How Much LCE Support Do We Need?

Everyone agrees that the support of Local Chief Executives is important in pushing for local governance reforms. Sadly too many of us fall prey to the fallacy that because the LCE has signed a formal cooperation agreement his support can automatically be counted on. When things go south and program proponents find less LCE support than expected, there’s a lot of sighing about the need for “political will”. But I think the problem does not lie with the LCE - the problem lies with the project proponents, and it has to do with inadequately engaging the LCE through different levels of engagement, and it has to do with not providing the LCE with an exit strategy if and when he feels he could not support certain project activities.

Way back in College when I was involved in a student organization we used to categorize fellow students in terms of engagement with our advocacy (back then it was called a “cause”).  At the least engaged level were fellow students who were “Interested” - they’re asking questions about our group, what we do, what we believed in. We would try to move these students to the “Involved” level - get them to participate in our activities, even as just passive observers. At some point they buy into our thing enough to agree to do or join certain things that the ordinary student wouldn’t do - that’s when we called them “Committed”. After some time they move up our engagement some more, eventually taking charge of assignments or groups - by then they will be “Leading”.  The leaders who are so into it eventually start thinking about the future, and make plans with their own time and resources to prepare for what’s likely to happen. That level we called “Investing”.

It’s a natural progression from “Interested” all the way up to “Investing”. While some amount of persuasion may be needed to move people from one level of the ladder to the next, generally they move up - or down, or off - by their own free will.  In retrospect I think it’s the combination of desire and capability that helped each member to move up the ladder. And both desire and capability are fed by more and more exposure to group ideas and activities.

It’s important to note that at any one can get off at any point in the ladder. Perhaps they decide that while you share some ideas, they prefer another approach. When that happens, as much as possible we retain good relations, knowing that we could still work together for some common objective (terms like “tactical alliance” and “fellow traveler” were common in those days).

The fact that you can walk away at any point means that if you do continue up the ladder, it’s only because it’s relevant, significant, or beneficial to you. You’re not forced into staying in one level or going up another level.

This is important because it keeps things genuine - and effective. When you’re forced to stay in a level of engagement or to go up to a higher level, and your heart and mind are not ready to go there with you, you’ll be forced to do things just for compliance. Do the least that’s asked of you, produce the minimum required output. 

And here lies the problem with engaging LCEs. It takes a lot of effort for any person - even if he is Mayor or Governor - to climb up the engagement ladder of any new project, reform, or advocacy. Yet we think we can shortcut the process: in one single meeting we introduce the project, and on the basis of the LCE’s statement of interest we expect him to be fully involved and committed enough to lead and then invest in the project. That’s actually what we do when we ask them to sign off on a formal project or partnership agreement (and of course our contracts and grants have timetables for getting the project off the ground).

This process is as unnatural as helping a butterfly emerge from its cocoon or using kalburo to accelerate the ripening of banana. Hinog sa pilit. But it’s common development work practice.

Another practice is asking the LCE to designate a “Focal Person,” the fellow we contact when we need to. We ask for this because we don’t want to bother the LCE with little things. Unfortunately, dealing with the Focal Person can have the effect of removing the LCE from regular contact with the project, which hinders the constant exposure to ideas and activities, without which the LCE’s interest in and capability to effectively manage the project won’t increase.  In other words, having a Focal Person can have the unintended effect of stagnating the level of engagement of the LCE.

Then there’s the problem of the exit. We don’t expect or allow our LCEs to say “this is where I get off”.  

For as long as our objectives and methods are aligned, when the LCE says the right things to project evaluators and funders, we’re happy. We dress up accomplishments and present him as a model to others. 

The problem is when the LCE (or his officials) discover that they can’t go with us on certain objectives or activities. This happens even in the most regimented projects, when we’re applying known solutions to known problems. This happens more often in action research or pilot projects, when we’re testing out new theories of change. 

But when this does happen, because the LCE is bound by the formal document that had been signed, the problem manifests in subtle, indirect ways. Perhaps the Focal Person will say that there’s no local funding available for an activity, while the LCE has already committed funding. Or you can’t get an appointment with the LCE, or he does not show up for important meetings.

When these things happen, the cause can be traced back to the possibility that the LCE has not really gone up the engagement ladder, or has gone up to a certain level and does not want to continue climbing anymore - despite the documents signed or the statements made. 

Again I would say it’s not his fault. Getting up the investment ladder is supposed to be a natural process that proceeds at its own pace. You can’t hurry love - or development reform. 

Four things that may be done to deal with this. First, discern how the LCE looks at the proposed project from the perspective of the LCE, which can be very different from the way the funders or the Project Design Document sees the project.  If you can see that the LCE’s view of the project differs significantly from that of the proponents, do not force the issue - move on to the next candidate LGU/LCE.

Second, spend time to discuss all aspects of the project with the LCE - and do it often. He’s not just the recipient of project assistance. You need to see him as co-manager, co-designer of the project. It’s his project as much as yours (or your funder’s).

Third, design the project so that the LCE can say no to certain activities or pull out from the project altogether (when you’re flexible on specific activities, chances are the LCE will stay on the project).  This jives with the second recommendation, because constant communication helps you to separately and jointly assess the effectiveness of your current efforts and consider alternative measures. 

Nevertheless if at some point there are irreconcilable differences and you both feel you can no longer continue with the project, you should be able to shake hands and say, “sorry this did not work out, perhaps we can work together again on some future project.”

The fourth thing that you may do is to build and nurture a personal relationship with the LCE. Learn his priorities, his inclinations, his management style. Find out what kind of reforms he wants to pursue, and what kind of help he needs. In effect, design a development reform project with him.

Then find the project, grant, or contract that will meet his needs - or propose one to ODA and other funders.

When the LCE climbs the engagement ladder on your project, he is taking bold steps, going into uncharted territory (for him).  He will be more likely to step up when he sees you doing the same thing - stepping beyond the comfort zone of your project design document or theory of change, and learning as you climb the engagement ladder together.