Management of social cleavages

There is the usual assumption that the elimination of economic inequality for certain ethnic group in multi-ethnic societies will, eventually, greatly reduce ethnic tensions. Our neighbors, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, give us differing examples of multi-ethnic societies with potential for social conflicts. The simple economic explanations and cultural explanations, such as religious divide between the groups, do not fully account for the ethnic conflict. Instead, it is necessary to consider the internal relations within the ethnic groups in explaining conflict. In Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, the government’s capacity for group mediation in society, especially the way political leaders respond to challenges of politics of inclusion, affects the nature and outcome of conflict. Ethnic peace is, to a significant degree, dependent on government’s responsiveness to the root causes of the social cleavages in the community. A responsive government creates an environment in which individuals enjoy mobility. People, regardless if they belong to the majority or the minority population, can obtain decent jobs, and they are able to meet their basic educational, medical and housing needs. The state has an important role in changing discrimination and injustice that the minority population feels and perceives is perpetrated by members of the majority. Wherever the state responsiveness has been weak, segments of the majority group perceive the state as a tool of the few wealthy elite, leading to attempt to scapegoat and attack the minority group. The countries in the region that have experienced the sharpest drops in growth are those with divided societies and weak institutions for managing conflicts. Conflicts have in recent years, been a major obstacle to development in Asia and the Pacific. Sad to note that the Philippines is now considered a classic case of divided society and weak institution notwithstanding the slogan of a “strong republic” and ‘matuwid na daan’. In many respect, conflict is the result of poor governance. If all sections of society can participate in decision-making and development, and if institutions for such participation are in place, emergence of violent conflicts can be significantly reduced. It is true that the roots of conflict can be traced back to history during the formation of states, but the way various social and ethnic cleavages are managed, and the way natural resources are divided, spell the difference between manageable conflicts and explosive ones. We need not re-invent the wheels in dealing with our social cleavages, particularly in Southern Philippines. There are well-established measures that respond well to societal cleavages. Tops on the list is good governance through improved accountability, predictability and transparency. These are key elements that empower the state to resolve differences in ways that are both fair and seen to be fair. Second are the participatory processes that are important in building social cohesion. Definitely, there is a need to expand participation of all stakeholders not only in peace making but also in projects that promote constructive interfaces between public and private sector. A classic example of non-participatory peace process is the on-going peace talks both in Southern Philippines and at the national level. While Government and MILF and GRP and NDF continue to debate on reneging commitments as embodied in the consensus points on ancestral domain and the Hague declaration, the stakeholders are practically blank on what are those consensus points. Third is the urgent need to decentralize decision and policy making in the country. With the National Capital Region as “de facto” the Republic of the Philippines, the other regions are inevitably relegated to the margin. The operative words are “decentralization” and “subsidiarity”. We have a LONG way to go, because NCR and the highly centralized government do NOT surrender their perks and prerogatives without a struggle.