The Curious Cases of Philippine Civil Society and Decentralization 157 elements that are bound to coopt or use civil society groups and individuals for deodorizing purposes. As Reid, in examining the experiences of civil society leaders who “crossed over” to join government under the Estrada and Arroyo administrations, points out: NGOs and POs would perhaps be better served by conceptualizing themselves as part of an oppositional bloc of forces competing for state power, rather than seeking ultimately doomed coalitions of the Estrada and Arroyo type. Above all, it requires accepting a political analysis that goes beyond the model of dual political and economic transition—that almost assumes an automatic conditioning role for the associational sphere on state institutions—and recognizes that civil society overwhelmingly tends to be absorbed by and constituted on the basis of clientelist and semiclientelist relations. An outlook founded on the basis of a more structural and historical analysis of social relations entails that much clearer criteria be established for considering when entry into and support for state programs are justified. (Reid 2008) (highlighting ours) Given this prescription, the question now is how CSOs would engage the new Aquino administration, under a leadership that has declared that his boss is the people and vowed to follow a straight rather than a crooked path. Interestingly, under President Benigno S. Aquino III, or PNoy, those who “crossed over” from civil society in the previous administration are back to their prior positions, Corazon “Dinky” Soliman as Social Welfare Secretary, and Teresita “Ging” Quintos-Deles, as Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process. Joining them in government to take charge of the anti-poverty portfolio, as Chair of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) is another veteran in the progressive civil society sector, Joel Rocamora. How they will influence the directions of an administration as they swim in political seas that remain murky, and whether they will maintain their “counter-hegemonic” lenses, are questions that could be responded to in due time. Perhaps they could reflect on an assessment offered by a long time scholar of Philippine politics: A continuing problem for the Philippines is that the capacity of civil society to rise in indignation has outpaced its ability to produce able, public-spirited, and honest leaders at all levels of government. (Lande 2001) Holding the state, or the leadership, accountable With respect to holding the state, or more precisely, the leaders accountable, the impact and response of civil society groups varied in two instances, during the impeachment of former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada, and second, in the aftermath of the alleged electoral manipulation involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.