Problems and Purpose

There has been a decline in Filipinos engaging in political discussions. This is due to range of factors including political elites maintaining elected positions, widespread disinformation, economic inequality, persecution towards activists, journalists and environmental advocates. [1]

In an attempt to respond to the decline in political discussions, #ShareKoLang was introduced to "shift the tone of the political conversation". [2]

It aimed to do so through creating a space for Filipinos to freely discuss the "issues they face in their communities, express their collective aspirations, and chart plausible pathways to realising them." [3]

In working with political parties, academics, civil society, and youth leaders and operating with deliberative democracy practices, #ShareKoLang sought to create a safe and open space for "everyday Filipinos" to "experience the power of democratic deliberation." [4]

This was not meant to be a one-off event, but to reveal the potential to hold discussions like these and encourage people and organisers to look into opportunities to create more spaces and occasions for democratic dialogue for everyone. [5]

Background History and Context

While the Philippines is often labelled as the "oldest democracy in Asia" it is considered to be a "highly defective democracy" by the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, largely due to the exclusive nature of democratic participation. [6]

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Philippines was responsible for organising and facilitating the deliberative dialogue and funding the majority of costs. They collaborated with a group of Filipino researchers specialising in Deliberative Democracy and other relevant fields for dialogue. The researchers oversaw the process design, delivery and documentation. [7]

Participant Recruitment and Selection

KAS Philippines was responsible for recruiting participants.

As with many deliberative events, the #ShareKoLang dialogue participants were recruited through random stratified sampling after an open call for interested participants. The call went out via social media with over 250 people responding.

Ultimately, 24 participants (with 6 additional selections) of varying ages, regions and gender and sexual orientation were selected to participate through random stratified sampling, with the assistance of quota sampling. 19 of the original 24 participants attended the forum, with 5 additional participants making up the rest of the participant numbers. [8]

Participants received a stipend for transportation costs to attend the dialogue. [9]

Methods and Tools Used

Deliberative democracy and feminist practice principles were used to ensure that the co-design principles of inclusiveness, robust discussion, the creation of safe spaces for all participants and making room for emotion and experiences were upheld throughout the dialogue. [10]

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

#ShareKoLang's dialogue process was built on Transition Together's "visioning exercise" that revolves around considering "What Is, What If, What Next?" [11]

In this process, participants were asked to consider the current condition of their community, imagine different futures and construct realistic plans to reach their imagined future.

There were seven broad activities involved in #ShareKoLang:

1. Introduction - participants were welcomed to the forum and given an overview of its purpose, organisers and participants introduced themselves to each other, organisers' roles were explained and there was an icebreaker activity
2. What Is - participants split into four breakout groups where participants set the expectations and guidelines for their discussion. Each breakout group was assigned a facilitator and notetaker/reporter from the organising team. Participants were asked to respond to the question "What is the state of your community today?" and they were encouraged to speak about their community in a way that best conveyed their idea, such as through telling a story, drawing a picture or showing a photo
3. What If - participants reconvened in the same breakout groups and were asked to respond to the question "What if your community changes for the better?" and brainstorm what their community would look like if it improved.
4. Meta-Deliberation - in preparation for the afternoon session, the lead facilitator asked participants to deliberate on how they would like the group to be structured for that session. Participants elected to have new breakout groups reassigned to build on the discussions from the morning sessions which were grouped into four themes: youth empowerment, climate change and sustainability, good governance, and inclusive economic development
5. Lightning Talks - three speakers presented about their experiences in achieving goals and aspirations for their communities. These speakers were "a peacebuilder, a community organiser, and an eco-warrior" and their presentations also followed the "what is, what if, what's next' format
6. What's Next - considering the presentations during the lightning talks, participants broke into their newly assigned breakout groups for the afternoon session. As with the previous breakout groups, participants deliberated on the standards for their discussions. Participants were asked to answer the question "Now that we know your 'what if,' let's ask 'what's next?' How can we achieve these aspirations?" Speakers from the lightning talks were available to respond to any questions participants had in this session
7. Closing Ceremonies - this final session involved an icebreaker to evoke a relaxed atmosphere where the KAS team spoke to participants' plans of action and how they might integrate into their programme. Participants were also awarded certificates for taking part in the forum. [12]

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

In a post-forum evaluation, participants showed majority satisfaction with the way the process was run, that they felt they had adequate space and time to speak, and that they learned from other participating and the speakers. Some participants also commented that the forum highlighted that there is hope for Philippine politics. [13]

It was observed that in discussions participants largely considered their community needs and collaborations above their own, even though individual goals were discussed. They discussed the importance of communities working together despite different views, and the importance of informed voting and community organising for social change. Participants were very much in favour of enhancing participatory governance through engaging with individuals and organisations to strengthen government. It was also acknowledged that evidence-based governance built on foundation of family-oriented values of Filipino culture was very important. [14]

There was a sense amongst many participants that problems in their community were a result of embedded political influences. Even so, participants did consider ways to improve the situations, drawing on their sophisticated knowledge of governance and other key actors that influence policy, and discussed options for improvement such as through improved accountability measures for corrupt politicians, supporting grassroots movements, and supporting local communities to respond to practical challenges themselves. [15]

Analysis and Lessons Learned

A lesson learned from #ShareKoLang's process was how approaching discussions through a feminist practice that makes room for participants' experiences, relationships and emotions leads to enhanced deliberation. This is because it makes participants more comfortable with each other through sharing about themselves, which also helps them to see each other as "well-rounded individuals who lead colourful lives rather than as one-dimensional political actors." [16]

Another key lesson was the importance of being responsive to participants' needs and well being throughout the process. Participants were able to anonymously share how they were doing throughout the day and facilitators and notetakers were actively monitoring for any indications that some participants are not able to fully engage in discussions. Along with this, the forum had flexibility built into it so that more time could be given to breakout groups and discussions where needed and to respond to participants' preferences in the structure of discussions. [17]

For future consideration, it may be worth including a screening question during recruitment to see whether participants have engaged with KAS before. Some participants already participated in previous KAS events which may mean that these participants had a greater awareness of politics and political matters. Including a screening question may help to recruit a more diverse cohort. Future initiatives may also consider having forums over multiple days. [18]

See Also

References

[1] Curato, Nicole, Yee, Dakila, Alvarez, Joel Jan, Calamba, Septrin, Presto, Athena Charanne and Sanchez, Emerson and (2024) #ShareKoLang: A deliberative democracy dialogue. p, 11. Available at: bit.ly/KAS-SKL

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid. p, 11

[5] Ibid. pp, 11-12

[6] Ibid. pp, 8-9

[7] Ibid. pp, 13-15

[8] Ibid. pp, 17-19

[9] Ibid. p, 15

[10] Ibid. p, 20

[11] Ibid. p, 21 and Transition Together (2024) The Future We Want: Visioning Exercise for Groups and Communities. 15 March. Available at: https://transitiontogether.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Final-Visioning-Guide-Feb24.pdf

[12] Curato, Nicole, Yee, Dakila, Alvarez, Joel Jan, Calamba, Septrin, Presto, Athena Charanne and Sanchez, Emerson and (2024) #ShareKoLang: A deliberative democracy dialogue. pp, 23-28. Available at: bit.ly/KAS-SKL

[13] Ibid. p, 29

[14] Ibid. p, 33

[15] Ibid. p, 34

[16] Ibid. p, 36

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid. pp, 37-38

External Links

Notes

Thank you to Dakila Yee, one of the forum's researchers, for reviewing this case entry.