Building Deliberative Capacity through Citizen Led Assessment: In Response to Curato’s “Deliberative Capacity as an Indicator of Democratic Quality: The Case of the Philippines.”

By: Edna E.A. Co and Maria Elissa Jayme Lao

(Edna E. A. Co is full professor at the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance. Ma. Elissa J. Lao is Assistant Professor and incoming Chair of the Department of Political Science at the Ateneo de Manila University.  Both  academics have been involved in doing the Philippine democracy assessment since 2004.)

Nicole Curato’s article, “Deliberative capacity as an indicator of democratic quality: The case of the Philippines” which appeared in the International Political Science Review online on 21 October 2013, casts the democratic literature in the Philippines as lacking in the interrogation of the “deliberative and empowered public space.”  Curato cites in particular, the discourse in the Philippine case as either “transformative, market oriented or patronage” which fails to take into account “deliberative capacity in empowered spaces.”

The author’s contentions are based on critical theory reminiscent of the influences of Foucault and Derrida among others, and of social constructivism, which explores spaces in which new statements can be articulated.  The article puts forward  “deliberative capacity” as an indicator of the quality of democracy. Further, it argues that such indicator allows for democratic deepening.   While we do not have any problem with the argument on deliberative capacity per se, there is concern on the article’s lack of appreciation and recognition of existing and past works done on democracy in the Philippines from a view that is equally critical and deliberative, albeit not necessarily in the manner that author Nicole Curato would have appreciated it.

To state that the literatures on the Philippines are not cognizant of an approach that allows for democratic deepening is simplifying some of the existing works on grounded assessments of the quality of democracy.  For example, the author claims that using what to her is the traditional form of discourse analysis by way of looking at democracy on the basis of electoral and political parties, loses the texture and political implication of discourse.  The author fails to recognize that the discourse that emanates from such assessments on elections and political parties in the Philippines actually adds to the texture and depth of such discourse and if placed in the right hands, can contribute towards reform in “empowered spaces”.  Although the focus of the assessment may be on the electoral processes and structures such as political parties, the locus of the critical thinking is the multiple lenses of citizens, state, institutions, and other groups that claim stakes on representation.   In the case of citizen-led assessments utilizing the International IDEA framework, the interaction between stakeholders, captured in work such as the Democracy Assessment on Free and Fair Elections and the Democratic Role of Political Parties (FES UP NCPAG: 2004) is intrinsically deliberative in methodology, and further, it is offered to the very stakeholders in post-assessment fora for review and action.

This very same framework, Curato notes is “another example of a ‘democratic audit’ based on an electoral democracy framework. It uses the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s set of indicators, which, while comprehensive, focus on areas that contribute to electoral reform rather than the indicators of ‘democratic deepening’ discussed in this article.” We differ on this point.

On the Democracy Assessment on Free and Fair Elections and the Democratic Role of Political Parties

The  democracy assessment on free and fair election and the democratic role of political parties is one that is citizen-led and this means that the view is taken from anyone that lays claim on elections and the electoral process and structures. Furthermore, the critical and deepening discourse on electoral democracy is grounded on citizens’ experiences, perceptions, emotions, and thinking about electoral democracy. The diversity of viewpoints from the perspective of citizens, which is inclusively defined, adds texture to the discursive character of the assessment.  On top of the argument and counterargument on electoral democracy, the assessment is directed at the kind of reform that citizen-assessors wish or hope to take. This action-orientation indicates or is a result of the empowering  space that critical thinking  offers. Citizen-led refers to all players of a given society whether state or non-state, organized or unorganized, individuals or movements – all of whom are considered “experts of their own democracy” as opposed to external members of a society who claim expertise in rating, ranking, and defining the quality of democracy.  The citizen-led democracy assessment says that there is no better expert to judge or gauge the quality of democracy than the citizens of that society.

What Curato also failed to recognize is that the methodology is not only  citizen-led, but also that  what is crucial to a discursive and critical assessment  is the adopted search questions which are comprehensive and inclusive. The search questions provide the substance to the deliberative and critical assessment on the quality of democracy as this is measured on the basis of electoral and political party performance.

Moreover, the approach examines democracy by using many other measures such as citizenship, law and rights including social and economic rights,  participation and representation including gender equality. Over the ten-years of citizen-led democracy assessment, there seem to be emerging dimensions that could be further critically examined and which affect the quality of democracy including multiculturalism and migration among others.

On transmission mechanisms

Curato shifts discussion from deliberative capacity and public space via dominant discourse, using some sources in the related literature, to the limitations of such public space in terms of transmission mechanisms.    She cites (1) elections (2) extra parliamentary action and (3) direct engagement in illustrating the limitations of transmission mechanisms in the Filipino context.  It is here that she shifts to current examples drawn from her own reading of events.  Puzzling to us is her claim that “Even in a scenario where the electorate is economically better off and hence less prone to vote-buying (Morlino’s second, third and seventh criteria), non-deliberative practices serve to obstruct democratic deepening in that citizens are still treated as passive subjects rather than discerning political agents worthy of reasonable engagement.” Previous work done on The Vote of the Poor, (IPC, 2005), for example, clearly illustrates the deliberative capacity of all economic classes, as well as a more nuanced understanding of the role of elections as “transmission mechanism”, contrary to Curato’s statement.

Also, her discussion of extra-parliamentary action excludes any discussion on the EDSA revolution(s).  Perhaps this may be a limitation of her contemporary framing, but we believe any discussion on extra-parliamentary action should include some discussion or mention  of the Philippine EDSA people power phenomenon.  Likewise, her discussion of civil society and political action needs preface given her earlier claim of the richness and vibrancy of this sector.

Communities of Practice created by the Citizen – led Approach

There is a community of practice that espouses the citizen-led democracy assessment approach. Across at least 23 countries and over the past ten years, the community of practice recognizes the continuing construction of the methodology and the content of democratic assessment. There is recognition that an analysis of democracy can be had with consideration both to spatial scope (cross nationally) and through time series (longitudinally).

The ignorance of such richness in the citizen-led democracy assessment reveals the author’s need for a deeper exposure to the various studies and approaches to an analysis of democracy in the Philippines.   The author’s critique also shows the unfamiliarity of works that transpire on the ground. Curato’s article  fails to recognize that part of the deliberative capacity is the space that studies purposively creates spaces for policy change, albeit not limited to structural policy reforms.  Aside from the Democracy Assessments, cited as well can be the work of the Institute of Philippine Culture on the Vote of the Poor: Modernity and Tradition in People’s Views of leadership and Elections (IPC, 2005) whose public fora post-study “merited the attention of the media in the exercise of their agenda setting function.” (IPC, 2005).

It would have been best that prior to Curato’s commentary on deliberative capacity as indicator of democratic quality, she had carefully and thoroughly scanned literatures on the subject of her interest, rather than analyzed based on limited titles on democracy and forms and variants of deliberative capacity.  Amongst these works are contributions either by Filipino authors writing on Philippine democracy or non-Filipino writers observing the conduct of Philippine democracy.  Amongst the work that would have illustrated the journey of civil society in the Philippines and its contribution to discourse include Trends and Traditions, Challenges and Choices, Al Alegre (ed.) (1996), considered as one of the pioneering works on civil society’s role and contributions to deliberative capacity in the Philippine democracy.

Other works include : Gabriela Montinola’s Parties and Accountability (1999) talks about the vibrancy of Philippine Civil Society  and the lack of translation to engagement in policy making and implementation because of patrimonial structures and clientelism.  Montinola then links these features to weaknesses in the party system and surmises that Filipinos are still quite capable of meaningful collective action.

Jose Magadia’s (1999; see also 2004) Civil Society in the Philippines, just like Montinola, also makes the point about the disconnect and defines in detail the public space in which Civil Society engages the state.

Aries Arugay (2005) also discussed the engagement of civil society with the state in his paper “From Protest to Participation? Accountability Reform and Civil Society in the Philippines.”   Arugay writes that there is a “realization coming from both the state and civil society that such reforms necessitate their mutual cooperation and assistance.”

Taking a more comparative lens is Edna Co’s “Political Space for Advocacy in the Philippines”  in Breaking Through. Political Space for Advocacy in Southeast Asia . Joel Paredes, et al. (editors) (2007) Southeast Asian Committee for Advocacy. Philippines;

Works by Rivera, et al. (Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy, 2011, Philippines) and by Kasuya and Quimpo, (eds) (“The Politics of Change in the Philippines”, 2010) have also contributed meaningfully to deepening on discourse on Philippine democracy.

We believe these works belie Curato’s claims that using what to her is the traditional form of discourse analysis by way of looking at democracy on the basis of electoral and political parties, loses the texture and political implication of discourse.  The author fails to recognize the discourse that emanates from such assessments on elections and political parties in the Philippines actually adds to the texture and depth of such a discourse and if in the right hands, can contribute towards reform in “empowered spaces”.  Although the focus of the assessment may be on the electoral processes and structures such as political parties, the locus of the critical thinking is the multiple lenses of citizens, state, institutions, and other groups that claim stakes on representation.   In the case of citizen-led assessments utilizing the International IDEA framework, the interaction between stakeholders, captured in work such as the Democracy Assessment on Free and Fair Elections and the Democratic Role of Political Parties (FES UP NCPAG: 2004) is intrinsically deliberative in methodology, and further, it is offered to the very stakeholders in post-assessment fora for review and action.

This very same framework, Curato notes is “another example of a ‘democratic audit’ based on an electoral democracy framework. It uses the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s set of indicators, which, while comprehensive, focus on areas that contribute to electoral reform rather than the indicators of ‘democratic deepening’ discussed in this article.” We differ on this point as well.

Although discourse analysis is an end by itself, it does not necessarily have to be so at all times. For practical purposes, an analysis that leads to structural policy direction is certainly a form of empowerment and an indicator of a country’s deliberative capacity. The Curato article should have taken caution and a bit more appreciation of a critical view of democracy as this is revealed from the field than from the desk.

Bibliography

Alegre, Al (ed) (1996) Trends and Traditions, Challenges and Choices:  A Strategic study of Philippine NGO, QC: ACSPPA and Philippines-Canada Human Resource Development Program.

Arugay, Aries (2005) “From Protest to Participation? Accountability Reform and Civil Society in the Philippines” http://web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/talastasan/papers/arugay_protest_to_participation.pdf

Co, Edna E.A., Jorge V. Tigno, Maria Elissa Jayme Lao and Margarita A. Sayo (2005) The Philippine Democracy Assessment: Free and Fair Elections and the Democratic Role of Political Parties. Manila: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Institute of Philippine Culture (2005) The Vote of the Poor: Modernity and Tradition in People’s Views of Leadership and Elections. QC: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University.

Kasuya, Yuko and Quimpo, Nathan (2010) The Politics of Change in the Philippines.  Manila : Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Magadia, Jose (1999) “Contemporary Civil Society in the Philippines” Southeast Asian. Affairs: 253-268.

Magadia, Jose (2004) State-Society Dynamics: Policy Making in a Restored Democracy.  QC: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Montinola, Gabriella (1999) “Parties and accountability in the Philippines” Journal of Democracy vol. 10 (1): 126-139

Miranda, Felipe, Rivera, T., Ronas, M., Holmes, R. (2011) Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy.  QC: Commission on Human Rights and UNDP.

Paredes, Joel et al (editors) (2007)Breaking Through. Political Space for Advocacy in Southeast Asia  Philippines : Southeast Asian Committee for Advocacy.