The Philippines has been battling Muslim secessionist movements in the southern part of the country for over 30 years. Indeed, the country has emerged as a key player in America`s fight against terrorism because one of its Muslim separatist groups, the Abu Sayyaf, is believed to have links with al Qaeda.
Last month, (March 24th to be exact), was the sixth year to the day when the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) agreed in Malaysia to engage in peace talks. After a series of peace talks held in the past, such efforts have yet to yield concrete results.
Nearly one-fourth of the population of the Philippines, about 20 million, live in the southern islands of Mindanao. Of these, approximately 5 million, comprising at least 13 ethnolinguistic groups, profess Islam.
Introduced to the Philippines by Arab traders and Islamic missionaries in 1310, Islam rapidly spread throughout the archipelago. However, the arrival of the Spaniards in 1565 checked and rolled back its further advance. The Spanish colonizers never succeeded in subjugating the Muslim natives, although they succeeded in creating a notion of “otherness,” since majority of the Muslims refused to be converted to Christianity.
At the crux of these peace talks is the demand of the MILF to grant the Filipino Muslims the right to self-determination, to their own Bangsamoro identity and a homeland. The chairman of MILF so declares that his group “. . . would never compromise the right of the Bangsamoro people to self-determination.” The MILF further argue that all lands, including natural resources, occupied by Filipino Muslims since time immemorial by cultural bond, customary law, and historic rights be declared as rightfully belonging to the Bangsamoros.
There seems to be a strong consensus among scholars that the only practical and just solution to the ethnic problem in Mindanao is to grant Muslims exclusive right to these lands based on the principles of self-determination and cultural separatism. On the surface, this looks like a reasonable and just policy. But it is not. Proof? The problem of ethnic conflict continues to exist and would not go away.
For one, culturalism is inherently parochial, hence, divisive. Culture - which is good in itself as all human beings belong to a culture and are shaped by it - tends to promote the ethnic and the particular at the expense of the universal. It cannot see beyond itself and is only self-interested. According to Charles Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKen-na College, it is unlikely to look outside for solutions to its problems “much less discern them through the filters of other cultures in light of disinterested reason.” Hence, culturalism`s notion of what is good for society is myopic because it is grounded on contentious factors such as ethnicity, religion, race, and gender. Not only do these factors sharpen group differences, they fuel ethnic wars.
Two, culturalism confers rights upon people as groups and not as individuals. Promoting group rights cannot serve the interests of the individual as he is not free to exercise his rights apart from his group. It inculcates and perpetuates a “victimhood mentality,” preventing individuals to break free and map the directions of his life. Also, leaving “ancestral lands” in the hands of the Muslim community does not guarantee individual prosperity as they may end up under the ownership of the datus and the elite of the community. The problem of factionalism is a real possibility.
Three, culturalism impedes the exercise of civil and religious liberties. Culturalism makes the pursuit of religion even more contentious as it usually advocates the religion of the dominant culture at the expense of the religion of the minority.
Rather, what is needed in order to resolve ethnic conflict are principles that promote the common good of all while upholding the rights of every individual, regardless of his religion, race, ethnicity, and gender. Republicanism allows a reasonable regime to rule according to the will of the majority, yet secures the rights of the minority. Through equal and fair representation, republicanism encourages the deliberation of competing interests in order to arrive at what is good and beneficial for all.
In the area of economics, opening up the region`s economy to free-market activities - with provisions for competition and individual responsibility, open investments and foreign trade, hence, more jobs - can lead to individual well-being and prosperity.
For the attainment of genuine peace and resolution of ethnic conflict in Mindanao, the right principles must apply.
Source: www.philippinenews.com (27 April 2007)
