IN A world and cultures that have been said to celebrate and privilege the I-me-mine orientation, we have frequently been reminded that "it's not about you", and that we need to focus on others, their interests and well-being. Mainly an admonition against inordinate self-centeredness that leads to selfish and inconsiderate behaviors, "it's not about you" has also been used to soothe feelings of hurt by say, rejection and confusion.
I thought about the second use of "it's not about you" in light of the continuing divisions in Philippine society, and reflected that maybe it IS about us, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Spotlighted by the recent round of election-related differences, the divisions have congealed around specific issues over which debates have since been raging: the plan to bury Ferdinand Marcos Sr. at the Libingan ng mgaBayani, the war against drugs, and misogynism in public discourse signaled by language and perspectives about women.
The common denominator is President Rodrigo RoaDuterte who has championed or been involved in the issues. Thus, the reflex reactions to frame the issues as being for him (also, being against the oligarchy, and for true change), or against him (also being yellow, or "disente").
Unfortunately, at this point the pro or anti Digong framing is simplistic, and will actually intensify shallow thinking, and continuing divisions.
If we are to meaningfully move forward in positive directions, and not end up becoming politically jaded, we have to try and reframe the issues and the debates.
The hero's burial for Marcos has been articulated as a case of "moving on versus anti-authoritarianism". The drug campaign has been described as "anti-criminality versus human rights". While the ways in which key women have been spoken to or about and treated in public primarily by President Duterte, and increasingly by other members of his Cabinet, have been viewed as "cultural differences versus anti-misogyny".
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with moving on, anti-criminality and recognition of cultural differences, as with anti-authoritarianism, human rights and anti-misogynism. But as has been shown, arguing only from the logic of these standpoints may have earned political points for the respective parties time and again but have not resolved the issues and the divisions.
Is there room then for discourse that will settle the Marcos burial issue without privileging the oligarchy and excusing martial rule, mindful that every time we sing the National Anthem we claim to be a people that "sa manlulupig di (ka) pasisiil"? From the northernmost tip of Luzon to the southernmost of Mindanao, we are peoples who cannot abide by tyranny; and going by the Basi Revolt and Bangsamoro war against Marcos, we are prepared to wage big wars and small daily wars against tyrants, whether they be colonizers or domestic ones. And if it really is just a question of labels, and we can easily rename a piece of land and not let it mean anything, why do we bristle at elevator signs that say "dogs and Filipinos not allowed", and why are we risking war with a big, industrialized, and nuclear weapons-capable country over a cluster of rocks?
Are there ways of addressing both criminality and human rights, recognizing that index crimes and human rights violations affect everyone but more so poor and marginalized communities? That it is not a simple case of upholding one cause to the denigration of the other, but that the challenge lies in effectively pursuing one commitment in a manner that does not undermine the other, because to do so would actually be to weaken the very foundations of our future? Imagine, what would have been the bases of the social diversity that we celebrate today if our ancestors had brought wholesale into the colonial and authoritarian discourse that characterized indigenous peoples and the Moro as wild tribes, infieles, and brigands who operated outside the law and harmed settler communities.
Can we take to task specific language and behavior that stereotype and demean women (and in so doing, also men), without being perceived as attacking the President who has also supported gender equality initiatives? Is it not possible to be open to the "tinud-anay nga kabag-uhan" social project, and still object to double-standards in how women are treated and portrayed because both are important and the latter is actually part and parcel of the former?
I pose these questions in the hope of generating reflection and discussion, and with the hope that my temerity would not earn the dismissal that I am merely, and ineffectually, being accommodating.
The hero's burial for Marcos, the war on drugs, and the catcalling of women and public shaming of a woman elected official for allegations that would have only earned a shrug had it been a male official involved, and the debates around them are not only about Duterte, and who supports him or not. They are also about who we think we are, what we actually stand for, what we can live with, and what we have to continue working on.
Even though many of us thought we have already done so by passing laws, signing international agreements, creating institutions, and initiating programs, projects, services, we obviously have not dealt with the issues in ways that enable Filipinos regardless of their station in life to recognize and connect to the fundamentals, develop the necessary socio-politico-cultural maturity to deal with contradictions, and practice with others as well as pass on citizenship, discourse and conflict management skills.
But it is never too late to address issues that are about us: different peoples sharing, and struggling in, one uniquely situated archipelago. That we realize that the issues that confound us today are at one level about us, and that this also inspires commitment and hope rather than only dejection and despair, well, those are not bad things.
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com