fit in addressing the issues and concerns corruption.

People trust in this kind of leadership as they could see in him the elements of good governance such as accountability, predictability, transparency, rule of law and participation. They play a vital role in reforming public administration whether it is in institutions, mindsets, leadership, or engaging the citizens. Reengineering triggers changes of many kinds of the job designs, organizational structures, and management systems – anything associated with process must be refashioned to fit with these erratic changes. The success of reengineering hinges on transformational leadership.

Only if top-level managers back the effort and outlast the organizational cynics can reengineering succeed. The implementation of reengineering is extremely strenuous that needs fast radical change which accelerates the dramatic improvements. And this lies in information technology as maximized in a reengineering effort under the guidance of transformational management that has vision. In above all, the role of transformational leadership in reforming public administration is very vital and indispensable too.

Lastly, but certainly not least important, is the imperative to engage citizens in the fight against corruption. The world is becoming a global village with the contribution of highly sophisticated technologies particularly in communication and information system. The powers of information and communications technology should be harnessed in promoting anti-corruption initiatives or even in exposing corrupt practices in all levels. Mechanisms strengthening the demand for anti-corruption measures are meant to transform individuals -- especially those from social groups that are traditionally excluded from government decision making processes -- into engaged and organized citizens who have the knowledge and power to express demands and influence decisions that directly affect them. At the end of the day, the war against corruption, to be sustained and successful, should be waged by the citizens themselves. Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project

(Alex Brillantes is a professor of Public Administration and former dean of the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance. He is also president of the Philippine Society for Public Administration. Maricel Fernandez is a university researcher at the UP NCPAG. Their framework was discussed in the UP Forum, “Can we Really Solve Corruption, if so, how?” Vol. 12. No. 2 (2009) with only the first three imperatives: (1) reform institutions, processes and procedures), (2) reform mindsets and behavior, (3) leadership and political will. In the course of writing the article entitled, “Toward a Reform Framework for Good Governance: Focus on Corruption,” in the Philippine Journal of Public Administration (2010) Vol. 54 Nos. 1-2, the framework has evolved into a fourth quadrant recognizing that citizens’ engagement is equally important/imperative for reform.)