‘Ideas worth spreading.’ That’s the slogan of Canadian-based TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), a media organization known for its TED Talk. In its early years, TED only featured prominent people in tech, consistent with its roots in the Silicon Valley. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin are only a few of the biggest names to grace its stage.
In recent years, TED’s focus expanded as it embraced a myriad of industries and sectors that included politics, culture, academics, science, and the arts. Nobel Prize laureates and the likes of influential people like Bill Clinton, David Cameron, and Al Gore have given TED Talks; but so did Bono, Jane Goodall, and Chris Anderson.
What’s more interesting though is that the political sector seemed to have gone specific to cover governance as it applies to key cities in the world. In other words, political figures with smaller areas of jurisdictions have made their pitch and have been welcomed to the TED stage to share their stories.
I’m dubbing these political figures the ‘TED Mayors.’ They’re mayors – not endowed with higher political power, yet they’re transforming their cities in ways that no head of state has ever done – yet. Watching them and their accomplishments beg the questions: what if mayors ruled the world? What if the center of governance lie in city mayors rather than heads of states? Why is it that in the Philippines, people are better at governance when they were mayors than when they become congressmen or congresswomen, senators, vice presidents, or presidents?
In 2013, American political theorist and author Benjamin Barber spoke before a TED audience and posed a claim: that we should transition to a style of political governance where mayors rule. He passed on in 2017 but not without leaving an imprint in the convoluted world of politics through a book called – you guessed it – If Mayors Ruled the World.
And you know what? I’m inclined to agree with his thesis. If mayors ruled the world, we’ll have people in power who are, in Barbers words, pragmatic, people who are native to their cities, people who are trustworthy, and people who share their best practices with others.
Now, let me point out that this article is not aimed at supporting any incumbent mayors. It’s about playing on the idea that if mayors are really committed to improving the cities that they represent through a series of sensible decisions (yep, some of the incumbent mayor’s decisions don’t make sense to me), then they’re better at achieving progress than their national counterparts. This article then approaches its subject with a sense of partial idealism, where progress is systemic and localized.
Some mayors are pragmatists. Far from the political ideology influencing a head of state’s decision-making method, mayors rule with prevention and solution in mind. While a head of state rules at a distant, mayors are involved in the daily affairs of the areas that they represent. This makes mayors the real problem-solvers.
Ideology is great but it only provides a problem-solving framework. Often, this framework is based from the dogma a political party holds. And while that ideology works from the perspective of national governance, it loses its momentum as it descends to the smaller units of government.
Oppositely, pragmatism provides an action plan. If X is a problem, then Y is probably the best solution, and Z is how to best implement such solution. Simply put, pragmatic leaders get things done. But even then, there’s a catch: bureaucracy. We are no stranger to the bureaucratic culture characterizing our political system. The head of state has to go through a lot of bureaucratic proceedings before he or she can veto or approve something that (ought to) benefit the citizenry.
The same bureaucratic system characterizes local governments. The only difference is that citizens have the power to initiate immediate change. In Baguio, La Trinidad, and in some neighboring provinces, citizens are not afraid to speak out about local politicians who dare challenge the public’s perspective on ethical public service. This alone is an indication that local government units are much more sensitive to the sentiments of their constituents and vice versa.
Now, there’s just one pre-requisite to a mayor’s pragmatic approach to governance: the ability to execute sensible and progressive solutions. I mean sensible solutions that eliminate, if not minimize, existing problems instead of adding to it. This automatically excludes the classic ‘Band-Aid Solution’ that we’re now dealing with in the city. This also means that in order to establish a final plan of action, a mayor should also have the ability to listen to the very people he represents – the people who put him or her in office. I’ve said this before: we put people in office so that they can serve us and not the other way around. Mind you, that’d make an excellent dogma.
Some mayors are no strangers to their own localities. This gives them an advantage that mirrors one of the keys to a real estate agent’s success: knowledge of the neighborhood. If a person was born, raised, educated, and employed in the same city he or she will eventually govern, the benefits are obvious.
For one, local knowledge means familiarity with potholes. And because these potholes are identified, they can be fixed. Two, people knowledge means familiarity with behavior that eventually influences legislation and way of governance. Three, systemic knowledge means successfully navigating the system within the bounds of the law to implement solutions.
In addition, there’s that sense of sympathy that local political leaders have when it comes to their localities. Above all else, they want the best to befall the place and the people that they represent. But sometimes, this sense of sympathy becomes the very same reason political conflicts arise. Then again, that’s just the political status quo. Differences breed discourse and discourse breeds better legislation – at least such ought to be the case.
Now, being a native of one’s own locality also comes with challenges. These challenges are often imbibed in the Filipino culture, and some are unacceptable. The padrino system, the pakikisama system, the culture of tolerating unethical practices, the culture of silence relating to unethical governance, nepotism, political dynasties, and switching political positions in order to ensure a grip on power are sometimes the causes of prevalent political malpractice. And because the people involved know their communities all too well, they have free reign over how to handle the political immoralities that they commit.
Some mayors have higher trust level. This is compared to their counterparts in the provincial, regional, or national levels. That’s because they’re closer to the people they represent than the rest of those who are in higher positions. That includes the President.
It becomes a cliché when done the Filipino way but Presidential ratings mirror unspoken public sentiments. And because we live in a country where blame is mostly concentrated on the President, we treat trust like a political barometer. It fluctuates in direct proportion to the degree of stupidity of his or her decisions.
So if mayors have a higher trust level among their constituents, it means that mayors are more likely to get the support that they want than a President. Why? I believe that it’s due to transparency. A mayor will not dare commit acts that his or her constituents will deem a betrayal of trust (although we’re no longer strangers to this).
But there’s also a darker side to preserving that trust. Local politicians who are planning to elevate themselves in the political hierarchy will not trade their reputations in favor of material or non-material benefits now. They can do that later once they realize their political ambitions and at a time when they’re immune from their accountabilities. Isn’t it about time we have our own Mayor rating?
Some mayors share their best practices. I know of two prominent organizations in the country that involve mayors: the League of Cities and the League of Municipalities in the Philippines. On both of their websites, their mission statements have one thing in common: collaboration. They don’t fight like the people we see in all three branches of the government.
The fact that municipal and city leaders collaborate and share their best practices mean that they go against the usual characteristics of nations and heads of states: they don’t operate with boundaries and they don’t assert their power over another because they’re in charge of their own jurisdictions. Their focus is concentrated and they don’t exactly think about their solutions’ impact on a national level. It’s that close to being an autonomous form of government. And what happens when local governments collaborate? They move forward together.
So why did I even entertain the idea of mayors running the world? It’s because I’ve watched how some of them used their favorable and unfavorable positions to implement changes that captivated the world. Change is possible in the name of genuine public service. If only all mayors in our country give due importance to political ingenuity. If only they have the ability to think outside the box when it comes to addressing the problems plaguing their respective cities. If only we can change them and other public officials on a whim…
This article was first published in the Baguio Midland Courier. Please follow this link to view the published version.
Thank you to Quang Nguyen Vinh for the image. Please visit his profile to see more of his wonderful works.