Bongbong + Sara = good governance

Bongbong + Sara = good governance | Daily Tribune

June 2024 is the 29th Wedding Anniversary of Art and Monette. Thanks to our Lord and Mama Mary, their family is the happiest in Gatchalian I.

Disunite the two, and there will be sadness and gloom in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

The loneliness will be similar to what happened as implied in the sad song among the Capiceños, “Ahay kalisud,kalisud sining binayaan” (Oh what a pain, what a pain for one who was abandoned). I am referring to the pain that the more than 31 million men and women, who campaigned and voted for Bongbong and Sara were worried when they discerned some signs that the two whom they considered to be indivisible, were showing signs of breaking up. They felt that such break up would be most unfortunate, for the country and the people.

Without unity, no government will ever be able to achieve its goals and fulfill its promises to the people.

Ask any bureaucratic or political leader what it is that most hinders their ability to achieve, and they will certainly give as their answer disunity.

It would make planning more complicated and delivery more difficult. Think about all of the important relationships in government, leaders and legislative colleagues, government and their parties, politicians and their public servants, central agencies and line agencies, managers and frontline staff, and service agencies and their clients and it becomes immediately obvious that at least some level of working agreement is very important.

Party leaders need to know that they have the support of their colleagues. It adds strength to leaders and increases the time available to properly plan and implement policy.

The authority of a leader carries weight. It gives public servants the confidence they need to implement policy with energy and commitment. Instability at the top carries uncertainty within the administrative aim of government.

It’s all about time and how it is used doing or plotting, and power and how it is perceived as strength or weakness.

The same sorts of issues are relevant to bureaucratic power and how it is used. Indeed, some turf wars that occur within the government can undermine whole government initiatives and hamper the smooth delivery of programs.

Just as important are relations between the elected and non-elected parts of government. Department secretaries and their advisers who take up a hostile attitude towards their agencies may encounter resistance. If they have a change agenda, they will need strong support from their senior officials and behavior that unnecessarily harms that relationship should be unacceptable in a serious government.

All of these considerations would lead one to ask, at what point is divisiveness within the political and bureaucratic class acceptable?

You’d think it would be easy for a politician to answer that question — after all, they need votes and voters reward unity over disunity even if they have doubts about the policies of those who are unified.

Leaders should be able to expect loyalty but understand that they need to earn it.

More generally politicians need to understand that unresolved leadership tensions within government are a complete negative.

Bureaucratic leaders too will have interests and ambitions, personal and departmental. They can plot and scheme but in a much tighter environment than that of the politician.

Indeed, for them, the authorizing environment in which they work is a crucial issue. If the elected government is clear on its objectives and its leader has authority, it is much easier for public servants to stay focused on the big picture.

Good government, then, is not just about good ideas and good politics — it also needs unity within the legislative, the executive government, and the public service. Unity is, however, something that has to be worked for in the real world of interest, ambition, and ideology and the motto for our political and bureaucratic leaders.