Home 
Articles Platform for Building Consensus for Communal Action
Articles Platform for Building Consensus for Communal Action | Platform for Building Consensus for Communal Action |
|
The “Guidelines for Communal Discernment and Action to Address the National Crisis” recently issued by the Philippine Jesuits received mixed reactions, some triggered by the somewhat erroneous reporting of its contents by the media. Without dwelling on the specifics of the paper, I wish to share my views on how it can be used by individuals and groups that want to respond to the problem of corruption besetting our country through concerted political action. The interested reader is referred to the website of the Philippine Daily Inquirer for the full text of the guidelines. First it should be made clear—as the Jesuit Provincial Fr. Danny Huang, S.J., emphasized in his letter endorsing the guidelines—that the document is not a “statement” or a “manifesto” of a “Province position or stand.” Primarily intended for Jesuits and Jesuit institutions in the Philippines, what it offers is an analysis of the present national situation and of the positions and courses of action taken by various groups, seen through the lens of Catholic moral and social teaching. Thus, a unique contribution of the document is the explication of the “nonnegotiable” principles that form the basis of the actions that are presented later for the consideration of groups and individuals. The nonnegotiable principles offer a tool for personal values clarification. But equally important, it also serves as a platform for building consensus for collective or, in the language of the recent statement of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, “communal” action. If people do not and cannot agree on the basic principles, they cannot be expected to agree on the courses of action to be taken, assuming that everyone acts rationally on the basis of their beliefs and convictions. Thus the nonnegotiable principles are a critical part of the document that deserves reflection and discussion in its own right. It cannot be taken for granted that all well-meaning and reform-minded Filipinos would agree with these principles and the relative importance of certain principles vis-à-vis others. For instance, there is likely to be easy and broad consensus on the values of truth and accountability, the first two principles cited in the document. But a principle that can be somewhat contentious, especially when applied to the present context, is the value of strengthening democratic institutions. There is no doubt that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her government should be made to account for many acts widely perceived to have jeopardized the common good and the integrity of our institutions. But when do we resort to the “EDSA [People Power] way” of changing a government given its tendency to erode people’s confidence in institutional processes and install leaders with mandates that are constantly open to challenge? This is but one of many dilemmas confronting us at present. Most of the existing institutions are flawed, and powerful interests always find a way to manipulate them. Yet in a situation of great division among the people, only agreed-upon rules and mechanisms can resolve conflicts. Judgment on the culpability of public officials needs to be based on evidence. There must be agreed-upon rules and mechanisms to produce this evidence and establish guilt. Precisely because the guidelines are meant to be an aid to discernment, those who would use them are invited to clarify to themselves where they stand on the principles presented. Secondly, the guidelines are intended to lead to responsible and effective action. An action is responsible when people own up to it because they themselves chose to act in that particular way, mindful of its consequences. The action should not be taken because it is prescribed by, or received the imprimatur of, some authority as expressed in some public statement, pastoral letter or manifesto. The action is responsible because people claim it as the product of their own decision, inspired by their convictions. This is the reason that the last part of the guidelines offers not a definitive call to action but a range of possible actions deemed consistent with the assessment and principles earlier presented. Within this context, the creation of an Independent Counsel, the initiation of a genuine impeachment process, advocacy for pro-transparency and electoral reforms, and the organization and engagement of the youth and the basic sectors, among a few others, are cited as actions worthy of support. At the same time, the guidelines unequivocally state that doing nothing to hold the government accountable in any way, or taking a “business as usual” stance, is unacceptable. If the guidelines are to serve their purpose, they should lead to a vigorous and sincere search for actions that are not only morally grounded but are also feasible and effective. There is a plurality of principled political actions now being advocated. Adherents of democracy should be pleased that such pluralism exists. But constituencies of presently diverse positions will have to consolidate behind some common actions that can effectively put pressure on incumbents and institutions to shape up. Definitely a process of debate and consensus-building will have to take place to arrive at such collective actions. This is a political process that lies outside the purview of the guidelines. Shepherding this process is the role and responsibility of citizens’ groups and political movements. They will have to find a way to agree on common actions that are most effective, doable and responsible. In the end, it is these groups and movements which will bring about the desired actions and changes. Write Comment
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6 |
||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|