Chicken and egg

Civil society has been a staple rhetoric of democracy in the Philippines. To my mind, it has rationalized and ‘modernized’, so to speak, the historic drama of the Filipinos’ struggle over the past centuries.

It has been pervasive, so much so that it embraced different sectors of society in broad strokes, from the poor to members of the elite, the left to business and various religious groups and even members of the press (which are supposed to be objective). But its struggle for inclusivity has seemingly ignored ideological roots and conceptual compatibility and consequently diminished its essence into an amorphous social force that is invoked, almost always, as a political opposition.

Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, of the Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI) or Indonesian Institute of Sciences, thinks that the country’s preoccupation on civil society is a Western democratic imperative that may not necessarily fit Asian societies. She argued that once we see South East Asian countries in perspective of the West, we are already at a disadvantage and pointed out that Asian countries develop in a certain way that may not follow the Western model, but is effective just the same.

In fact, during the late 1960’s to 1970’s, South East Asian countries underwent a political transition distinct from the hypothesis of Western-brand democracy. At that time, the “strong man rule” was the theme of governance (Sukarno then Suharto in Indonesia, Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines).

To my mind, the logic of such theme is to create a strong political core and institutions that would serve as the base of economic development. It’s similar to Fareed Zakaria’s concept of liberal autocracy, which he also said was probably the best political transition model for former colonies. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, our version of the “strong man rule” got corrupted. And today, it’s ironic to think that while our political institutions remain unstable, we already have a juggernaut waiting to pound on its walls – civil society.

Civil society’s ever-pronounced purpose is battling government corruption and it has done so in many ways, including advocating for a so-called third political force (which in a country with a weak party system may remain a quixotic feat). But the most prevalent advocacy for many civil society groups is the call for transparency.

The Access to Information Network (ATIN), a group actively lobbying for the passage of a freedom of information act, suggests that anomalies and corrupt practices in government would be best prevented and resolved if and when the public is given access to certain government documents currently held in secrecy. The logic is to allow a convenient check and balance, with the press as a watchdog. Such a call is in line with the Western rationale that development requires democracy and democracy necessitates a free flow of information.

In “The Right to Know”, a book comparing the degree of freedom of information in South East Asian countries (published in 2001), the Philippines and Thailand ranked as the most transparent countries and Vietnam and Burma as the most secretive. Among South East Asian countries, the Philippines is the only country that enshrines the right to information in the constitution and Thailand is the only one who has a freedom of information law.

The book, edited by Sheila Coronel, said that “Southeast Asian experience shows that the struggle for freedom of information cannot be taken separately from the struggle for democracy.”

However, Lee, in an interview with Time Magazine in 2005, said that he is “not guided by what Human Rights Watch says. I am not interested in ratings by Freedom House or whatever. At the end of the day, is Singapore society better or worse off? That’s the test.” The book criticized Singapore and Malaysia’s “paternalistic but restrictive governments” for keeping social and political information closed to scrutiny.

But how does this reconcile with the Western archetype that democracy is the key to development? While scoring as one of the worst (probably essentially because of being communist), Vietnam is now one of the fastest growing economy in the South East Asian region. Singapore and Malaysia, which quickly recovered from the 1997 Asian financial crisis, are admired as models of economic progress. In stark contrast, the most transparent ones are lagging behind – the Philippines’ growth remains a balloon and Thailand is currently going through a political turmoil similar to our earlier experience with Joseph Estrada in 2001.

Apparently, with the Western lens, at least in South East Asia, there’s a paradox between freedom and development. Which makes me wonder: is democracy really an imperative to development or is it the other way around? Do our fixation on civil society and certain freedoms hinder our own political institutions to develop into strong foundations of development, which is supposedly the goal if not benefit of having a democracy? Are we, as a people, already in denial that we may have romanticized our social struggle to a delusive and probably destructive extent?

Lee, who has been aggressively promoting the Asian logic, said he admired American society but explained that what makes their system work is its compatibility with their values and capacity as a people and that not all society can emulate such, at least not now. “We believe in the marketplace of ideas,” he said. “Let the ideas contend, and the best ideas the public will buy. But that assumes a large well-educated group of people as readers.”