It’s
been a busy month for me and I would like to
share some of the insights I got from the meetings, conversations, workshops
and research presentations I had recently to advance futures literacy, futures
research and strategic foresight in government reforms, city futures, social
innovation, learning and leading in an Asian century.
The task in these
conversations was to unpack the Filipinos ways of imagining and knowing the
future and to develop new tools and techniques or to modify some of the most
impressive foresight tools to suit local nuances, knowledge, worldviews,
languages and creativities.
To facilitate these
conversations I used the futures triangle method and scenarios, a deceptively
simple tool, to explore the Filipinos futures landscape and map the drivers of
change (how the present is understood), their visions (futures – their hopes,
fears and aspirations) and the structures and thinking habits that prohibits
people and institutions (the weights of history) from realizing their
alternative and preferred future.
I was able to get a bigger
and clearer picture on how Filipinos perceives and re-perceives their future.
Filipinos imagines their
future in different ways and are informed by these drivers, insights,
assumptions and questions. Some were personal and some were even systemic
driven that is the environment, nature and culture drives our collective
future.
Family. The
Filipino thinks that the family is the essence or the diwa (heart and soul) of human existence. Like the Chinese, the
family is a non-negotiable unit of society. While it is the core of the
Filipino way of life, they also recognized the dangers of a “family only”
personal and social outlook. A family-centered worldview or way of knowing
could endanger the future of a community or a civilization. A family only
driven political or economic enterprise is a weight of history. These families
tend to restrict or prohibit wealth creation to occur. The interests
(political, social, cultural, economic) of these families have shaped the
current contexts and inner stories of our cities and may likely drive our
collective future in a used, default and disowned future scenarios.
One prominent participant
argued that the “second and third generations political and corporate families
could make or break the future of this country.” In 20 years and if the trend
continues, it could lead to a worst case scenario that is a fragmented republic
in 2030.
A student leader at the
Ateneo De Manila University said “as in
nakakainis na talaga at kailangan ng magalit” and a former congressman and
governor argued that “we really need to get angry and get even” to change the
trajectory of this country. “If Thailand could do it, why can’t we.”
Beyond the family is the
community, the nation, the region and the planet. Ibn Khaldun’s concept of the asabiya (the sinews that bind) and
Sarkar’s sama-sama tattva or the samaj (Indian and Malay concepts of
coordinated cooperation) and Neo-humanism (expanding the concept of family to
include the others like plants and animals) could be used as alternative
discourses of leadership, community and governance.
Learning and leading should
be values-driven. Indigenous values and concepts like buddhi (the awakened intellect), bodhi (conscience as the voice of God at kailangan itong pakinggan), karma (kung ano ang ginawa ay ito din ang balik ng tadhana), hanap-buhay in a positive context (the
search for joy and life) and damdamin
(the heart could guide us to the right path; the future is felt at the heart
level and radical optimism is needed to create the preferred future today)
should be the context of Filipino leadership, learning and governance.
A professor of public
administration at Miriam College suggested that values must inform our ways of
leadership and decision-making. We need to create a system that enables people
to experience and express these values.
Learning and leading is all about creating new meanings and stories that
inspires. “We can change our stories if
we let our inner spirit guide us. Changing ourselves is crucial here.” Another
one said that “magaling lang tayo sa
pag-aanalisa ng sistema at pagpapanday ng batas ngunit mukhang mahina naman
tayo sa literatura, sa arts at
polisipiya na siyang nagbibigay ng lakas ng loob sa bawat tao”.
The insight was that content
creation is imperative to governance futures.
A seminar and action learning workshops on “Karma, Konsensya at
Kinabukasan” should happen at the local government level and this could change
the habits of the heart and priorities of elected and appointed government
officials.
Focus on social innovation
and global perspectives. We must re-focus and invest more on social impact
investing and global integration. The world is getting flatter and social
investment is crucial to the future of poverty, wealth generation and local
prosperity.
Methods work and
action-learning must be our pedagogy. Concrete experimentation and
participation of all stakeholders is a must if we are to make the long-term the
foundation of the present. Strategies should be forward looking and futures
methods are crucial to creating future-proof development plans (otherwise the
future is merely used as a political propaganda; all words but no content).
As Inayatullah notes the
future is an asset, a resource and a narrative waiting to be employed. Thus,
the future should be the arena for our actions today. Methods could help
Filipinos gradually shift from being a short-term oriented society to a forward
looking one.
Long-term orientation.
Traditions, conventions, power hierarchy, emphasis on quick results, leisure
time, spending and the belief in the absolutes, a strong past-orientation (the
past drives their imaginings about the future) are drivers of learning and
governance in the Philippines today. Geert Hoffstede’s notes these values as
short-term oriented values. Long-term oriented societies like China, South
Korea, Singapore and Japan considers perseverance, personal adaptability, being
thrift, savings and pragmatism as long-term oriented values.
In a nutshell, the Filipino
perceives the future with different images, myths and metaphors.
The family, bayanihan, values, sustainability,
wealth creation, creativity and the arts, health, karma, kapwa and conscience as crucial drivers or “pushers” to creating
alternative futures or to borrow the late President Ferdinand Marcos words “pamalit na kinabukasan”. Political
dynasties, corruption, propaganda, diseases, “groceries” (the Filipino style of
consumerism), climate change and short-term oriented values could lead, again,
to used (gamit na kinabukasan),
default (status quo) and disowned futures.
The Center for Engaged
Foresight (CEF) in the last three years, which I co-founded with some folks and
professors at the National University of Singapore, Tamkang University of
Taiwan and the Universiti of Sains Malaysia, had so far engaged and introduced
futures thinking to around 5,500 participants in the Philippines. CEF have
provided workshops and futures thinking courses to around 125 organizations in
the public and private sectors here and abroad.
Recently, I have been
collaborating with some folks at the National University of Singapore, the
University of Hawaii, the Finland Futures Research Academy and the World
Futures Studies Federation to design some creative and imagination driven
foresight tools to spur creativity and imagination in the government, private
and non-government sector. So far we’ve got a number of local government,
national government agencies, governance and research institutes, higher
education institutions, corporations and philanthropists funding and supporting
our two-year futures literacy and foresight program for learning, leadership
and local government reforms.
Some of our output was
presented at the 2014 Philippine Society for Public Administration on
Governance Reforms and Innovations in the Philippines International Conference
organized by the UP-NCPAG and the UNDP and supported by the Korea, Thailand and
Japan Public Administration organizations held in Davao City.
engagedforesight.com
Comments
Post a Comment