Thursday, August 21, 2008 Editorial: Learning from the public
AFTER fierce gunbattles in North Cotabato, more fierce attacks were launched in Lanao del Norte and in Maasim, Sarangani Province. Indeed, residents of the affected areas in North Cotabato have reasons not to quickly pack up and go home as directed by the military, even with the assurance that the rebels have already been cleared from the area.
The residents know too well that the conflict does not end just because the military said it has. They've been to so many gunbattles and evacuations, they know better.
Thus, there is too the greater concern about the anger, fear, and resentment generated or fired up anew in the hearts of the people, more than just the number of casualties of war. After all, the battle is not just about the number of dead bodies. Rather it is about the "once-persons" who are now dead, killed by somebody, and through that act has created more enmity than just one dead person.
This is the perspective that is barely touched in reporting the gunbattle. But we know well enough that the guns in this battle are but the manifestation of a deep-seated enmity. The anger, the resentment, the hatred implanted in the hearts of all those who had to flee, or those who had to fight back is what's keeping the fires of conflict going. And this is where the solutions should focus.
This is where disciples of conflict resolution would push the so-called public peace process -- the process of bringing together in a systematic dialogue the people from conflicting groups to probe what it is they are in conflict with or for.
Contrary to the government-rebel negotiations, the conflicting group here is not the military and the combatants, but the public -- the rebel followers and the communities they live in and the situations that have fanned the enmity in their hearts.
But this dialogue can only come from the people themselves, in which the government help only on the gathering part, because there is only so much faith people have in government: in a lot of instances in Mindanao, the presence of government can only fan further enmity.
We've seen these in the harmony generated by non-government organizations in their work for peace. That's the very reason why the Bishop-Ulama Conference has stayed the course for so long, along with other peace organizations. It will thus help a lot if government, especially the military, will not be constantly branding these peace groups as rebels, leftists, or militants.
The past weeks have shown us how deep the resentment has gone, or remains. The least that government should do is not be too condescending or suspicious about groups that seek to intercede to bring peace. Peace, after all, is not the monopoly of government.
If peace advocates do tend to be critical of government, that is because they are more concerned about the "once-persons" who are now dead and the anger and hatred that each gunburst activates and each dead person elicits, rather than the number of bodies on the government side as against the rebel side.
In fact, peace is the birthright of everyone, Mindanaoans included. And there is only so much that government can do, especially because in this part of the world, the arm of government in those conflict areas are dressed in military uniforms and go around bearing guns.
City Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte has often said it over and over in his almost two decades as head of the city, dialogue must go on non-stop. Dialogue here is not just about official Philippine government-rebel peace negotiations, but a public peace process, and both should work in complementary ways.
