In its more simple understanding and in plain language, good governance means leading – not simply ruling much less fooling – the governed towards their public welfare through public service. Needless to say, such a genuine governing leadership demands the required knowledge, the due competence, and proper decisiveness especially on the part of the Leader-in-Chief. In other words, there is no alternative to learning, capability, and resolve on the part of those who dare hold the reign of government. Otherwise, the eventual results are predictable: No other than the governed themselves become the miserable victims instead of being the grateful beneficiaries of their government.
Needless to say, it is bad to have a corrupt and corrupting government: People are deceived and robbed of the public funds they themselves provide from their many and different imposed taxations. But it is worst to have an incompetent and insensitive government: People are confused, not really knowing what is going on, what is leading to where. As a thieving government is disgusting, an incapable government is disconcerting. In the same way, it is bad enough when a government knows that it is corrupt and corrupting. But it is worst if a de facto corrupt and corrupting government considers itself as virtuous and righteous. And this brings to mind the marked difference between a truly proactive and but a reactive government.
A proactive government looks at the here and now in the realm of the there and beyond. While attending to details, it nevertheless focuses more its attention and concern to the whole in general. For example: The poor should be helped but poverty itself as such should be squarely addressed. The social disturbance and disorder in a place should be addressed but peace in the development of the country as a whole should be attended to, accordingly realized, and maintained.
A reactive government is but preoccupied with accidentals, not with the substance, attentive to details, not in the integral whole. The present government is a good example of a basically reactive government – in line with the thought of giving people fish instead of teaching them to fish. So it was that it readily and easily considered the “Magna Carta for the Poor” as but garbage – opting instead for but dole out system to the poor and wretched Filipinos.
This is why a reactive government is also simplistic in its response to socio-economic problems – considering that it has no well conceived national plan, no well drawn pursuant structural programs, no continuing on the ground projects. Thus: There is big population in the country. Hence, make people an export commodity. Power is expensive. Then make people pay more for it. Public hospitals cost much to operate. So privatize them. Income from industries is meager. Therefore, industrialize gambling.