The road to a culture of peace
Credit to Author: ANTONIO CONTRERAS| Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 18:27:06 +0000
It is now 2019. Two and a half years have passed since President Rodrigo Duterte began his term. By now, we should have all gone beyond the anger stage.
It is time for us to grow up, beyond proclaiming that the communist movement is dead, or that we can simply declare the end of terrorism and the Islamic secessionist movement. We cannot hold on to the promise of the military to solve the problem by year’s end, when the recent extension of martial law in Mindanao shall have expired. And the marching order of the President to eliminate the communists may not just cut it. After all, the President’s record on waging a war on drugs is a clear evidence of the impossibility of setting timetables.
It is now time for us to offer some structural solutions to the problems in Mindanao in particular, and dismantle the obstacles to our dream of a long-lasting culture of peace, not only there, but in our country, in every corner where conflict has the risk of erupting, and in the minds and hearts of every Filipino regardless of class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and political affiliation. And these solutions should go beyond the militaristic and the bombastic.
Peace in this country has been held hostage by a confluence of factors. Unfortunately, at the forefront, unknown to many, is what lies deep in our hearts.
On the side of peace advocacy, there is just too much elitist and exclusionary civil society mentality and academic theorizing that can compromise the process, and would lead to constitutionally problematic and impractical, if not politically infeasible, solutions to the problems of war in Mindanao, and between the Left and the government.
There is also this elitist, exclusionary nonsense being deployed by peace activists, now joined by Mindanao-centric Duterte loyalists, that only the voices of those who live in Mindanao, and who have personally encountered the horrors there, have a legitimate claim to becoming part of the process of constructing the discourse of peace. The logic of the exclusion is, however, challenged by the fact that a significant number of those who have so much to offer have not even lived in Mindanao.
I suggest that we veer away from this exclusionary position and this nonsensical elitism, and take stock of where we are right now. Let us make the process more inclusive on both sides. The voices of everyone should be heard, and bold, idealistic constructs should be tempered by pragmatic, inclusive strategies.
Every Filipino, whether living in Mindanao or not, whether having a personal close encounter with violence or not, should be won over to support the process. After all, every Filipino taxpayer has as much stake in the process, since any peace accord will have to be pursued and implemented using taxpayer’s money, and that failure to achieve peace will always have political and economic costs to all Filipinos.
There is, however, one valid point that comes out from the peace activists that needs serious consideration. This is the argument that violence and war are offshoots of a lack of understanding of the history and culture of the “othered” Muslims, and a lack of understanding of those who are denied their basic liberties. That is why they have no choice but to join the armed rebellion waged by the CPP-NPA-NDF (Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army-National Democratic Front).
It is important to understand that physical violence is aggravated by structural violence, seen in policies that are inflicted on them by historically illiterate political actors and clueless decision-makers, or even by well-meaning populist leaders who seem to be more concerned about winning the applause of the gallery for the moment without thinking of the long-term implications of their decisions. Many of these are simply because people do not understand the oppressed and marginalized. And being from Mindanao is not even an assurance that one truly understands from an unbiased lens the plight of the Muslims and Lumads.
This is a problem that can be best addressed by tinkering with the educational system, and ensuring that it adequately creates a mindset among our youth that truly understands what or those whom we consider “others” — Muslims, Lumad, Igorots and other ethnicities. That is in addition, of course, to other forms of “otherness” such as in relation to sexual orientation.
There is a need for the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) to critically examine the component courses at the basic primary and general tertiary education levels to inquire whether we produce historically and culturally conscious citizens who are appreciative and tolerant of our differences as a people.
In my opinion, the critical point of entry here would be the curriculum for teacher’s education being offered at the tertiary level, particularly for those majoring in Social Studies Education. Here, the CHEd must ensure that what we produce are basic education teachers who both have the consciousness and the mindset to teach critical thinking in how we deal with otherness and differences, and the right familiarity with the content of the culture, history, language and identities of the “othered” Filipino ethnic groups, particularly those who have suffered marginalization.
Sadly, many among our education administrators seem to be lukewarm toward this agenda. I say this on the basis of their apathy toward the issue of Language, Culture and Filipino Identity, even as the new General Education (GE) courses actively push for globalization and outcomes-based approaches, which grant privilege to marketable skills over those that have bearing on nation-building.
We should realize that peace is compromised by bigotry, and bigotry is an outcome of unfamiliarity with the culture and history of the “others.” This should be enough ground to push for the imperative that long-lasting peace requires that all people should be a part of it, and that everyone must be given the knowledge to enable them to understand the plight of those who are different. Learning global languages and culture should be complemented by a strong push to learn the languages and culture of the “othered” Filipinos.
Additionally, achieving peace in Mindanao, and in many troubled parts of the country, can only be done under a federal system of government, where the structural impediment imposed by a unitary system can be removed.
It is even possible that at least two Bangsamoros can be created to accommodate the cultural and political complexities of the Moros as also plural, and not a monolithic group of ethnicities.
In a federal setup, the establishment of the Bangsamoro states is no longer in the context of a special privilege, but as the political norm that also applies to other regions to pursue greater regional autonomy. This would shift the burden of the process of achieving peace away from the central government of the Federal Republic of the Philippines, and into the regional states, where there would be a more robust sense of ownership and familiarity with the process.
Finally, any discussion on the issue of peace must also include the personal. After all, how can we talk about peace in the country when we are in a constant state of war with one another? How can we even talk about lasting peace in Mindanao, and between soldiers and rebels, when we cannot even enjoy the gift of peace on social media?
The post The road to a culture of peace appeared first on The Manila Times Online.