Identity Resistances against State Policy in Mindanao, the Philippines:
A communicative Political Structure’s Method in Managing a Vertical Resistance
Novri Susan
Sociology Department Airlangga University
2008
Identity Resistances against State’s Policy in the Philippines
Why do identity resistances often occur against state’s policies? In a specific case such a policy of the Philippines government that aims to integrate Mindanao people into the larger culture of the Philippines is a prominent case in Southeast Asia. The policy has been perceived as a threat by Mindanao community which it is threatening their social existence; their beliefs, norms, and values. As in the historical facts, identity groups in Mindanao do not feel secure, and they are forced to resist for defending their existence. In the late 1960s, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was declared by Nur Misuari in Mindanao to resist the Philippines government. Quevedo (2003) mentioned that there are three main injustices policies in the Philippines to Bangsa Moro namely ‘Injustice to the Moro Identity’, ‘Injustice to Moro Political Sovereignty’, and ‘Injustice to Moro Integral Development’.
Historically, the resistance movement in Mindanao by Moro people has been begun since the treaty agreement between Spain and America in 1898. Spain gave all their territory to America including Mindanao and Sulu. The people in these two regions did not accept with the treaty since they are never colonized by Spain. In 1913 US got success in bringing Mindanao and Sulu in to their colony of the Philippines. This annexation then was followed by creating many policies designed to assimilate Muslim Filipino to the majority Christian Filipino society. In spite of the success the policies, resistance movement by involving armed actions by different Muslim Filipino groups kept growing from time to time throughout American colonial rule until the Philippines got its independence (Madale&Medina, 2004, p. 2).
Injustice facts are related to the content of state’s policies to Mindanao society, however this paper will not come to content of policy. This paper is going reveal how the political structures of the Philippines government work for making any policies, and how this process has ignored a local belief and concept of the society. For analyzing this topic, mainly the writer will use two models; Lederach’s leadership triangle model in explaining how a political involvement in decision making process. (1997). Galtung’ triangle (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2005, p. 10) in explaining how conflict occur at three stages process also will be used to look at the emergence of resistance movement in Mindanao.
An Oppressive Political Structure and Top-Down Policy of the State
In a modern concept, a policy is a result of state political structures in realizing social, economic, and political goals. Most of states with vary political systems in this world claim that a social policy they made is aimed to serve and to realize a prosperity. However, in many cases a social policy such as education, transmigration, and amalgamation is a product of an oppressive political structure.[1] The Philippines government policy about migration by sending people from Luzon and the Visayas to Mindanao is also a product of political structure. This policy aims to fulfill state’s goal rather than the society’s need.
According to May that this migration policy is to promote the increase of northern lowlands cultures, and to decrease the threat of Moro (and also lumad ) rebellion. In fact, however, in the beginning of 1970s the policy rapidly inmigration had resulted a situation in which inmigrant settlers were repeatedly disputing with Muslim and lumad landowners, the political machines of growing in-migrant (Christian) clans were disturbing on the territories of local Muslim leaders, and adversary gangs of local elites and warlords were coming into increasingly violent conflicts. Local Muslim in Mindanao perceived that policy is the part of an oppressive political structure of a state that does not recognize their needs.
May testified that the founder of MNLF and his followers perceived that the political structure of the Philippines does not give any advantages for their needs (2003, pp. 1-2). In this case, state’s political structure that makes a policy does not create a deliberative process for catching up people’s feeling about their needs.
This is a fact that an oppressive political structure still exist in many countries such in the Philippines in creating a policy, even in a country that claims them selves as a democratic state. In some ways, a state political structure is representing the interests of dominant elites group. This political machine serves a partial interest of the state which never involves the society in making a policy. In this political fact, such the case of migration policy in the Philippines is not compatible with the society’s needs. The policy is perceived as a threat from the state. This political fact often bears a conflict between state and its people by involving violent actions. In a case of profound resistance, identity groups create a militia to resist their government as MNLF/MILF resistance in Mindanao. Then a war can not be evaded in which women and children always become the main sufferers.
Identity Resistance as a Behavior
In Lederach approach of decision making process, he divided three level of ranges decision making namely top leadership, middle range leadership, and grass root leaderships, which each decision will affect to each population effectively (1997, p. 39). However in order to interpret this triangle, the understanding of Lederach’s approach in creating a peace building theory is a first essential step. Lederach in his book Preparing for Peace (1995, p. 7) committed to a social construction and phenomenology theory in creating peace which this theory is concern on knowledge and reality.[2] Social construction is a theory with its interest is to bridge an inter-subjective of multi realities in a society. This proposition means each knowledge as a set of concept that creates a reality of one community will meet the others knowledge.
A policy as a product state political structure in Lederach’s triangle can be understood as a reality that contains a set of concept of the government about good things or bad things in social life. According to Habermas, the incompatibility of a social policy and people’s concept may take place when there is no ‘dialectic of reason’ between government’s will and society’s potential (Vitale, 2006, p. 742). This fact occurs since a state does not provide a political structure that institutionalizes a deliberative process between state and people. In an authoritarian regime all policy is made strictly by the state and transformed to its people by using power.[3] A state creates an oppressive political structure which all communication is based on domination.
When a political structure does not involve the society in making any policies, their policy often become a new reality for the targeted policy. This policy, then, is not compatible with the set of concept of the society about what reality should be practiced. As in Galtung’s triangle conflict model (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2005, p. 10), the migration policy as a structural product of the state such in the Philippines is brought to the society. This policy is seen as a government’s behavior by the society which the set of concept of the society evaluate this behavior (reality) is not compatible with their concept about needs. The establishment of MNLF and its army wing at the beginning of 1968 in Mindanao by Datu Udtog Matalam is the society’s response at the social level. The behavior of this social response, then, is a resistance movement by involving an armed resistance.
MNLF resistance against the Philippines basically is a process to struggle their basic needs as in the set of concept of Mindanao’s people. The human basic needs as John Burton mentioned such as security, recognition, and identity (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2005, p. 45) is defined subjectively and taken from the set of concept by the conflicting parties. Following this theory, MNLF resistance is a behavior that showing the needs to the state through rebellion since there is no room for them to communicate their aspiration. There is no a communicative political structure of the state in order to involve the society in making any policies that relates to their lives.
An Involvement in Decision Making Process: Peace Agreement in 1996
Opposite to an oppressive political structure, a state may create a communicative political structure that facilitates a government’s will with the people’s potential in an equal dialogue. If an oppressive political structure creates a communication through a domination relation, a communicative political structure creates a communication through a moral relation. A moral relation is able to make ‘dialectic of reason’ in a deliberative process in which parties develop their reason of ideal policies. In this communicative political structure a flexibility of negotiation[4] may be developed together since the actors morally want to understand to each other. An inter-subjective reality between state and people is likely achieved in this process.
A state policy that is created from a communicative political structure will be able to manage a vertical conflict without an oppression and strength. The groups who are involved in creating a social policy as an inter-subjective reality will join in maintaining its implementation. The government will get a strong support from an acceptance behavior. However according to Habermas this process only possible exist in a participatory democracy system that a state and society are involved in a democratic decision making process (Vitale, 2006, p. 750).
The full peace agreement in 1996 between the Philippines government and MNLF leaders is a political fact that shows how a deliberative process in a communicative political structure results an ‘inter-subjective reality’. The peace agreement as a policy, in this case, is a product of deliberative process which each party has tried to understand each other. This policy is representing a mutual need of Mindanao people and the government. This policy, then, built a communicative political structure that mainly aims to deliberate any policies by involving all communities. As May mentioned that 1996 agreement established some political agencies, as the part of state’s structure, such as a Special Zone of Peace and Development (SZOPAD) and a Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) (2002, p. 3).
However, the agreement did not involve another identity group such MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) in the negotiation process (May, 2002, p. 7). This fact then becomes a significant political point by which this identity group does not perceive that agreement as their reality. This resistance was responded by Estrada through “all-out war” by which the violent conflict is protracted in a retaliatory cycle. After replacing Estrada, Arroyo has been developing a communicative process through engaging some political dialogues (Timberman, 2001, n.p.). This negotiation process is still walking for finding the mutual understanding. This communicative political structure results some cease fire agreement in which both the government and MILF is in an effort to resolve the conflict through a political negotiation.
Conclusion
A state with a communicative political structure will not face a high level of resistance from their people since this state is able to create a dialog for making any policies that are compatible with the people’s concept. A communicative structure of a state will catch people needs through a deliberative process with using any political institutions in a different level.[5] A social policy, then, is a result of deliberative process between state and its people. However, in order for a state to create a communicative structure is not a simple way. It always requires a good political will and an awareness of relative truth from the state.
This paper has revealed how a political structure of a state is an important issue in managing any types of vertical conflict. In the case of identity resistance in the Philippines as this paper has explored, there is a fact that shows how an oppressive political structure creates a policy which is incompatible with the society’s needs. In fact, the communicative political structure in which the government and the society do a dialogue equally will create a mutual understanding. It means when a policy is a form of an inter-subjective reality between the government and the society there is a high possibility of reducing the level of resistances.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. (1970). On violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Berger, L& Luckmann, T. (1966). A social construction of reality: A treatise about sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Lederach, J.P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Washington DC: United State Institute of Peace Press.
Lederach, J.P. (1997). Reconciliation in divided societies. Washington DC: United State Institute of Peace Press.
Madale&Medina, (2004). The Mindanao Conflict and Prospects for Peace in the Southern Philippines. Retrieved February 10 2008 from http://www.cseas.niu.edu/outreach/MindanaoPeace.pdf.
May, R.J. (September 2002). The moro conflict and the Philippine experience with Muslim autonomy. Retrieved February 17 2008 from http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/conflict/may_moro.pdf.
Rochman Achwan, Hari Nugroho and Dody Prayogo with Suprayoga Hadi. (2005). Overcoming Violent Conflicts. Retrieved February 2 2008 from http://www.undp.org/cpr/documents/prevention/integrate/country_app/indonesia/Kalimantan-final%5B1%5D.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H .(2005). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflict. New York: Polity.
Timberman, D., G. (November 26, 2001). The peace agreement with Muslim Mindanao isn’t working? (Herald Tribune). Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/11/26/eddavid_ed3__0.php.
Vitale, Denise. (2006). Between deliberative and participatory democracy: A contribution on Habermas. Retrieved November 6 2007 from http://psc.sagepub.com.
Quevedo, A.O.B. (2003). Injustice: The root of conflict in Mindanao. Retrieved February 10 2008 from cpn.nd.edu/Injustice%20article.doc.
[1] Some cases such in Indonesia a transmigration program has created civil wars and grievance movements to the government in some areas Indonesian main islands. See in Rochman Achwan, Hari Nugroho and Dody Prayogo & Suprayoga Hadi (2005).
[2] As Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966) mentioned that knowledge is a concept of individuals as a community members which this knowledge will define a true or wrong as a reality. In everyday life, this knowledge will be externalized in many behaviors that maintain or change their social structure.
[3] Arendt (1970) explained that power that forces a people can be understood as a strength by which a state can do harm.
[4] Terrence (1……..
[5] In a democratic and non democratic state there is a level of political structure from central to local government. This different level of political institution is aimed to govern state’s policy in each level.
Filed under: Peace Studies
