|
I was privileged to share the panel with Anwar Ibrahim (the former deputy PM of Malaysia), Ginandjar Kartassimita I (Indonesia’s chair of the House of Representatives), Anies Baswedan (director of Indonesian Institute) and Debnath Guharoy (Indian regional director of Roy Morgan Research). By Cesar B. Bautista, Philippine Daily Inquirer
WHAT IN HEAVEN’S name am I doing tackling this subject in the light of problems facing competitiveness and governance in the Philippines? With the increasing multi-ethnicity in many countries brought about by globalization and the opening of national barriers, social scientists have cited secularism as one of the key factors in nation building and eventual economic prosperity. There are those who insist that secularism is key to building up the foundation for growth. Others blame it for the slow progress in national development. Top-level discussion The above contrasting opinions were markedly evident during a round table discussion which I participated in during the recent conference of international political experts in Bali, Indonesia. I was privileged to share the panel with Anwar Ibrahim (the former deputy PM of Malaysia), Ginandjar Kartassimita I (Indonesia’s chair of the House of Representatives), Anies Baswedan (director of Indonesian Institute) and Debnath Guharoy (Indian regional director of Roy Morgan Research). With the deep and varied expertise around the table, discussions along the following buzzwords tended to come into play: “Tolerance and patience,” “right to die,” “abolition of death penalty,” “pro-life vs pro-choice,” “population management,” “rights of minority,” etc. One speaker pointed out that the minority group in one country which behaves in a particular manner may behave in an entirely different manner if they are the majority in another country. Two of my co-speakers made reference to Dr. Jose P. Rizal, the pride of the Malay race, who espoused secularism in the late 1800s to foster nationalism and to build a democratic Philippines. Our neighboring countries apparently used Rizal’s teachings as models in pursuing their own nation-building goals. Nation building is very much work in progress in the Philippines and in most countries. People in nations must continually identify themselves with their villages, their regions and their country as a whole. One’s loyalty must not be limited to a segment of society or of the country or of religion. More than a century after his execution, Rizal’s reputation is still undergoing transformation. In the past, his works were considered to be unacceptable in Catholic schools and those caught reading his books were censured, suspended or expelled. With time, Rizal’s reputation gained more acceptance and his works are now part of required reading by students of various levels. His standing as our national hero is becoming more indisputable. However, Rizal’s dream of national unity based on common values and aligned cultures to enable its people to work together in agriculture, commerce and industry for the benefit of the country sadly remains a dream. The Philippines, with its archipelagic geography, is still referred to as a collection of tribes implying regional differences rather than focusing on one national purpose. Our social revolution is occurring at a very slow rate since the common values are not being pursued and participative citizenship for national cause has not taken roots especially with the masses who remain preoccupied with where to get their next meal. The key process to success appears to be no different from what one expects from a major business strategic approach: Define the desired vision, identify the common values, appoint a strong leader and build on an aligned culture which will bring out the best from every member. Nation of immigrants The United States is the nation of immigrants and diversity but they share a unifying political culture which is generally credible and effective. They cherish their common English language and they give allegiance to their political institutions. They have a common desire to protect the supremacy of their country in many facets of democracy, economics and social issues. Tolerance, humility, education and technology, and a losing history of disputes and conciliations are building blocks in their nation-building process. However, the subject of immigration, a key building block, remains to be one of the top three concerns in the US presidential elections this year. In many European countries, etc., most of their citizens are descendants of those who had a hand in the creation of their countries over the past centuries. Hence, their values, identities and cultures did not have to be redefined every now and then. They have political institutions that are rocks of stability and few surprises are tolerated by their people. In Germany for example, the foreign workers that they employed in the 1960’s and 1970’s to help rebuild their economy were classified as “guest workers,” with the clear understanding that they would remain “outsiders looking in.” To be considered for integration as an insider, the applicants have to generally blend with their communities, subscribing to their core social values and living norms. In countries such as Turkey, rigid secularism is followed with good results for almost a century although their government has an authoritarian streak which discourages dissent. This resulted in Turkey’s sustained stability, social peace, economic strengthening despite being the neighbor to “nations of destruction and extremism.” Turkey has demonstrated an approach to multiculturalism that may give them an entry to the European Union although not in the immediate future. It is evident that the role of religion in public policy depends, to a great extent, on the leadership’s agenda. There are despots who employ religious bigotry to perpetuate their hold on their people. On the other hand, there are leaders who banish religion from their midst if the clerics tend to be active opponents to their legitimacy. However, there appears to be a balance that is continuously shifting to suit the needs of the nation (or of the powerful?). Even in the United States, the quality of treatment of minorities seem to have peaked and valleyed in the last few years. The tragedy of 9/11 must have marked a milestone in turning around American perceptions about certain religious practices. Multiculturalism Some scholars in this field say that multiculturalism (as in multi-faith) is seen to be accepted by most societies but only in the best of times. This term belongs to the politically correct phrases which everybody espouses. However, their attitude changes considerably once their community is perceived to come under duress. “After all, the primordial responsibility of the state is to preserve itself,” they will say. Hence, there are countries where mistrust of overarching beliefs remains strong. In such countries, nation building is at the crossroads and the role of secularism is not clear. As in any difficult business situation, there is a need in the Philippines to work hard to transcend the differences in multiculturalism and to galvanize everyone around our common values and mores. The Filipinos can transform our society to become more robust communities by being more participative, not by legislation, but by choice. During my stay in the United Kingdom as our country’s ambassador, I was instructed to look into interfaith dialogue practices by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after agreeing with then Prime Minister Tony Blair that it could help resolve disputes in our country as it did in theirs. It was evident that multiculturalism and secularism are two faces of the same coin which can lead to a stronger drive for nation building if handled properly. However, there should be a perception of two equals dialoguing with each other. One party cannot be seen to be oppressed with the other having all the aces. There needs to be a perception of good faith and a common desire to help the poor in both sides. The road map for the Philippines will have to consider one community of responsible citizens united in their love for the country. The complex challenges of multiculturalism as described above must be addressed. The simpler challenges of involving each of us in working together with others to create a stronger nation are equally important. A pipe dream? Not if you listen to my co-speakers from Indonesia and Malaysia who believe that the Filipinos can be a strong team of nationalists. It begins with a dose of participative citizenship. We have to tweak our outlook—from magaling ang Pinoy to magaling ang Pilipinas!
 |
Hookay...THIS time I will NOT believe you, bro. I know for sure in Indonesia they do not bastardize the English phrase for 'racial profiling'....good try, Farish