MenSAb Global Views

Lost Sympathy, Lost Opportunity: Ten Years After 911 Attacks

2011-09-24T10:46:00.000-07:00

When the world watched the twin towers crumbling down, the US received tons of sympathy from all over the world. No country, powerful or not, deserved to be attacked like that - targeting mostly civilians. Like the Americans, we were shocked by the brazen and unprecedented simultaneous attacks using passenger airlines as weapons of destruction. The anti-US sentiments were down to record low.

The shock later turned into grief.

Most of the world were one with the US in condemning the attacks that killed thousands of innocent civilians. The sight of people jumping to death from the World Trade Center (WTC) pushed back our tears and screams. Scared and confused people running away from the heavy dark smoky dust crawling on the streets and climbing up the buildings, swallowing all those standing and slow moving living and non-living things.

The grief swiftly turned into anger.

The helplessness scraped all other emotions. There was a gathering of vindictiveness on the eyes of those who looked at the location of the collapsed WTC. Almost everyone thought that whoever did that had to pay. Well, the culprits died with the other passengers. Thus, those who were alive and involved in the funding and carrying out the attacks had to face the justice that the US knows and is capable of serving and delivering. We could imagine the Lady Justice putting off the blindfold. There was no way of escaping the wrath of a furious, capable, and vengeful superpower. No way.

The anger was expressed through the war on terror. It was its pursuit of justice.

As in other wars, it was ugly. Through vindictive eyes, there was little difference between the cause and resulting retaliation. The rage and anger were blinding. The commander-in chief said it all, "you are either with us or you're against us."

The war spread, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Southeast Asia to Pakistan. It became the main recruiting instrument for Al-qaeda and other radical groups that pledged to defend their faith. It was because the war was generally seen by many as anti-Muslim.

Due to the war, human rights was subdued for state security. Cases of extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, detention without charge, torture, privacy infringement, and the label of "enemy of the state" were rampant in the quest to get the main target - Bin Laden, the force behind the attacks; past, present, and future.

Bin Laden was killed.

The war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) continues.

As the war drags on, with its consequential human rights violations, the anti-US sentiments remain high. And there is no antidote to this, so far.

Because the US could wage a war, it did. It lost the world's sympathy in the war. It also lost a golden opportunity to enhance its warmongering image and shape the global agenda through peaceful means towards peace.

In pursuit of justice, in the name of security (a stately one), governments keep violence as their option. Because they can; because we allow them.

Poor Questions, Why?

2011-01-27T16:41:00.000-08:00

“I shall call the innocent multitude, I shall show them their poverty.” – El Filibusterismo, Jose Rizal

There are questions that are better unasked and left unanswered. In the same light, that there is a precariously thin line between a stupid question and a notable one. Invariably, we don’t know which one to ask, and yet we expect excellent answer somehow.

Why are we poor?

It is never a covert practice of public officials to accept bribes, acquire lavish lifestyles, and plunder the people’s money. If they have spent millions for their election in office that doesn’t in any way offer a substantial compensation, where do they source their payback? I would like to believe that these politicians are simply generous and sincere in their desire to serve the public.

Woe to the people who have been betrayed and still willing to be victims, and shame to those who have done such acts. Now no less than a governor is pointing a finger to a president allegedly receiving bribed money from gambling lords. Bereft with evidences, the allegation is likely to stay like a liquid looking for a container. Soon it will evaporate if we continue to shrug it off. (Wake up, we are being cheated straight-faced.)

Is it why we are poor? Most of us dread interviews especially a job interview. It is not that we don’t want to get a job but we are scared to tell someone how we badly need one. It is usually the rhetoric questions that discourage us to finally dress up decently, carry that old bio-data, enter the door of uncertainty, sit down with other rivals thinking similarly that they are much more qualified, hear their family name called with the bourgeoisie sound, face the unassuming interviewer who hold our future, respond unreadily to the familiar questions, walk out the room with failing hope, and expect a call even if we have no phone at home. No days would pass without recalling which questions we might have answered wrong. “Can you tell me about yourself?” That’s it. We should have answered correctly this way, we are poor and we are unemployed and we need this job. Is it hard to speak about? Because it is the truth and the other painful truth is that we don’t have a “padrino” to boot.

Why are we poor then?

It does not make sense if we see billboards declaring, “Sorry for the inconvenience, this is where your taxes go.” We can accept the inconvenience thing because we are very much used with it but the hardest pill to swallow is the alleged recipient of our taxes. The culture of corruption in our society particularly in the public sector is endemic. The structure, the system, the values, these all contribute to bring about and breed corruption. Sometimes we are partly to blame for we succumb to the greedy system by giving bribes. The cycle of blaming syndrome, that no one will give if no one receives and that no one will receive if no one gives, is not going to help in combating corruption.

What kind of basic services, just the most basic ones, can we expect from our government if we lose 20% of our national budget to corruption every year, says the World Bank. The Bank also identifies a number of recommendations to fight corruption in our country; reducing opportunities for corruption through policy reforms and deregulation, reforming campaign finance, increasing public oversight, reforming budget processes, enhancing sanctions for corruption, developing partnerships with the private sector, improving meritocracy in the civil service and supporting judicial reforms.

If South Korea could jail former presidents convicted with corruption, why can’t we just investigate our own? If it does happen, I suppose we are now prepared to liberate ourselves from poverty.

The beatitudes of poverty, that bestow blessedness because the Kingdom of God is ours, are purely expressions of the vicarious suffering and not earth-shaking protests of the real suffering. The illusions of that promised happiness do not constitute real happiness we are supposed to enjoy while on earth. Mysticism, spiritualism, and religion intend to rationalize the miserable conditions of the poor, and we, the innocent and trusting poor in our shallow discernment, find the means of escape from poverty and oppression through them. They have been quite successful in having us believed that our liberation from oppression lies not on this world, that our freedom from poverty is not of this world.

Another world must be truly possible.

What is the question again?

Our poor memory tends to make us repeat the same mistakes. But this time, never again.

Participative Governance on Urban Development in Naga City, Philippines

2011-01-14T14:27:00.000-08:00

“He is the same as me, yet I am not him. Only if you understand it in this way will you merge with the way things are.” – Tung-Shan (807-869)

One of the key ingredients of development is participation of the peoples. Naga City in the Philippines has institutionalized this through the Naga City People's Council (NCPC).

Paving the Road of Dialogue

The NCPC, being the nucleus of representation of various sectors in the city, has called on the concerned sectors namely; the business, urban poor, city government, and NGOs to discuss the current issues besetting the city such as land conversion, expropriation, resettlement sites, and among others relative to urban poor concerns, business interest, and the city’s policies on urban development. It was quite clear to all sectors present that the dialogue will not result to a draft of policy direction of the city in view of the issues raised. Rather, it would open more rooms for discussion, brainstorming, and convergence of the different points of view.

Three Lanes of the Road

City Government. The programs and policies in urban development of the city are premised on its pursuit of the common good for all sectors. Every sector is a vital part and parcel of its vision for development, thus the NCPC was formed. In an event that one sector feels marginalized in favor of other sectors, it should not be construed that the former is less important than the latter in terms of resources from the government. The city assures all sectors that there would be given their due.

For example, the Naga City government has no choice but to expropriate the land should there be an impending demolition order in the given urban poor settlement. The city government’s act of expropriation should not be interpreted as a case of favoring the urban poor over the landowner. In a given circumstance like this, the city government’s best decision is to deliver justice to the majority who need the land more than the landowner. As Magsaysay aptly explained, “Those who have less in life should have more in law.”

For example, in one meeting, the Urban Poor Affairs Office (UPAO) presented 4 options for the city to act upon with regard to the issues affecting the urban poor. These options are the negotiated purchase, the land swapping scheme, the land sharing scheme, and the expropriation of properties. The last option is the last recourse. The city therefore does not automatically expropriate a land without exhausting first the 3 options. Anyhow, there are cases that should be treated as an exemption than a rule so must not be defined as a precedent to any case.

Engagingly, a member of the Naga City Urban Development Housing Board (NCUDHB) asserted that before the city endorsed an expropriation proceeding, it should consider first the affordability of the land by the occupants. He cited a case where the land in question is a high-priced property which could cost from P300,000 to P400,000 for each occupant-family. The assertion was well taken by the city official present.

Business Sector. The apprehension was unanimously shared by the business people that in such case – expropriation would become the policy direction of the city and a precedent to settle land issues. Their reason was primarily anchored on the city’s declaration of a specified area as part of growth corridor. The city, according to them, contradicted itself when it decided to expropriate the land for the urban poor when it had identified the area, sitting along the national road, as potential investment site. They feared that the city’s decision could send a wrong signal for prospective business investors. They also noted that politicians already aiming for public office since election will be held in 9 months time could use cases like this for propaganda.

Urban Poor Sector. As the informal sector of society, they want to live decently as part of the growing society. Topping all concerns, they reiterated their need to have a shelter of their own that is livable, accessible by transportation, has means to earn a livelihood, to do their share in the development of the community. They asked to be regarded as partners in development and not impediment of the same.

It is widely accepted now that economic capital alone does not bring about development. Social investments through housing, health, education, are essential in developmental goals.

Hope at the End of the Road

Recognizing the diverse interests of the sectors present in the dialogue, it was difficult to come up with one statement of principle relative to these issues. The differences in the concept of development appended the indifference among each sector’s interest. But then if there was one thing that the dialogue had gained, it was the motion to willingly look into the areas where each sector could compliment each other’s interest. The fact that this kind of dialogue had happened, it was not too much to hope for a point of concurrence among sectors of society to make Naga indeed a “Maogmang Lugar.” That, I think, will supersede conflicting interests among/between sectors of society particularly Naga City, Philippines.

We Know It's Christmas

2010-12-23T14:45:00.000-08:00

We bring a felled tree or a plastic that resembles a pine tree inside our homes. We wrap it with blinking lights, colored balls, a star or angel on top, and other ornaments. Below the tree are gifts, miniature of the manger where Christ was born with Joseph, Mary, and the three kings.

We put yellow lights around our houses or around a living tree in front of our houses. The surroundings become brighter because of these extra lightings in the neighborhood.

We buy and prepare gifts to be given to special and dear family members, relatives, godsons and goddaughters, and friends.

We receive invitations to parties.

We sing songs that resonate with the gladness and merriment of our hearts.

We go to Masses. In the Philippines, there are nine Masses early in the morning leading to the eve of Christmas.

In all of these, what makes an ordinary tree turn into a decorated one? What makes the lights around the tree and houses starry and sparkling? What makes the gifts different this time of the year? What makes parties special this season? In all of these transformations, Christmas tree, Christmas lights, Christmas gifts, Christmas parties, we remember the CHRIST that was born on this day.

Notably, many of us would have a simple tree inside their homes, simple lights around their houses, simple gifts given to and/or received from dear ones, and simple parties to socialize and celebrate. It is because they find similar meanings to these as those grand things.

However, some of us would have none at all of these things. It is not because they could not find and afford tree, lights, gifts and parties; rather it is because they are constrained to have these things shown in public. Christians in Iraq are not going to show any public signs of celebration of Christmas, otherwise they are putting risks on their lives. The insurgents linked to Al-Qaida have threatened Christians for more attacks after the October 31 siege of a Catholic Church where 52 people died. Christians in the country are fleeing to be able to practice what they believe in.

Let us remember this Christmas day our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq and other countries who confront threats and persecutions when practicing their beliefs including the observance and celebration of the birth of Christ. Let us pray for peace to prevail on everyone's heart.

Yes, we know it's Christmas. Not because of a tree, lights, gifts, and parties. We know it's Christmas because we let Christ reign in our hearts who gives us joy and consolation, no matter what.

Merry CHRISTmas to all!

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): Lost in security and recession concerns

2010-09-24T17:04:00.000-07:00

According to a report by global NGOs working on education, more than $4 billion have been cut in global public education budgets worldwide this year. Even in the US, outrageous spending cuts in public education are being implemented. However, this spending cut is dwarfed by the 2010 budget for the military and civilian operations in Afghanistan and Iraq which cost $128 billion. An additional $30 billion budget is pending in the US Congress to finance the foreseen budget gap in the wars.

On 20-22 September 2010, the UN high-level plenary summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) took place in New York. This MDG summit sought to take account of the progress and challenges vis-a-vis the eight measurable goals hoped to be achieved by 2015.

One of those noble and yet far-fetched goals is a universal primary education for all by the target year.The UN has admitted that the target will not be achieved. But there have been great strides in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Northern Africa where substantial gains have been recorded.

In the security concerns, the pull-out of US troops in Iraq is almost complete. However, additional troops have been posted in Afghanistan to beef up the security forces battling the resurgent Taliban militants. And it looks like another fronts will be opened in Yemen and Somalia. The global security against terror is nowhere near. And so the costs of these military operations continue to rise.

In the midst of the global threats on security, is it possible not to raise the military spending? Or, is it even possible to eliminate this kind of spending?

Yes, it is possible. And it has been done.

Costa Rica abolished its army in 1948. Since then, in spite of the threats of the civil wars in the Central American region, Costa Rica remains steadfast with its status of an army-less country. Instead of spending money for military, Costa Rica invested on education, health, environment, and other social services. As a result, the country ranks 54th in the world and leads the Central American region in the Human Development Index (HDI).

Recently, a website, http://www.anationforpeace.com, was launched to highlight the army-less Costa Rica as a nation of peace. It also calls for the global disarmament including nuclear, and a 10% reduction on military spending so that the savings from these reduction can be used to advance towards the MDGs.

Another blow to the progress of achieving the MDGs is the economic recession and persisting slow recovery. This caused governments to borrow money and spend them to stimulate the moribund global economy. Consequently, ballooning budget deficits and debt crises ensued.

Now, governments are cutting down their spending on social services including education, health, and environment to close the budget gap. This is seen to hamper the progress made towards the MDGs by 2015.

Let us urge our governments that it is unacceptable to have more than a billion people live under $1 a day, that millions sleep hungry, that millions of kids will not reach 5 years old because of preventable diseases, that millions of kids do not attend schools, that millions have HIV-AIDS without access to adequate medicines, that many species are being lost forever, among others. These are abominably unacceptable in these modern times.

The spending cuts must be in the military, and not in the social services. Otherwise, the MDGs will remain a goal for a long, long time.

Opposition wave in the global politics: Not in Indonesia

2010-07-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

When the Group of Eight, g8, met in Canada this year, the group had three new faces. Japan, Australia, and United Kingdom had changed their leaders. That showed how global politics is into a wave of change of leadership.

From the Netherlands to the Philippines, citizens voted down the ruling parties to put a new government with the hope of change and good governance.

In Indonesia, it was not so.Garnering over 60% of the votes in a three-cornered fight, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) convincingly won the presidential election in the first round. Aside from shunning a possible second round, SBY also defied the international wave of opposition win in national elections characterized as free and fair.

Most incumbents were able to hold on to power in national elections marred with fraud and irregularities. But SBY did it in a free and fair election of the third biggest democracy voting only the second time in a direct election of its leader. He won his first term in the second round in 2004 election.

Outside Indonesia, there has been a surge of opposition winning national elections. In neighboring Australia and New Zealand, both rejected the incumbents in their run for reelection. In November 2007, Australians voted for Kevin Rudd of Labor over the reelectionist John Howard of Liberal. Then a year after that, New Zealand chose John Key of National Party over the incumbent Helen Clark of Labor Party.

In East Asia, South Korea put the conservative Lee Myung-bak to power, dispensing the ruling liberals at the helm. Then in 2008, the popular election of Barack Obama of the Democrats for the US presidency over the ruling Republican candidate highlighted the ascent of opposition to power. Then in march 2009, the opposition win in El Salvador capped the first time the left-leaning party Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMNLF) came to power.

The incumbents who won elections in their country were faced by accusations of electoral fraud. In Iran and Afghanistan, the sitting presidents were declared winners of the elections, but with doubt and protests among their citizens. Iran particularly faced the largest series of protests only seen during the 1979 revolution.

However, SBY calmly and handily shook up the allegations of fraud. The magnitude of his win silenced the opposition's claims of irregularities. His composure as a military man was resounding in the ways he handled terrorism threats in his country. It would be noted that Indonesia was the site of brazen and bold terrorist's attacks by bombings in the capital Jakarta and Bali where hundreds of foreigners died.

The global financial crisis somehow has not deterred the Indonesian economy from performing well. It is the only Southeast Asian country to be part of the G20, a group of developed and emerging economies in the world.

Now, SBY is etched in the history of his country as the man of the hour. He has to perform as Indonesians expect him to usher the country into a better environment and future.

This is the time to calm down the fears and worries of the public on the economy and politics. Most incumbents have failed them. They are looking at the opposition for alternatives. Otherwise, the public will find solace in their own power to direct their lives.

Global Financial Crisis: An opportunity to reshape the system

2010-06-17T12:00:00.000-07:00

There is a violent mood that is creeping worldwide. People are angry and, at the extreme, rioting for their financial losses and insecurities.

We are not in the best of times, nor the worst of times. We are in these trying times when the shock waves of financial crisis are always reverberating in the news headlines. Ordinary citizens are left wondering what will happen tomorrow or the next day or next month with their jobs, retirement, savings or insurance. The uncertainty is contagious and worrisome. From the governments, institutions, firms, banks, companies, employers to individuals, no one can really say what's going on.

The world is gripped by the abstract global financial system. This system is believed to know how to take care of itself. That is the basic understanding of it. But now things have changed. The financial crisis has changed this belief. If there is one good thing that the crisis has shown, it is the global interconnectedness of the market. Not one is insulated or untouchable from the benefits or adverse effects of the movement of the market.

All over the world, the stock markets fluctuate. One day they go up; the next day they dive. With this unpredictability, the governments are forced to intervene through cash injection in the market or buying shares in the banks or companies. The US government, for example, prepared a $700 billion rescue package for ailing banks and financial institutions. On top of that, it is preparing billions of supplemental financial packages to boost the gains of economic recovery in bringing down unemployment rate and foreclosures.

Other countries set aside billions of dollars to cushion the impact of the reeling financial turmoil that began in the US. The UK, on the other hand, bought shares in its largest banks. It has hoped that with the money, lending from bank to bank will not be hampered and the security of the depositors will be guaranteed.

The first country to show vulnerability in the current crisis was Iceland. The threat of national bankcruptcy was real that the IMF stepped in and provided a loan of more than $2 billion. Ukraine, Hungary and Pakistan accessed the loan facility of the IMF. Greece was bailed out by eurozone members and IMF.

I think these trying times are giving us an opportunity to recreate and reshape our financial system. It has been too greedy that ordinary citizens have become alienated to it. The EU is spearheading the move to come up with a better system other than what we have right now. It has set aside $1 trillion for a stand-by bailout package for struggling eurozone members because of members' chronic debt problems. The US has still the pending bill that will overhaul its financial system.

The current system has apparently failed us to bring development to the people. It has created wealth, but wealth only to a few. It is time to create wealth for everyone.

Critical Reflection on Enlightenment and Modernity, Rationality, and Emancipation Within Culture

2010-06-13T04:34:00.000-07:00

The sweeping far-right wind that has been blowing Europe these days deserves another look on the philosophical, cultural and historical framing of the recent events such as the ascension to power by the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, gain of parliamentary seats of right-wing parties in France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and lately Slovakia. Is this a critical juncture in Europe where the common currency is being troubled by debt-problems and its regionalism being questioned?

Let us take a look then at what's happening in Europe during one of its finest critical point in history - enlightenment and modernity.

The transformations and changes happening in Europe between 16th and 19th centuries such as the invention of printing press, rising of nation-states, colonialization of new lands, standardization of time, development of linear perspective, among others led to demand new ways of looking at, understanding and explaining things and events through the social science (Pertierra; 1997).

This preoccupied many great thinkers to theorize on the phenomena of changes. They set a “wide-ranging system of ideas that deals with the centrally important issues of social life” known as sociological theory (Ritzer; 1988). Two forces that shaped and brought about the development and rise of sociological theories – the social and intellectual forces of that time. One of those intellectual forces was the Enlightenment from which this essay reflects upon based on the article of Michel Foucault, What is Enlightenment? Then it proceeds with the major sociological theories of Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism and Jurgen Habermas’ Aspects of the Rationality of Action. In the last part of the essay would be the reflection on Raul Pertierra’s Emancipation Within Culture. This essay attempts to present the location and contribution of the said articles in the anthropological and sociological knowledge that we have.

Foucault’s What is Enlightenment?

The title is the same question answered by Immanuel Kant’s Was ist Aufklarung in 1784. It was basically a reflection of a great thinker on his own present. At that time, present was conceived in three forms; 1) as an “era of the world distinct from the others through some inherent characteristics, ” 2) a sign of a forthcoming event, 3) “a point of transition toward the dawning of a new world.” And Kant departed from this conception. He saw the present as an “exit” or “way out” from the state of “immaturity” described as letting the others direct or lead in an area where one is unable to make use of his/her reason when it is called for. For example in Kant’s article, when a book does the understanding for a person, that person is in a state of “immaturity.” Lazinesss and cowardice are the reasons cited by Kant for this “immaturity.” So he proposed a motto or instruction for Enlightenment – Aude sapere, “dare to know,” or “have courage to use your own reason.” For Kant, he characterized Enlightenment as both a task and obligation, individually and collectively. He also distinguished the private use of reason and public use of reason. On one hand, when one is a “cog in a machine” or plays a role in society, he make a private use of reason in determined circumstances and ends in view. When one, on the other hand, uses reasoning as a reasonable being and for reasoning’s sake, it is a public use of reason that must be free.

Foucault (1984) summarized what Kant’s description of enlightenment as; “ the moment when humanity is going to put its own reason to use, without subjecting itself to any authority; now it is precisely at this moment that the critique is necessary, since its role is that of defining the conditions under which the use of reason is legitimate in order to determine what can be known, what must be done, and what may be hoped….. Enlightenment is the age of the critique.” This, for Foucault, characterizes the “attitude of modernity.” Although modernity has been referred to as an epoch in history, sandwiched between premodernity and postmodernity, Foucault would like to picture it as an attitude rather than an epoch of history. By attitude, he meant “a mode of relating to contemporary reality; a voluntary choice made by certain people; in the end, a way of thinking and feeling; a way too of acting and behaving that at one and the same time marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task. A bit, no doubt, like what the Greeks called an ethos.”

He cited Charles Baudelaire to further describe this attitude of modernity as “characterized in terms of consciousness of the discontinuity of time: a break with tradition, a feeling of novelty, of vertigo in the face of the passing moment, ” the heroization of the present is regarding it very highly and imagining it other than what it is, and as “ a mode of relationship that has to be established with oneself,” inventing and reinventing oneself. And the fourth which Foucault added, these characterizations of modernity can be produced through art.

If this attitude or ethos of Enlightenment and modernity is a critique of our historical era, it has its stakes which are the differentiated capabilities and the growing autonomy vis-à-vis power relations, homogeneity which organizes the way and purpose things are done, systemacity which is mediated by our relationships with others and ourselves, and generality which bears the practices and discourses. We may then refuse to accept whatever it presents to us as alternative. We must constantly question and pose historical inquiries that converge truth and liberty wherever and whenever possible. These inquiries must be tested and based on contemporary reality. The philosophical ethos espoused here involves analyzing and reflecting on the limits of the knowledge but they should not hinder us from transgressing. This transgression may take the place of discontinuity or break from tradition. Giddens (1999) stated that, “the idea of tradition then is itself a creation of modernity.” He further said that traditions are invented recently for diverse reasons. One of which, according to Giddens, is to “give continuity and form to life,” and that there seems to be a “symbiosis between modernity and tradition” – one needing the other to protect and justify its existence.

Going back to Kant’s description of Enlightenment as an “exit” or “way out,” it is like we are inside a theater or cinema surrounded by darkness, distracted and absorbed by the reality flashed on screen different from what we know of it; but a little red sign flickers that invites us to a way out in case of fire. This fire represents the changes and ruptures of routines. Truly, it feels good to be staying forever inside a cinema. It entertains us and makes us forget our problems for a time being. Or we are just afraid to confront our own shadows that cause us prefer to hide in the darkness? Kant reminded us that the enlightened is not afraid of shadows. Being afraid of the shadows seems natural, but in reality it can be critically interrogated. To do this, it takes a philosophical attitude which Foucault propounded, a critique of who we are, an analysis of our limits imposed on us and an experiment or project of transcendental possibilities.
Rationality

Two prominent works of sociological theorists on rationality form the discussion of this part; Max Webber and Jurgen Habermas.

Weber’s Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism

Weber started by citing circumstances that manifested Western civilization as the source of various developments with significant value and recognition as valid today. Some of these developments were the codification of books, rational jurisprudence, harmonious music, perspective in art, rise of a modern state with written constitution, laws and administration, among other things that had to do with astronomy, architecture, view of history, literature, etc. Included in these developments was the “most fateful force in our modern life, capitalism.” He asserted that capitalism is not in any way identical with unlimited greed for gain; rather it is identical with continuous renewal of profit through continuous capitalistic enterprise. The economic action through capitalistic undertakings of continuous operations of an enterprise was differentiated from the speculative acquisition of profit from wars, piracy, exploitation of subjects, election, etc. The former was being the legal and systematic pursuit of profit. There were other things that brought about this Western capitalism such as the organization of free labor, the separation of business from the household, rational bookkeeping, the notion of personal property, rational structures of law and administration by trained officials or bureaucracy, and the utilization of scientific knowledge in modern science particularly mathematics.

Then the question as to why in the West did this exacting capitalism emerge remains unsettled to a large extent. For example, the opening of a public library, the offering of scholarships, the introduction of new business courses in a local university, the passage of a resolution increasing the subsidy for education would not greatly explain satisfactorily the growing number of entrepreneurs in a certain town. There must be the fundamental shift in the disposition of the town folks toward business engagements to be able to explain the phenomenon and this new conduct. And Weber recognized that the magical and religious forces and the ethical ideas of duty had been the most essential influences on conduct of men/women, on the “development of economic spirit or ethos of economic system.” With this, the spirit of capitalism was associated with the “rational ethics of ascetic Protestantism especially Calvinism.”

Certain religious ideas such as proficiency in a calling as work, expression of virtues of honesty, frugality, punctuality, and industry, avoidance of life’s pleasures, and gaining wealth as a sign of an election of the saved were informing this ethic of capitalistic culture. Weber identified traditionalism in both the laborers and entrepreneur as anti-spirit of capitalism. Traditional laborers were those of pre-capitalistic labor that was interested in earning the usual rate no matter how attractive the opportunity to earn more. The employer’s wish of efficiency and high productivity by means of increased labor rate went to naught in the arms of traditional laborers. As compared with capitalistic labor, workers were responsible and released from counting the rates and income with maximum comfort and minimum effort. In this case, labor is performed as a calling. However, the traditional entrepreneurs, on one hand, were concerned with the satisfaction of needs, that is acquisition of goods necessary to meet the needs. Capitalistic entrepreneurs on the other hand acquired goods and profit untied by the limits set by needs. They sought to gain profit rationally and systematically. Traditionalism persisted for a while but the process of rationalization of areas of life destroyed it. Some features of modern economic life were the extended the productivity of labor, labor for a rational organization providing service and goods for humanity, calculated future, and direction with foresight

It has been acknowledged that “rationalization lies at the heart of Weber’s substantive sociology” (Ritzer; 1988). “By rationalization he meant the process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out individuality and spontaneity in life” (Adams and Sydie: 2002). This is why he did not see actions as fragmented but patterned within civilizations, institutions, organizations, strata, classes, and groups (Ritzer; 1988). He was interested in understanding the meaning, causes, and consequences of action (Adams and Sydie: 2002). There were 4 types of meaningful social action for Weber (1925); 1) instrumental rational action “occurs when the end, the means, and the secondary results are all rationally taken into account and weighed, 2) value-rational action is based on a “conscious belief in the value for its own sake,” 3) affectual action or emotional action, 4) traditional action is “determined by ingrained habituation.” His theory was a search for rational action.

While Weber’s capitalism was seen as a response to Marx’s analysis of capitalism and both were interested in discovering the historical causal relationship that had resulted to the current state of modern society, he however refused to consider the “material factors could explain every aspect of social reality” (Adams and Sydie: 2002). In Weber’s view, ideas especially religious ideas were critical aspects of action (ibid). Protestant ethic as an idea system was linked with another system of ideas, the spirit of capitalism (Ritzer; 1988). “In other words, two systems of ideas are directly linked in this work” (ibid). But he failed to link the rational action with the idea systems.

“Unlike Marx and Durkheim who both projected optimistic outcomes in the transition to modernity, Weber rejects the Enlightenment’s view of evolutionary progress and happiness. Instead, he projects a ‘polar night of icy,’ a highly rational and bureaucratically organized social order, an ‘iron cage’ in which people are trapped” (Farganis: 1993). Furthermore, “despite these rationalizing trends, Weber believes that the complexity of social life ultimately outstrips the ability of the social sciences to fully comprehend it” (Tucker; 1998). Sadly, we are supposed to be liberated by reason, Weber saw the opposite.

Habermas’ Aspects of the Rationality of Action

Habermas’ point of departure was Weber’s approach to rationality of action. For Weber, action is treated as purposive activity. Habermas argued that this approach was just coming from one point of view to appraise actions as rational and that there were other aspects of rationality of action. Applying the model of purposive-rational action in a specific context, its description as rational includes the judgment that the choice of means of the subject/agent seems valid and appropriate given the circumstances and limits of knowledge. Weber used “rational” and “rationalization” to refer to expressions of utterances, opinions, and actions which could justifiably be given reasons. “The rationality of opinions and actions is measured against validity claims that are based on reasons.”

At another level, Weber talked about systems-rationality of capitalism, state bureaucracy, and law but fell short in linking them with rationality of action. The social systems theorists like Parsons and Luhmann dissuaded from the rationality of the subjects bringing about the system, instead they elaborated on the system’s capacity to accommodate changes in the environment.

Weber’s typology of action makes a distinction in purposive-rational, value-rational, affectual, and traditional actions. An example using this typology would be going to school. Various reasons can be given for it. For traditional action, it is because my parents and siblings and almost everybody go to school. For affectual action, I go to school because I have fun in school with my classmates and I enjoy my stay there. For value-rational action, my reason for my going to school is to get education I need in life. And for purposive-rational action, I go to school to finish my studies, get my diploma to enable me to land a decent job in preparation for my future. With this model of action, it discounts social relationship as a reference point and “considers only the end-means relationship of a teleologically conceived, monological action to be capable of rationalization.” With this perspective, what could be considered rational are only those aspects of action that have “observable success of a causally effective intervention into an existing situation.” So Habermas introduced the concept of “communicative action” to draw out other aspects of the rationality of action that Weber ‘s action theory did not cover.

The purposive-rational action of Weber is geared toward the attainment of its goal and that other consequences of action are minor conditions for success. Habermas called this goal-oriented action as instrumental action wherein “we consider it from the aspect of following technical rules and evaluate the degree of efficacy of the intervention into a physical state of affairs,” whereas the other is called strategic action “when we consider it from the aspects of following rules of rational choice and evaluate the degree of efficacy of influencing the decisions of rational opponents.” In contrast to these success-oriented actions is the communicative action which is geared toward reaching an understanding. This understanding leads to an agreement which is not imposed but based on common conviction which can be criticized.

Referring to human language as the telos for reaching an understanding, actions oriented toward understanding can be analyzed from the model of the speech act. However, “a speech act can be contested, that is, rejected as ‘invalid’, basically from three aspects: from the aspect of the truth that the speaker claims for a proposition, from the aspect of the truthfulness that the speaker claims for the expression of his feelings, needs, wishes, intentions, etc., finally from the aspect of the rightness that the speaker claims for his action with reference to a given normative context.” Communicative actions can be contested as untrue, untruthful, and normatively wrong. In any case, it wishes to be understood in the first place. For analysis purposes, the pure cases of speech acts are ideal. Here Habermas was referring to “constative speech acts in which elementary prepositional sentences are employed,” “expressive speech acts in which elementary first person sentences appear,” and “institutionally bound speech acts correlated only with one simple and well-defined norm.” Each of these foregoing speech acts bears an attitude; a) objectivating attitude wherein a neutral observer reacts to something in his/her external world, b) expressive attitude wherein a subject reveals something of his/her inner world, c) conformative attitude wherein a member acts in an expected way in his/her social world. To illustrate this clearly, a comparative table below is presented taken from the Habermas’ article.

Types of action Action orientation
Basic attitudes
Validity claims Relations to the world
Strategic action Oriented to success objectivating (efficacy) External world
Constative speech act Oriented to reaching understanding Objectivating Truth External world
Expressive self-representation Oriented to reaching understanding Expressive Truthfulness Inner world
Normatively regulated action Oriented to reaching understanding Norm-conformative Rightness Social world

In addition with the “catelogue” of pure types of action, Habermas also provided additional categories aside from the above table that “are intended to make analytic problematics plausible” in explaining the aspects of rationality of action he postulated earlier.

Pure types of action
Types of knowledge
Forms of argumentative examination Models of transmissible knowledge
Constative speech acts Empirical-theoretical knowledge Theoretical discourse Theories
Purposive-rational action (strategic) Technically and strategically utilizable knowledge Theoretical discourse Technologies strategies
Expressive action Aesthetic-practical knowledge Therapeutic and aesthetic critique Works of art
Normatively regulated action Moral-practical knowledge Practical discourse Legal and moral conceptions

Habermas indicated two advantages of the theory of communicative action that could contribute in understanding the processes of social rationalization; 1) “with the pure types of action, we would have explained exactly those aspects under which action can be rationalized, that is, criticized and improved insofar as they incorporate ‘knowledge,’ 2) “with the concept of communicative action, we would have gained a non-arbitrary viewpoint from which a social system of institutions can be appraised as more or less ‘rational.’

In Beiner’s Rescuing the Rationalist Heritage (n.d.), it is noted that “Habermas still adheres to an Enlightenment concept of reason,” about its liberating character or in Kantian word – an ‘exit’ to immaturity. This is why “he feels constrained to affirm Weber’s rationalization process and the modern forms of life that go with it” (ibid) which is the ‘iron cage.’ Pertierra (1988) describes the work of Habermas as “the most ambitious attempt to develop the emancipatory potential of reason.” Indeed, Habermas’ theory of communicative action breaks away from the rationalization envisaged by Weber as monological action. Habermas highlighted the social relationship we’re in, and so the cooperation of the other is taken into account. His communicative rationality involves this Other who enters into partnership with the other Other in an honest relationship and undistorted communication to be able reach an understanding.
Pertierra’s Emancipation Within Culture

Numerous usages of the word culture proliferate in the world today. Pertierra (1998) discusses the uses and anthropological meaning of culture and draws evocative examples from the Philippines as well as from the world. He traced the improvement of various definitions of culture from E. Tylor’s “complex whole” (1871) to Kapferer’s “set of principles” (1988). “Other anthropologists see culture as an invisible lens through which we see reality,” thus it includes “primordial categories” transferred through non-conscious and non-rational processes of language, myth and art. Combining the features of earlier definitions, culture is seen as “a set of ideas, values and practices as well as an orientation and predisposition toward a life-world.” He also added that we have to see culture as “incomplete, contested, inconsistent and never fully established.”

The modern conditions with mass media and institutions generate a “standardization of culture.” Filipinos and Americans are said to be sharing a common culture (i.e. English language, consumerism, movie craze). Culture is not anymore tied with particular territory (i.e. Chinatown, cuisine). It becomes deterritorialized. Some anthropologists contended that culture shapes our world (cultural determinism). Others believed that no two cultures are alike due to different experiences of the world (cultural relativism). There is also the view that culture is distinguished between high and low culture. The former associated with the rich exemplifies the best thoughts, ideas produced by society while the latter pertains to the popular culture linked with the working class. “Hence, class antagonisms express both economic and cultural divisions.” Modern conditions cause diasporas and cultural dispersions. Millions of Filipinos are working abroad due to the difficulty of earning a living here and shortage of decent job opportunities. Pertierra also delved into Philippine culture(s). Religion of course was noted first through the folk beliefs and practices such as anting-anting, aswang, pasyon, penitensya, etc., and how religion encroaches into broad areas of life of the Filipinos. He also cited the insistence of Filipinos in the principle of reciprocity (utang na loob). Come this May election, this principle of reciprocity will come into play which can decide the outcome of a local post. In the Spanish colonial times, the revolt was largely seen as local resistance than national struggle.

The Philippines has many local languages. The introduction of Filipino as the national language is a national prescription by the State. “Since culture always involves both consent and constraint,” the use of Filipino is reserved to formal functions except for the Tagalog-speaking regions. What remains largely in use in everyday life is the local language. In the territorially administered cultures, we confuse our cultural identity with political allegiance. An example given in our class was about the celebration of EDSA 1 as declared a non-working holiday by the government but in Ilocos, people went to work because they could not observe an event that toppled their Apo.

Pertierra showed how culture could be a medium for the representation of self and other. Through cultural presentations, the identity for self and other is represented by the performances. However these performances become routinized, conventional and predictable so much so that they dull our sense of identity. There are artists though who are experimenting with indigenous forms of presentations (i.e. Grace Nono, Joey Ayala). Another very good example given by Pertierra is the awarding of exemplar individuals who contributed in one way or the other on the enrichment of national culture. With that, we were projecting a national culture of exemplariness. “We may identify with it, but only vicariously. In contrast, a local culture is a lived experience.” He also noted how we have limited notion of culture through our sense of the future. While the postmodernists visualize the future as present constitutive, our “imagination is overdetermined by its colonial past as well as constrained by its understanding of culture.” There was once a journalist who described the Philippines as “damaged culture” by way of negative instances of public behavior of Filipinos. Instead of a damaged culture, “one should point out the inefficient, corrupt or non-existent structures of government.”

Our ideal, our future and aspiration are very much informed by culture. “Since culture shapes our perception of the world, it also affects our response to and our location in it,” whether we allow ourselves to be enslaved by the “iron cage, ” or work for our emancipation by confronting the complexities of social life.
Concluding Note

This essay started with the Enlightenment and its promise of liberation from self-induced tutelage. It was seen as one of the intellectual forces that influenced the development of sociological theorizing and that set the tone for modernity. In modernity, Weber postulated the rationalization process and its consequences for modern life in which man/woman would be trapped in “iron cage.” Habermas took off from where Weber left and continued the work on rationality of action. Habermas put again reason in central stage of theorizing. He introduced the theory of communicative action with which he brought back the emancipatory component of reason, just like in the Enlightenment. Then, Pertierra located culture and its uses and its lack and surplus of meanings in the emancipation process of man/woman which the Enlightenment had promised from the start – using culture as a tool and object critique.

References:

Adams, Bert and R. A. Sydie (2002). Classical Sociological Theory. California: Pine Forge Press. Beiner, Ronald (n.d.). Rescuing the Rationalist Heritage. Farganis, James (1993). Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Foucault, Michel (1997). What is Enlightenment. The Politics of Truth. Ed. Sylvere Lotringer. USA: Semiotext(e).

Giddens, Anthony (1999). British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Reith Lecture on Tradition.

Habermas, Jurgen (1979). Aspects of the Rationality of Action. Pertierra, Raul (1988). The Rationality Problematique: An Anthropological Review of Habermas’ The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1. Social Analysis No. 23, August 1988.

____________ (1998). Emancipation Within Culture. Public Policy. October/December 1998.

Ritzer, George (1988). Sociological Theory 2nd Edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Tucker Jr., Kenneth (1998). Anthony Giddens and Modern Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.

Weber, Max (1998). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. trans. Talcott Parsons. California: Roxbury Publishing Company.

War, Peace and Democracy: Enough of Rhetorics

2010-04-23T08:27:00.000-07:00

"This essay revisits the classical argument of democratic-peace in reference to more recent political events, including the US and UK led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and concludes that democracy in and of itself is an insufficient indicator of a given state's likelihood of engaging in war. The message of this argument takes on an extra dimension of meaning in light of the recent conflict in Georgia." (Peace and Conflict Monitor, 2008)

Today, more states are embracing democracy than three decades ago.[1] In 2006, there were 77 democratic states compared to 49 anocracies[2] and 34 autocracies (Hewitt et. al., 2008, p.13). What does it mean to the peace and security of the world? Is the world getting more peaceful as more democracies are emerging? Indeed, there is “a distinct downward trend” of the number of both internal and interstate active armed conflicts (Ibid, 2008, p.12). However, the downward trend is attributed not to the rise of democratic states, but to the end of Cold War period.

According to Thomas Hobbes[3] and Immanuel Kant (cited in Behler, 1986, p.276), the state of nature or natural state is a condition of war. Both philosophers treated peace as something to be established and endeavored by man/woman. Thus, how do we get out of this state of nature (condition of war)? Or how do we achieve peace?

To achieve peace, Kant proposed a league of nations, a federation of republican states under the law of nations which both secures and constrains freedom of states. In Kant’s idea, the expansion of this league would bring perpetual peace.

Is democracy a way out of this state of nature? Or does democratization (democracy has to start somewhere and sometime) reinforce this state of nature? The democratic peace proposition answers the first question positively. Ray (1998) believes that democracy causes peace. On the other hand, Mansfield and Snyder (2005) favor the second question. I shall attempt in this short essay to find out which of the two questions stands in scrutiny and analysis as more convincing and compelling to believe.

The ambivalence of the relationship between democracy and war could be highlighted in the global war on terror launched by the United States and its allies in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attack. The US-led alliance against terrorism has come to believe that preventive wars might be necessary to “build the ‘infrastructure of democracy’ abroad” (Mansfield and Snyder, 2005, p.1). This belief led to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which at the time of the invasion were under despotic regimes. Wars were waged in the name of introducing democracy to these two countries. The premise of those wars was that democracy would bring freedom, security and peace to the two countries and to the world. After the invasion, democratic processes started to roll with elections leading the way. The expectations and hopes of these processes did not materialize as the conditions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been implicitly that of civil war which is a picture of Hobbesian and Kantian state of nature.

What is war?

The standard definition of war has come from the Correlates of War (CoW) project which helps further research on the topic.[4] It puts definitive measure to war as a conflict where at least 1,000 battle deaths are recorded in a given year (Mansfield and Snyder, 2005, p.91; Ray, 1998, p.31). This definition includes interstate, extra-systemic, and intrastate wars. For this essay, I make no distinction between interstate, extra-systemic, and intrastate wars. All of them deserve to be called “war”.

What is democracy?

As a system of government, democracy has four key elements; free elections to choose or replace a government, peoples’ participation in politics and civic life, human rights protection, and a rule of law that is equally applicable to all citizens.[5] A state that possesses these four key elements is said to be a democratic state.

To measure democracy, Mansfield and Snyder (2005) consider states to be democratic when there is competitive competition of political parties or groupings in the election, when the head of the government is popularly voted into office, and when “constraints on the executive are more than ‘substantial,’ based on Polity scale” (p.77).

Democracy and peace

There is a general consensus that no democracies have ever been at war against each other. The basic idea and reason is that “democracy is an important cause of peace” (Ray, 1998, p.27). Even Mansfield and Snyder (2005) agree with this when they argue that “a root cause of the democratic peace is that democratic institutions make government authorities accountable to the average voter” (p.51). So the leaders of democratic states would not risk their position or office by going to war because they could always be voted out of their offices by own citizens who would carry the brunt of war.

Democracy is not an absolute category, however, and there are many nations transitioning into (or out of) democratic institutions. Mansfield and Snyder (2005) argue that countries experiencing such transitions are actually “more likely than other states to become involved in war”, especially “countries undergoing incomplete democratization with weak institutions” (p.67).

Perhaps the most fundamental question that begs to be asked of the democratic-peace concept is: does democracy stop war from happening? Obviously it does not. Democratic states have initiated and engaged in plenty of wars. Just count the number of modern wars that the US and United Kingdom (UK), two known champions of democracy, have been involved in. I remember two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many others. Thus, democracy does not stop wars, and it does not offer us a way out of the Hobbesian state of nature.

Democracy and war

If democracy does not stop war, then does it go to war? I would say, yes! Even though democracies do not fight each other, “they fight and initiate wars about as often as non-democracies” (Mansfield and Snyder, 2005, p.49).

What about those democratizing states or incomplete democracies? Are they really prone to war? As mentioned earlier, Mansfield and Snyder (2005) argue that they are at a higher risk of going to war than either democratic or autocratic states. There are key features that make these democratizing states more likely to go to war. These are weak institutions and strong nationalistic sentiments. An example cited in the book, Electing to Fight, is the Falklands war between Argentina and Britain. The authors consider Argentina as “an incompletely democratizing initiator of the war” (p. 219).

In actual fact, however, Argentina was not democratizing at the time when the war was launched, although it was expecting an election. The war was more of an effort by the Argentina’s junta to hold on to power, than the result of any democratizing processes.

Carothers (2007) and McFaul (2007) are similarly critical of the assertion of Mansfield and Snyder. Carothers cites Francis Fukuyama’s comment that many wars in Europe for the last 500 years have had something to do more with state-building than democracy. McFaul, on the other hand, simply does not buy the arguments made by Mansfield and Snyder. He points convincingly to theoretical, methodological and empirical flaws of the thesis on democratization leading to war. One of the flaws McFaul cites is the mislabeling of those cases that are supposed to be “regime collapse or a return to autocracy” as democratizing states (p.164). He reviews the examples used in the book, such as France under Napoleon III and the Prussia case. McFaul hardly considers these cases as democratizing states, and I agree with him on this point. France was hardly a democratizing state when Napoleon III took power through a coup.

The evidences to support the argument that democratization causes states to be more war-prone have thus been undermined by Carothers and McFaul, and we are left with the conclusion that there is no direct relationship between democracy and war.

Conclusion

As an international peace student, there is a value though in the arguments of Mansfield and Snyder, in spite of the valid criticisms the book has received. There is always soe value in shedding light on the causes of war. For Mansfield and Snyder, it is democratization that has something to do with war. For realists, it is about geopolitics and self-interest. For pragmatists, it is greed. For freedom fighters, it is oppression and marginalization. For me, wars have peculiarities that make it difficult to categorize them grandly. Although I have special interest in understanding wars, I have come to abhor war which is the worst enemy of peace. However, war also makes peace possible and desirable.

Having reviewed the arguments for and against the concept of democratic-peace, I think the relationship between democracy and war is ultimately neutral and indeterminate. Democracy neither leads us out of our warlike and belligerent methods of dealing with conflict, nor does it particularly reinforce the condition of war.

Democracy by itself is not enough to begin or end a war; rather we must look to intermediary forces, such as economic and environmental pressures, untamed nationalism, the marginalization of minorities, and clampdowns on culture and religion.

References

Carothers, T. (2007). Misunderstanding Gradualism, Journal of Democracy, 18(3), 18-22.

Hewitt, J. et. al. (2008). Peace and Conflict 2008: Executive Summary. Maryland: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.

Kant, I. (1986) [1795]. Perpetual Peace. In E. Behler (Ed.). Immanuel Kant: Philosophical Writings. New York: Continuum, pp.270-311.

McFaul, M. (2007). Are New Democracies War-Prone? Book review of Mansfield and Snyder (2005), Journal of Democracy 18(2), 160-167.

Mansfield, E and J. Snyder. (2005). Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ray, J. (1998). Does Democracy Cause Peace? Annual Review of Political Science 1, 27-

[1] From 1973-2004, “there were 179 instances of democratization, defined as countries moving from either Not Free to Free (25 cases) or Not Free to Partly Free (154 cases), as determined by Freedom House rankings” (McFaul, 2007, p.161).

[2] Anocracy is a “middle category of regimes having a mix of authoritarian and democratic institutional features” (Hewitt, et. al, 2008, p.13).

[3] See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ for an elaboration on Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy.

[4] See http://www.correlatesofwar.org/ for the project history of CoW.

[5] See http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm for the whole lecture on what is democracy?

Previously published on http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_article=540

Population, urbanization and environment

2009-11-11T16:55:00.000-08:00

Pressing global challenges such as climate change, poverty and food insecurity are essentially human-induced problems. There are approximately 6.77 billion people in the world today, and the global population is still growing at a rate of 1.14 percent annually.

That equates to nearly 80 million new individuals on this planet

every year. At the current rate, projections indicate that by 2015 there will be 7.2 billion people inhabiting earth.

Southeast Asia, including East Timor, is home to more than 574 million people. Indonesia is theworld’s fourth most populous country, largest Muslim country and the third biggest democracy.

It alone makes up more than a third of the entire population of the region. Four members of the ASEAN are in the top 24 most populous countries, while most have higher birth rates and greater population densities (bar Laos) than the global average.

Today, urban areas comprise of more than half the world’s population. Urbanization has been a global phenomenon that transforms not only land use but people’s values and lifestyles. The influx of people for rural areas into the city in search of a better life is too astounding to put into figures.

By 2015, according to UN Population Fund (UNFPA), there will be three cities in Southeast Asia with more than 10 million inhabitants, known as mega cities Jakarta (17.3 million), Metro Manila (14.8 million) and Bangkok (10.1 million).

These sprawling urban areas and enormous populations exert a tremendous amount of stress on the environment. Resources are heavily concentrated in urban areas, causing major challenges in waste disposal, noise, air and water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and many others.

As a result the environment, particularly biodiversity, is under constant threat. Mega cities are a major source of greenhouse gases emissions, which cause global warming.

Human activities and consumption patterns, coupled with industrial and commercial concentrations in these cities, drain resources found in urban and neighbouring areas. They also compromise the environmental conditions of these areas.

The current population trend is definitely bearing an adverse impact on the quality of natural resources, such as water, food, forest and air. There is a global shortage of potable water and food.

The world’s forest areas are shrinking. The quality of air in some cities is leading to health problems in certain people. The current condition of the environment is barely sustainable enough to maintain a decent human existence.

Despite all the challenges we face, it is humans who are ultimately responsible for this destruction to our natural environment. Constantly increasing the global population is not a good step toward tackling this issue. It may help win an election, but it will not win the struggle for a better life on earth.

Population trends, urbanization and environmental challenges demand comprehensive and long-term policy responses from concerned governments.

Policies cannot change the past, but they can shape the future by providing direction toward a better scenario. With the support of international and local NGOs and donors, governments recognizing the extent of these pressing global challenges can act on measures disrupting population trends and declining birth rates.

To do this, there is a need to expand the access and choices of women in education, economic opportunities, political participation and social integration. Studies show that women with higher education tend to have fewer children. Women enjoying economic, political and social freedom tend to give birth later in life. Men too need to be given responsibility to better manage this reproductive power.

Another measure that can be taken by governments is the distribution of economic opportunities to rural areas. The myth that a better life can only be found in the city should be squashed. This measure will halt the influx of rural people to urban areas. Moreover, development planning and process should not be heavily concentrated on urban areas.

These measures could relieve the environmental conditions from degeneration. With population and urbanization being checked, global challenges such as climate change, poverty and food insecurity can be tackled effectively. The question is, are our world’s leaders up to the challenge? We, as those solely responsible for the problem, should be proactive in encouraging our leaders to respond to these problems. Otherwise the future generations will blame us forever.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/31/population-urbanization-and-environment.html

That 2007 October Referendum in Costa Rica

2009-11-08T17:59:00.000-08:00

As a graduate student of the UN-mandated University of Peace (UPeace) in Costa Rica, I was accredited as an international electoral observer by the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (Electoral Tribunal) in the historic referendum in Costa Rica.

It was not only the country’s first referendum; it was also the world’s first referendum to seek the people’s approval of a free trade agreement or Tratado Libre de Commercio (TLC), in this case the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States.

As I prepared to go out that Sunday morning to begin my task as an observer, my host brother told me he had already voted. That was how I learned that polling stations opened as early as 6AM, particularly in Ciudad Colon.

Most of the 27 international observers from UPeace were staying in Ciudad Colon, from where a bus brought us to Raddison Hotel in San Jose, capital of Costa Rica, for a briefing before going to the polling stations.

Few cars were plying the streets of San Jose. Most shops were closed. Cars were concentrated and parked near the churches and polling stations that day. Most cantones (towns) in Costa Rica have their church, government hall, school, and plaza close together.

Polling stations were inside the schools. Outside there were the unmistakable booths of the YES and NO camps. Vendors of campaign paraphernalia, drinks and snacks were stationed close by.

People were free to express their stance on the issue by wearing campaign T-shirts, pins, caps, even henna tattoos on their faces and bellies. Voters arrived with their kids and family. Children and young people played football inside the school or simply ran and played around. People greeted each other left and right, exchanging pleasantries in congested narrow hallways with a festive, jovial atmosphere.

I had witnessed a huge gathering of those who opposed the TLC in downtown San Jose before the referendum date. It was estimated that more than 100,000 people were in attendance - the biggest assembly in a country of just over four million people.

A human sea wearing the colors pf their flag poured through the main street of San Jose. Music blared from loud speakers and a drum and a bugle corps and people bounced to the rhythms. Vendors sold food and souvenirs. It was a festival yet also a protest against TLC.

People were attentive to the speeches, intermittently applauding with a deafening chant of NO T-L-C. My heart pumped rapidly and I felt weak.

When voting, people had to look at their names on the voters’ list posted outside a polling room. Each list had a maximum number of 700 voters. Only three at a time were allowed inside the polling room. Inside voters presented their national ID or cedula with pictures. Then they got a ballot and filled in their choice.

With my scant Spanish, I managed to chat with one voter outside a school. I asked him if he lives near the polling station. The man said that his place is far, but he was waiting for a bus commissioned by the Electoral Tribunal to fetch and pick voters from far places. I then saw a bus coming with Si (Yes) posters on its front and sides. The man got inside the bus and waved at me when he got his seat.

After visiting three schools, we decided to go to the office of the Electoral Tribunal. We saw a hundred people queuing inside, either to have their new cedula or to renew it.

In the evening, we were invited to the announcement of a preliminary result at the Electoral Tribunal office. Outside the building were about 20 young people who were shouting NO T-L-C. People inside the building were unmindful of what was going on outside. At 9 PM, the tribunal announced that the Si (YES) was leading the No by a slim margin of 51.6% to 48.4% of nearly 60% turn out. The referendum is required to have at least 40% turn out make its results binding.

There was an immediate celebration of the Yes camp at the La Sabana Park but also some reports of burning posters and street signs by unidentified people in the city. But no killings related to the referendum were reported.

The president of the country and a Nobel Peace Laureate, Oscar Arias, called on the No camp for reconciliation. (Arias, who had served as president once before (1986–1990), won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for fostering peace talks that eventually ended the civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua. – Editor) However, some people in the No camp rejected this and cited electoral fraud and anomalies.

To be part of this political exercise in a foreign country especially Costa Rica, was quite an experience – a fair, peaceful and orderly election. Costarrinces take pride in what they have become and what they could offer the world, besides abolition of their army.

Source: http://politics.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&article=20071030-97694

Trusting North Korea

2009-11-05T18:00:00.000-08:00

North Korea's nuclear test destroyed the core requirement for the resumption of the six-party talks - trust. The underground explosion of a reportedly 15-kiloton nuclear bomb, comparable to the atomic bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of World War II, crushed any hopes that diplomacy would bring North Korea back to the talks and eventually disable its nuclear program. Can the global community still trust North Korea?

US President Barack Obama called the nuclear test "blatant defiance" of the UN Security Council's resolution and international law. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemned the test and described it as "erroneous, misguided, and a danger to the world." Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso saw it as a "grave challenge" and the president of South Korean said it was "provocation."

Indeed, it is a global security and peace concern. But the global community can not simply renew isolation of and sanctions against North Korea. Isolation and sanctions, time and again, have not brought the desired outcome. The six-party talks, which include the US, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and China, have likewise been fairly ineffective in persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. UN and world leaders need to come up with a more creative response to this latest antagonism against global security and peace. Military action is not this creative response.

In 2006, North Korea's first nuclear test surprised the global community. Prior to that, it was widely known that the poor country was developing a nuclear bomb. Little did the world know that such an impoverished country could create the dreaded nuclear bomb so quickly and with such a degree of success. North Korea joined the elite nuclear-armed countries, the fourth in Asia to explicitly announce its successful nuclear test.

Despite its impoverishment, North Korea was bent on pursuing its nuclear ambition that momentous year of 2006. It acknowledged that the ambition to be a nuclear-armed country was a way to gain respect in the global community and exalt the pride of North Koreans amidst their daily hardships. It recognized the power and leverage of nuclear bomb in international relations. When things were bad for North Korea, a nuclear test seemed to rouse the nationalism of its own people. It should be noted that North Korea's 67-year old reclusive leader, Kim Jong-Il, reportedly suffered a stroke last year.

Prior to the latest nuclear test, North Korea was lambasted for launching a satellite into orbit. Many believed that it was testing a long-range missile with the aim of reaching US soil. The UN Security Council strongly criticized the launching. North Korea demanded an apology from the world community for what is said was the confusion of a rightful and peaceful space development program with a military exercise.

With no apology from the UN in sight, North Korea unilaterally ditched the six-nation talks and threatened to enable its nuclear program. North Korea was still demanding an apology from the UN at the eleventh hour. Left with one option to redeem its position on the international arena, North Korea daringly conducted its nuclear test. This time the bomb was bigger and more powerful than the one launched in 2006. It effectively caught the attention of the global community.

Reports say that the belligerent country has also tested short-range and medium-range missiles.

In the midst of these developments, a number of diplomats, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are encouraging North Korea to rejoin the six-nation talks and uphold its 2007 commitment to disable its nuclear program.

In 2007, North Korea agreed to denuclearization in exchange for 1 million tons of fuel and other concessions, including its removal from the US' *axis of evil'. There were disagreements as to how to proceed with the agreement, particularly as to how to verify North Korea's disarmament.

The commitments by all parties in the talks were only partly fulfilled. The 1-million tons of fuel oil was not delivered in full, prompting North Korea to demand its delivery before it would allow US to verify its disarmament. Other political and historical factors contributed to the bungled implementation of the agreement in 2007.

So can the global community still trust North Korea? And can North Korea trust the global community?

As the convener of the ASEAN Regional Forum, in which North Korea is a member, ASEAN, being a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) can facilitate the reopening of talks with North Korea. The ASEAN Secretariat in Indonesia can be instrumental and key to the preventive diplomacy in the Korean peninsula and potentially the Asia-Pacific region.

Fulfillment of the previously made commitments would build trust and encourage the resumption of talks. After all, trust is the heart of any talks or negotiations. Sadly, this trust was shattered by the recent nuclear test. ASEAN can pick up the pieces and act as a forum for open dialogue.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/16/do-we-have-trust-north-korea.html

Earth Day in a regional perspective

2009-11-03T23:25:00.000-08:00

"All the regions of the Philippines; the Mekong River Delta in Vietnam; almost all the regions of Cambodia; the North and East of the Lao PDR; the Bangkok region of Thailand; and West Sumatra, South Sumatra, West Java and East Java of Indonesia are all among the most vulnerable regions in Southeast Asia." These are the conclusions of a study entitled "Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia" by the Economic and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) in 2009.

There were three factors considered in the study to identify these climate change "hotspots," namely, climatic hazards (floods, droughts, cyclones, etc.), human and ecological sensitivity (population density and protected areas), and adaptive capacities (socio-economic data, technology and infrastructure).

Climate change, as we know, is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. Conservation International (CI) identified the areas called biodiversity hotspots in dire need of conservation and protection due to high prevalence of species and high risks.

Of the 34 biodiversity hotspots in the world identified by CI, Southeast Asia hosts four of these; Indo-Burma, the Philippines, Sundaland (Borneo and Sumatra), and Wallacea (Sulawesi and Moluccas). These biodiversity hotspots are home to thousands of endemic species, some of which are threatened and endangered.

With climate change ever threatening our rich regional biodiversity, as concerned ASEAN citizens, what can we do in our endeavors to conserve and protect our biodiversity?

Global environmental issues and concerns such as climate change and biodiversity loss are covered by Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to address such issues. For example, the issue of climate change is tackled by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) while biodiversity loss is covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

If there is one measure that can be credited for slowing down global environmental degradation and promoting global environmental vigilance and care, then it is, I must say, the collection of MEAs which are legally binding on the countries who signed these environmental conventions.

Although there still exist tremendous challenges to combat global environmental problems, the MEAs have shown the achievements, limitations and potentiality of these agreements to confront pressing and complex global environmental issues such as threats to biodiversity. MEAs have laid a good foundation and framework for policy and actions by decision-makers, if we intend to really do something on biodiversity conservation.

For activists, MEAs have provided a good starting point for discussion, debate, criticism and action. As citizens of signatory Parties, which are our governments, we are called upon to advance the goal of protecting and conserving our Earth from human destructiveness and greed. We should push our governments to help them comply with their obligations to prevent and manage negative human impacts on the Earth.

The current political-economic situation in our region and even in the world may not look conducive to significant reforms to highlight environmental protection and conservation, but the reports of EEPSEA on climate change "hotspots" may trigger responses and key actions from governments, private sector and NGOs.

Various national problems in the region bring us to the challenges facing regional structures. As we know, regional environmental issues and concerns are not insulated from national political and economic problems facing member states. New elections in Indonesia mean a new government and new directions, whilst economic recession is affecting Singapore.

There is an impending election in the Philippines, along with political uncertainties in Thailand and Myanmar. Malaysia also has a new leader and government. These are the changing realities in the region, affecting the efforts and directions we may take in protecting and conserving the Earth from the negative impacts of climate change and other environmental hazards.

There are logical reasons to look beyond countries and nation-states to determine adequate responses to the social, political, economic and environmental realities that challenge us. We must examine and push forward regional structures such as ASEAN to play a more enhanced role in addressing transnational concerns and issues.

Regional structures can represent and articulate collective interests and, at the same time, manage collective affairs and obligations of member states in regional and global levels.

The power and jurisdiction in tackling environmental concerns and issues must not rest solely on individual governments.

Various actors such as NGOs, the private sector and individuals have shown and proven their contributions in combating and mitigating climate change. These partnerships within countries and beyond can open up environmental possibilities from which we can draw valuable lessons.

Regional structures can offer cooperative problem-solving mechanisms bringing together ASEAN member states to provide our Earth with a breathing space in the midst of choking challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

ASEAN is blessed with rich biodiversity. Millions of tourists from all over the world come to our region to witness and enjoy this richness. Let us help our region protect and conserve its biodiversity. Let us have one region on Earth that showcases the beauty and wonders of biodiversity - let it be ASEAN.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/04/30/earth-day-a-regional-perspective.html

Stampede the result of social injustice

2009-11-02T19:14:00.000-08:00

The exasperating scenes of elderly women gasping for air and space have been beamed into our collective memories and consciousness through the power of the media (e.g. TV and newspapers).

This tragedy has touched a strand of humanity in and among us. The death of 21 poor women in a stampede to get Rp 30,000 worth of alms from a rich family in Pasuruan, East Java, is very saddening.

Who would not be moved by images of elderly women succumbing to these external forces that pushed them to that excruciating end?

They were helplessly struggling, grasping and longing for something that was not theirs. And then, some of them gave up struggling. They stopped grasping and longing for something that was not theirs.

In the end, 21 women lost their lives. For all we know, these women might have been struggling, grasping and longing their whole lives.

What is the value of Rp 20,000 or Rp 30,000?

The elderly women have their own calculations, beyond our standards and economic understanding. They know its worth more than the giver, economist or anyone who has millions or billions of rupiah.

There is no doubt in my mind that what happened last Sept. 15 was violence. It was both direct and structural violence. Direct violence occurs when physical harm is done. Structural violence, on the other hand, happens when harmful conditions are created for some sectors of population which are marginalized and disadvantaged.

Notably, victims of these kinds of violence are normally the elderly, women, children and minorities. Our society today is characterized by unjust and unequal structures that engender and cause violence. When politicians steal money from the coffers of the government, they deprive the elderly, women, children and minorities from adequate and responsive social services.

When employers do not give their workers living wages, they deny the rights of workers to a decent living. When governments favor one ethnicity, religion, class or gender, they deny people of those groupings a fighting chance to be productive and contribute to national development or to work with and for their own governments.

These narratives present systemic violence of societal unjust and unequal structures. Their justification and rationalization may be difficult to ponder, but the existence of these structures could not be denied. One does not have to be a genius to point out the obvious results of these unjust and unequal structures. This is why, evidently, the world is mired and engulfed with exploitation, human rights violations, violence, landlessness and a lack of access to social services.

Even our relationships with others are shaped by these structures. Some examples of these relationships are the unfair labor practices of an employer toward his or her workers; substandard services to our clients or customers; manipulative and abusive treatment of our partners, friends or family members; and a superior view of ourselves compared to others.

What makes a violent structure are these hierarchical relationships and vertical inequalities that tip the balance of power and impede the satisfaction of basic human needs of others.

The gap between the rich and poor is widening. It is not that the poor are not trying real hard to eke out a decent living and extricate themselves from abject poverty. It is that certain societal structures limit their options and opportunities for social mobilization and gainful activities.

While the hierarchical relationships between and among social groups are enduring and strongly embedded in a social system, structural change needs to create social strain, conflict and disequilibrium between and among groups to make the relationships more horizontal.

The Sept. 15 tragedy may be the necessary strain and trigger point to inspire and motivate people to struggle against structural violence. A structural change will entail an action and task that necessitates purposive and cognitive behavior.

The first task is networking -- which links to outside the oppressive structure. Civil society groups can potentially be links for the poor.

Second is political education which can adopt Freire's conscientization (critical consciousness). Education of this kind will bring empowerment in their midst. Third is mobilization which is characterized by a collective action to challenge the unjust and unequal relationships and social arrangement.

We are moved by the death of the 21 poor women, to reconfigure and rethink our own relationships with others -- especially those in need; and to challenge the structures that make our elderly women queue for long hours and sacrifice their lives.

We can not and should not be part of these structures that bring violence to our women and children. We should be building structures that are just and fair, and that make it unnecessary to queue and beg for something that we are already entitled to.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/30/stampede-result-social-injustice.html

Eight years after 9/11

2009-10-26T20:46:00.000-07:00

Eight years after of the shocking 9/11 event and consequent global war on terror waged by the U.S.-allied forces, is the world getting safer today, or more dangerous?

Terrorism has shaken the way we view human rights. The terror sown by the 9/11 incident in New York, train bombings in Madrid and in London, and the resort and hotel bombings in Bali and Jakarta have caused the governments of various states to adopt anti-terrorism and rights-restricting measures that would curb and prevent the threat of or actual terror attacks in their own territories.

And these states which strongly vow to end terrorism and ceaselessly pursue the people who espouse terrorism are known to be the pillars and models of present democratic systems -- USA, United Kingdom and Spain.

In the continuing fight against global terrorism there are rights that have been compromised such as rights to privacy, free speech and movement. Privacy is infringed to enable authorities to discover and trace evidence of terror plots; free speech is limited so as not to inflame and aggravate the ethnic, religious and other emotionally-charged conflicts; and movement to secure suspects into the custody of authorities. Even the rights of sovereign states, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, to self-determination was said to have been derogated in pursuit of this fight against terrorism.

Cloaked by this global fight against terrorism, some governments facing internal issues and concerns have used the "fight" to contain and repress the opposition and anti-government actions, regardless of whether those actions are legitimate or not.

Justifying their actions, governments invoke public good, order and security to override some human rights. In the light of the pressing global and local concerns, the government exercises its authority over individuals to restore order, prevent imminent terror attacks and suppress lawlessness.

In any case, whatever action made by governments should be subject to judicial court evaluations to determine if there is any culpability or abuse of power on the part of the authorities.

In 2003, United Nation's Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a special meeting of the Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee, "Our responses to terrorism as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy.

"Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism -- not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension."

Any government that calls itself democratic is bound to protect, implement and guarantee the rights of its citizens. It is also called upon to institute structures and processes for the adjudication of claims of rights -- particularly if there is a conflict of claims.

These impartial and objective structures and processes will legitimize the democracy of a government. Democratic values must not be inimical to the values of protecting human rights.

The 9/11 moment also changed the status of insurgents, rebel and separatist groups and dissidents to terrorists. National governments confronting insurgencies, separatist rebellions and dissidents have readily labeled and projected these groups and individuals as terrorists -- regardless of their ideological and methodological struggles.

The U.S. has created a list of terrorist groups and even states sponsoring terrorism such as Iran and North Korea. Those on this list must put up with a number of sanctions including assets being frozen or the inability to make loans and financial transactions, etc.

Real or imagined, the threat of terror is in the midst of our daily lives. Whether it is terrorism or government actions which threaten our human rights, as rights-holders we need to be vigilant of our rights.

When the government fails to protect our rights, let us be reminded that governments should guarantee and protect our rights. Our governments must be accountable for our rights as citizens -- with or without a threat of terror.

Our government, and its actions will only be legitimate if we, as citizens, give our consent to be governed. If such consent is dubious and superficial, the government will usually assert its power through violence and rights-restricting measures. Then, it will also see human rights violations as collateral damage for its self-preservation.

After eight years and beyond, the world will only get safer if human rights are guaranteed and protected by the very institutions mandated to do so.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/11/eight-years-after-911.html

Are MDGs Sustainable?

2009-10-24T20:51:00.000-07:00

Taking good care of the planet is a phenomenon that is agreeable to all nowadays. This was brought about by the groundbreaking 1987 Brundtland Report which popularized the term "sustainable development" and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which developed Agenda 21.

Since then, sustainable development has been the buzzword for the past decade and set policy for development planning and intervention. It looks promising that it will encourage global solutions to global problems and aspires to be the solution for global environmental ills.

Unsurprisingly, everyone is charmed by sustainable development. The world was thirsting for a novel development framework when sustainable development burst onto the scene. In no time, politicians were preaching it. Donor institutions and funding agencies insisted in adopting it. NGOs willingly approved and implemented it. Corporations joined the bandwagon of enthusiasts for sustainable development.

However, does everyone get the same message?

With everyone on the same side, who is now against whom? Sustainable development seems to have reconciled the clashing sectors and actors of development. Governments and corporations have co-opted the NGO style and their workers in order to implement their own development projects in certain communities.

They know well that NGOs have more credibility and a better track record of doing development work on the ground. NGOs, in turn, link up with governments and corporations to be more financially viable and more responsive to the needs of the communities. Communities likewise have known many corporations not just through their advertisements and brands, but through school buildings, scholarships, water systems, livelihood projects and feeding programs.

Others call this arrangement a partnership. Some say it is collaboration. Few label it as accommodation. Whatever it is called, the point is everyone is in the act of promoting and implementing sustainable development.

The 1987 Brundtland Report mentions that the basic tenet of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, and in the process improving their quality of life.

For so long a time, development frameworks marginalized the environment as a factor in development discourse. Sustainable development has reversed this. It reiterates the centrality of human beings in development and puts the environment on the agenda of development discourse.

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro laid out a guiding blueprint for a plan of action for sustainable development to be adopted by governments, institutions, NGOs and other interested groups. Many countries including Indonesia incorporated the blueprint into their own national development programs.

The blueprint had an over-arching influence on policy making and policy directing initiatives which dealt with conservation and preservation of the environment and a quest towards sustainable development.

With the wide acceptance and adoption of sustainable development as the key to address global ills, the UN put forward the noble Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to measure the impact of global development efforts and interventions. MDGs are a set of eight remarkable goals to be achieved by the year 2015 and agreed on by 189 heads of states -- including Indonesia -- at the Millennium Summit in 2000.

One of these goals is to ensure environmental sustainability which mandates the integration of sustainable development in the national development programs of countries which are parties to the MDGs agreement.

Year after year, country reports monitor and present the progress of development programs and interventions. Things were moving ahead rather respectably for certain goals such as poverty reduction and HIV-AIDS deterrence when the food and fuel crises hit this year. The crises have reversed earlier gains to an aggravation of poverty and hunger of the world's population.

The poor have been the hardest hit. Governments have tried to mitigate the impact of the food and fuel crises by providing subsidies, but these subsidies are palliative measures. They do not necessarily address the real issues of the poor who possess little economic, political and social entitlements.

After 21 years, sustainable development still faces growing global problems that it aspires to resolve. Seven years from now, MDGs shall have been achieved. Let us see -- or better yet, let us do it.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/05/are-mdgs-sustainable.html

Power sharing or votes?

2009-10-08T02:20:00.000-07:00

What's the use of having elections if leaders can share power regardless of the outcome? Who needs elections if leaders can talk it out and share power?

Elections are a pillar of democracy in which the people have a voice in the political process. An increasing number of nation-states are embracing democracy and elections will be the political hallmark of this century. Democratic governments secure their legitimacy and authority from the power of the ballots and not from the power of their armed forces.

Newly-democratizing states are pressured to hold elections. Aid from the international community, especially the West, is often contingent upon the conduct of elections. This is what happened in Timor Leste, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Relatively new democracies such as Kenya and Zimbabwe conducted their presidential elections to strengthen their resolve for democracy. However, both Kenya and Zimbabwe experienced violence and unrest during and after the conduct of their elections.

Both elections were controversial and contested.

Kenya was able to end its violence and unrest through a power-sharing deal between the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a fellow African, brokered the power-sharing deal in Kenya. It appears that Zimbabwe will follow the same route with the South African President Thabo Mbeki acting as mediator.

Are violence and power-sharing deals expected outcomes of contested elections in new democracies?

Democracy is fairly new to these two countries. Kenya gained independence from Britain in 1963. In 1982, it had one-party rule. It could hardly be said that there was an election in 1992, although the opposition fielded candidates. Only in 2002 was there a democratic and free election where the sitting President Mwai Kibaki won.

On the other hand, Zimbabwe gained its independence from Britain in 1980. Since then, it has only had one leader, the sitting President Robert Mugabe who led the struggle for Zimbabwe's independence.

In December 2007, Kenya had its presidential elections. The incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, was declared the winner. The losing candidate from the opposition, Raila Odinga, cried electoral fraud with accusations of rigging. Consequently, unrest and protests followed in the post-election environment.

Ethnic violence and clashes between the supporters of Kibaki, mainly the Kikuyus, and the followers of Odinga, mostly Luos, resulted in more than 800 deaths and the displacement of thousands of fleeing Kikuyus and Luos.

In March 2008, Zimbabwe held its presidential election which was seen as a fair and free election by international observers. But the vote counting had signs of manipulation and tampering. The opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, received the highest number of votes, but was unable to reach the majority of votes to automatically win the presidency. Supporters of Mugabe with some help from Zimbabwean police and army allegedly attacked and harassed opposition members.

Consequently, a runoff election was scheduled pitting Tsvangirai against the sitting and long-time president Mugabe. Violence against opposition members and sympathizers intensified during the runoff election campaign. This prompted opposition candidate, Tsvangirai, to withdraw from the race.

Thus, the runoff election left Mugabe unopposed. The West branded the election a sham. Some Western leaders even called Mugabe a legitimate president. The United States and the EU imposed sanctions on the Zimbabwean government to pressure Mugabe to institute reforms and stop the violence against opposition members.

Currently Mugabe and Tsvangirai are close to striking a power-sharing deal. Tsvangirai hinted that he is open to being a prime minister with executive powers. Mugabe will remain president and in control of the military. Violence in Zimbabwe has ebbed since the commencement of talks.

The two events from the same side of the world have presented a post-election dilemma for new democracies. After a contested election, violence and power-sharing deals may be the painful pills that a new democracy has to swallow on the way to establishing a stable democracy. They may not be necessary but when they happen, the lessons and experiences can hopefully build politically mature and democratic institutions that are strong, fair and dependable.

But these lessons and experiences are also undermining the legitimacy and function of elections in a democratizing political world. I dread the day when leaders will just talk and decide by themselves who will run the government, marginalizing or denying people's participation in the important political process of democracy -- elections -- simply to decrease the tension and prevent more violence in a post-election scenario.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/01/power-sharing-or-votes.html

ASEAN Citizens, Key to Regional Integration Process

2009-10-06T22:52:00.000-07:00

Coincidentally and significantly, the two most known regional organizations in the world -- the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) -- are currently ratifying their instrumental agreements to bind and integrate their member states more, economically, politically, socially and legally.

The EU has the Lisbon Treaty up for ratification. Its 27 member states must ratify the treaty for it to be in force. Thus far, 19 member states have approved the treaty in their parliaments, except in Ireland where the treaty was subjected to a referendum because of constitutional obligations. Irish voters rejected the treaty, with 53.4 percent of voters saying "no". As a result, the treaty is technically frozen while the other member states, which have not yet approved the treaty, proceed with their ratification processes.

On the other hand, ASEAN, which will celebrate its 41st founding anniversary on Aug. 8, has the binding ASEAN Charter subject to ratification by its 10 member states.

Thus far, Myanmar became the seventh member state to ratify the ASEAN charter joining Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

The Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand have approved the charter, but they have indicated that their ratification heavily depends on the improvement of Myanmar's human rights record. This pronouncement by the three original member states of the 40-year-old regional organization raised doubts on the fate of the charter, which is seen to be vital to the integration and cooperation processes of the region, aspiring to live up to its slogan: "One Vision, One Identity, One Community."

Undeniably, the two regional organizations aim to unite and build a community of diverse peoples into one dynamic system. The processes and effectiveness of unification or union and community building does not come about without the cooperation and sense of ownership of the peoples involved. The Irish vote pointedly stresses this.

Although these regional organizations are intergovernmental organizations, the governments in the regional blocs emanate their power from their own peoples. Without the peoples' consent and will, the acts of the governments can be rendered illegitimate, undemocratic and cannot stand for long in the unforgiving scrutiny of history.

The significance of the role of the peoples in the government cannot be ignored in the integration and cooperation processes in a regional organization. However, it is often understood that these regional organizations are composed of governments run by their own peoples through representative governments. It is assumed that an act of government reflects the will of its peoples or at least the majority of them. Most often than not, the governments have their own mind detached from the peoples' heart.

Both the EU and ASEAN point to a location, position and region on the global map. In human geography, there is a humanist's perspective of a region being a source of identification and meaning. Thus, Southeast Asia and Europe are not simply geographical units, but social constructs as well, where peoples identify themselves and create meanings for themselves.

Now, the commonalities between EU and ASEAN stop there.

The European Union is able to institutionalize formal structures that perform state's functions. Rulemaking infrastructures and institutions have been established to govern the dynamic process of European economic, political and social integration. The peoples of Europe have become EU citizens. Well, that is Europe. That is the EU.

In ASEAN, its Charter states that community building would be established in an ASEAN Community comprising the ASEAN Security Community, the ASEAN Economic Community and the Socio-Cultural Community through improved regional cooperation and integration.

Anthropologically, a community emerges when, among its peoples, there exist meaningful and patterned interactions that provide value and significance to their existence and membership in the community.

Basically, these patterned interactions among the peoples are builders of social institutions. For example, since the founding of ASEAN in 1967, patterned interactions among the leaders of member states have been the discussion of issues and opportunities for collaboration.

The regularity of interaction among member states led to the creation of the ASEAN Secretariat in 1976 to coordinate the implementation and ensure the efficiency of various ASEAN projects and programs. The ASEAN Secretariat has now become an institution.

To broaden a community, enhanced interaction among its target peoples is necessary. This can be done by bringing the target peoples together. And what bring the peoples together, are rituals and cultural presentations of other peoples. As the Secretary-General of ASEAN, Surin Pitsuwan, said, "Through culture, we can bring the peoples of ASEAN closer together."

The contact hypothesis in peace and conflict studies has shown that by bringing peoples together and in contact with each other, tends to lessen the chance of conflict. It also fosters knowledge of other peoples and heightens understanding among the peoples.

Hence, ASEAN peoples must have more opportunities to gather together. One opportunity is coming this August on the anniversary of ASEAN. Thailand will feature its dances and puppetry shows here in Jakarta on ASEAN Day.

With this opportunity, ASEAN is putting the peoples through their culture at the center stage of integration process as a community. After all, it is the peoples that comprise a community and not governments, investments nor development plans.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/04/asean-peoples-key-integration-bid.html

Investigative Report: Truth, Liberation and Moving on

2009-10-05T22:53:00.000-07:00

Post-conflict scenarios are sensitive in context and history. Timor Leste is undergoing that scenario. Indonesia is looking through that same scenario.

By the very name of the commission, the Commission for Truth and Friendship (CTF), I would not pin any hopes on apology, forgiveness, justice, reconciliation and social healing taking place with the findings and recommendations of the commission's final report. However, the uncovering of facts related to the violence before, during and after the referendum in East Timor in 1999 sets the groundwork for any attempt and effort to restore, rebuild and reclaim the losses and damages brought about by the violence.

Those facts are truth. They hurt some people. They also liberate others.

Some people are satisfied with the CTF report. At least for them, truth was made public and confirmed the reports of gross human rights violations in that fateful year of 1999 for East Timor and Indonesia. These people wanted to close the book of that chapter of history. They wanted both countries to move on, (toward what?). Others are concerned of where to go and what's next with the knowledge of truth. The sense of restlessness with the knowledge of truth has taken root and cannot be denied to grow and flourish.

I would not explore the painful part of truth; rather, I would open up the liberating aspect of truth which will burst into positive possibilities for both countries and their people.

It is the possession of the knowledge of truth that will start the processes of apology, forgiveness, justice and reconciliation leading to social healing. All of these processes have sociopolitical dimensions. While it is true that these processes arise mostly in the private sphere, which is mainly a subjective experience, there have been instances where these processes were seen in the public arena, which is primarily sociopolitical in nature.

I heard President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono expressing his deep regret after receiving the final CTF report. I also heard the Pope Benedict XXVI apologizing for the sexual abuses of the clergies in the United States and Australia. I recall the apology of Prime Minister Rudd of Australia for the injustices committed against the aborigines by the Australian government and its people.

These are symbolic and political acts. They are also vicarious ones. President SBY, Pope Benedict XXVI and Prime Minister Rudd are not the ones who committed the wrongdoings. They were acting on behalf of the offenders.

How can forgiveness be given then? Forgiveness is given to real and individual offenders and not to nameless and faceless collectives. Where are they?

This is where the report of the CTF becomes significant in East Timor's post-conflict scenario. The report holds both parties of the conflict responsible for the violence. The leaders and commanders of troops should make the apology on behalf of the troops and militias who committed the atrocities on the ground.

Most often than not, apologies do not come easily because both parties tend to claim to be the victims and not the offenders, and the offenders see nothing wrong in their acts. Those acts, as told, were by the books.

If made, the process of apology demands three things, namely the admission of wrongdoing, being sorry for the wrongdoing and restoring something that was wronged. It is then that forgiveness is possible.

Forgiveness can also be proactive, as in the case of Nelson Mandela. As a victim of brutal apartheid, he famously forgave those behind it and his imprisonment, ahead of the set-up of the Truth Commission of South Africa.

Forgiveness is in the hands of the offended -- victims and survivors of the atrocities. Where are they in this case? Have we listened to their stories?

Along with forgiveness, the destructive feeling and thinking of revenge and bitterness are transformed into trust and acceptance of history, truth and the differences in ideology, ethnicity, religion and class which oftentimes provoke people to commit violence against others.

However, forgiving prematurely may do more harm than good. The readiness and knowledge of what is to forgive are essential to the process of forgiveness.

Another process essential to a post-conflict scenario is sociopolitical justice which is largely about treating an individual or group fairly and lawfully. Any breach in treating an individual or group fairly and lawfully is a form of injustice that has to be rectified and prevented by the process of justice.

There are two types of justice, retributive and restorative. Retributive justice pertains to something that is intended to repay the wrongdoing, while restorative justice refers to something that restores the state of the person or group injured and offended by the wrongdoing.

The CTF cannot dispense justice. That is for a judicial body, an international tribunal or special court created to hear the cases of gross human rights violations. I will not recommend a regular court to try these cases for obvious reasons. The International Criminal Court based in The Hague, Netherlands, is an example of a judicial body that is created and mandated to hear cases of crimes against humanity and the like.

After justice is rendered, the process of reconciliation acts as the overriding and integrative element of processes of forgiveness, apology and justice toward social healing. It normalizes relations between the two parties.

Have there ever been normal relations between Timor Leste and Indonesia?

What I have just presented are the positive possibilities and liberating aspects of truth that we have now in our midst.

Whether they happen or not, I am convinced that truth will settle its weight on a positive note.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/07/24/ctf-report-truth-liberation-moving.html

Violent student protests: A sign of the times?

2009-10-05T21:43:00.000-07:00

Today is neither the best nor the worst of times. But the signs of the times are leaning towards the latter.

We oftentimes see workers, women, farmers, fisher folk, drivers, professionals, urban poor, youth and students demonstrating on the streets and picket lines. Protests are peoples' expressions of their freedom, idealism, struggles and frustrations in life.

Because they are free, they choose to take their grievances to the streets. Because they are driven by an image of what should be, they propose alternatives to the current situation. Because they are struggling, they are pressed to demand their rights. Because they are frustrated, they start to question and challenge the system and regime.

Protests are one measure of a functioning democracy. In autocratic regimes protests are banned and outlawed. Since democracy is the rule of the majority represented by elected officials, influencing the majority through protests is a legal, accepted and sensible thing to do. Protests also signify the desire of people to take part in governance. They represent people's claims to their representative government.

Much has been said about student protests lately. Condemning students' protests as such is to denounce a significant part of our history. What we are now, what we enjoy now, can be attributed to student protests during past repressive regimes, including the colonial years.

Student protest is powered by young people. Studies show that the psychology of young people tends to disregard existing public norms and order. Last month's images of tearing down a wall, smashing car windows and turning over and burning a car are images of a lack of rules and disorder. Other studies show young people can view public norms on law and order as restricting and constraining.

Last week, students saw a metal fence as something that restricted them from the halls of decision-making, the House of Representatives and the State Palace. They saw it as something that had to be torn down to enable them to participate or to have a say in decision-making. The smashing of windows was the demand for transparency.

It was the urge to see what was inside. The turning over and burning of the car symbolized the students' contempt of the current situation. It was also a show of strength and power to demonstrate with their own hands their blazing frustration.

The violence in this specific student protest highlighted the level of their frustration with the existing state of society, law and order. Students usually regard government as representing the context, law and order within which they take action.

In peace and conflict studies, there is a theory known as relative deprivation. It explains violence occurs when a group feels deprived of something another group has. In this case, students almost always feel that they are deprived of their ideals and rights as citizens by their government. The students and elected and appointed officials in the government are all citizens of this country.

However, the House and the Palace have the power to decide on national issues that affect everyone. This power is deprived from the students. They feel the real power and right to decide should be rightfully in the people's hands, their hands. Last week, they simply exercised that power and right.

The violence in student protests can also be a sign of the times, moving to worse times in terms of economics. This will become a political issue if the government fails to act on the expressed need and will of its deprived people.

I dread the day when students will be joined by workers, drivers, women, farmers, fisher folk, professionals, urban poor and the middle class on the streets. It will be massive. And it could change government direction and the future and rewrite the history of the country, just like in 1998.

Or am I reading the signs too far ahead and from too far away? Then, who else will?

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/07/09/violent-student-protests-a-sign-times.html

Waiting for the government to address contemporary violence

2009-10-05T20:58:00.000-07:00

Without understanding the very thing we want to prevent and stop -- violence -- peace will remain elusive.

Aimed to address global violence, the Second World Peace Forum, sponsored by Muhammadiyah, the Cheng Ho Foundation and the Center for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilizations (CDCC) and held in Jakarta on June 24-26, concluded with a number of calls and appeals.

One of which is to return to the basic teachings of one's religion. It is premised in the belief that each religion promotes and spreads peace. Another call is for all religions to play an active role in combating both direct and structural violence through their own communities and groups.

Based on news reports, various speakers at the forum presented a host of forces that cause violence in the world today. One speaker attributed the continuing and growing violence to superpowers like the United States, Russia and Germany, which produce large numbers of arms and weapons. These arms and weapons usually supply the arms and weaponry needs of groups in conflict.

Most speakers followed familiar scripts, saying that religion has a role in preventing and stopping violence. Others said that violence is not a "religious problem". Rather, it has to be looked at as a human rights issue. One related interview pointed out that the politicization of religion causes violence. When religion is used for non-religious purposes, that is when violence occurs.

In the end, there was a unified call and appeal urging religious leaders to highlight common issues that incite violence such as poverty, injustice, human rights abuse and discontent, among others, instead of stressing the differences of belief that divide communities.

Interestingly in the same city where the peace forum was being held, there were violent protests led by students on the streets. Thousands of students were demanding to scrap the order to increase fuel prices and the release of their detained comrades. They were able to pull down part of the fence around the House of Representatives' compound. The tearing down of the fence was a symbolic fall of public order that day. Dozens of protesters were arrested and some properties were vandalized and destroyed. One police car was burned by protesters.

The violent scenes in Jakarta are a replay of what's happening on streets around the world. Lately, the world has seen protests turn violent in South Korea, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Nepal, China and even in European countries. Clashes between protesters and police have resulted to injuries on both sides. Sometimes, opposing protesters collided.

I think protests and responses to protests by authorities and their supporters are forms of contemporary violence.

Does religion play a role in this contemporary violence? Thus far, it does not and hopefully will not.

South Koreans took to the streets to resist a beef-import deal between their government and the United States. The Thais went to the streets to show their opposition to the newly elected government acting as a proxy for ousted former prime minister Thaksin. Indians mobbed the streets to protest soaring fuel prices.

This was the same reason for Indonesians, Nepalese, Spaniards, French and other Europeans to hold picket lines and smash windows of the trucks or cars of those drivers uncooperative with their aim.

Pakistanis toured the streets and burned effigies of President Musharraf to force him to resign and to call for the reinstatement of expelled judges. Tibetans in Nepal gathered to demonstrate their resistance to the rule of China in their homeland. Chinese protesters torched a government building and cars to denounce a ruling by officials about the mysterious death of a student.

What we are witnessing is violence on the streets brought about by political and/or economic dynamics, and not by religion. Protesters nowadays are political and/or economic beings. They are not religious ones.

Protesters demand participatory governance and transparency in South Korea, accountability in Thailand, subsidies and tax breaks on fuel prices in India, Indonesia, Nepal and European countries, accountability and judicial independence in Pakistan, autonomy and/or independence in Nepal by Tibetans, and liability and the end of corruption in China.

Since the contemporary violence that we have now is political and economic in nature and consequence, it can apparently be addressed by the government. Unfortunately, the government is a party to the contemporary violence.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/07/02/waiting-government-address-contemporary-violence.html