David “Danny” Martinez, the book’s author of the same title above gave a presentation at Stanford hopefully to stir the growing debate about creating a different State formation than what the Filipinos have experienced so far. Given that he had only 15 minutes to condense the message of his 514 page book, not much was delivered to enlighten the audience about why partitioning is needed, how it can come about and what the outcome will be.
These are important questions for Filipinos in the U.S., questions that, if one cares about the obligatory pyschological and economic remittances that has been invested through time, would raise terrible self-doubt and devalueing of this complex relationship that is engendered by diaspora. For in the reconstitution of the Philippine body politic into Martinez’s proposed 5 “nations”, the dismemberment of the historical entity called the Philippines is at once dislocating and disillusioning. One might ask where is “home” now? Do you return to your father’s nation which is perhaps Visaya or to your mother’s nation which is “Cordillera” or “Bangsa Moro”? Or given the dislocation and the disillusionment, do you still want to come “home”. Assuming one does want to come home, the clarity of vision afforded by a bird’s eye view does not mirror the realities on the ground.
In fact, it is very much blurred and the boundaries are not very clear. It is true that it may be possible to demarcate “nations” into ethnolinguistic categories – Visayan, Tagalog, etc. especially as late as in the ’50s and ’60s. But the expansion of communicative technologies, fascistically recognized by Marcos and who coupled it with prestige infrastructure projects, has unintentionally developed a functional common language based partly in Pilipino, the local dialect, and Filipino English. The widespread and to some extent, addictive acceptance of txt messaging by cell phone has further blurred the importance of English as a privileged language of communication. Txt messaging language has become the quintessential lingua franca for popular communication. There are very few communities that have not been invaded by this communicative phenomenon. Thus, in spite of colonial policies that institutionalized minoritization of the indigenous communities of the Philippines, and in spite of the ethnocentric socioeconomic policies enforced by the Manila government, Filipinos decided with their feet, lured by easy communication to seek better opportunities. The Philippines has a long history of internal migration and once the border has been reached, the ocean beyond did not faze them. Given this cultural dynamic and the ever deeper invasion of transactional and communicative technologies, it will not be long before the “nation” will have adopted a functional language to interact with the other “nations”. They have to. The choice is to become isolationist, perhaps as a “Talibanic” state that foresakes any foreign influence, or as fragmented survivalist Tasaday-like communities living on the outskirts of the ‘nation’. And what about those who for whatever reason have a distate for his/her ‘nation’? Will these propel many others who will vote with their feet and migrate to greener, pleasurable pastures like Mindanao and the Visayas?
What is missing in Martinez’s discussion especially in the book, is the absence of the notion of ‘land’. Without a notion of ‘land’, there is no notion of ‘soul’. Take it or leave it, the notion of a Filipino Motherland is a historical fiction, the country was named as a matter of accidental discovery. Fortunately, the conquistadores settled on honoring King Philip of Spain and did not, with some twist of conquering cruelty, entered the country in world cartography as the Islas de Ladrones. While the Philippines existence is a historical fiction, its ‘soul’ , collectively as a colonized people, and uniquely as ‘indigenous’ sentiments, are palpably real and derived from the toil, struggles, blood, sweat, and victories over unwanted histories inflicted upon this land and it inhabitants by colonizers and its agents.
If the function of a nation state is to control and monopolize land and inherently, the resources therein human and natural, the partitioning of the Philippines will trigger a massive territorial fight. Affixing territory, especially in the indigenous regions of Cordillera and Mindanao , where notions of land ownership is radically different from the Manila’s Anglo-Roman notions of property ownership will be contentious. If pursued peacefully, it will be a prolonged legal process. Remember that it took Manila one generation to finally recognize the autonomous indigenous regions. If pursued extra-legally, redrawing territory will be bloody. And access to weapons of great destruction has never been as easy as it is now. Many Lumads will attest to this eventuality. And this does not include territories legally or illegally-gotten by corporations and powerful oligarchies.
Granted this can be resolved–heaven forbid, peacefully, there is the question of nation building. There is perhaps one presumed benefit from this partitioning, in that maybe the so-called modernized, catholicized communities, might learn about sharing, identification with the land, conservation of natural resources, and community decision-making –characteristic qualities of indigenous communities that has proven to be sustainable, in spite of Manila’s interference in their destinies. Having lost their relationship with the land, the elites of Tagalog and Visayan nations would be as fractuous, struttingly arrogant, status driven and rely on the remittance economy. The Bangsa Moro, for lack of land resources will, as have been their practice in the past, strike for alliances with fellow Muslim states for support.
One therefore would have wanted from Martinez’s book to have an inkling of the future and there are many examples of cooperative efforts that have sustainable community development programs existing in spite of Manila’s interference and overlord tendencies.
It seems easy enough and tempting to breakup something, some crockery, or a piece of machinery, but the task of putting it back together is extremely difficult. We have a proverb that describes that approach: “Bato bato sa langit ang tamaan, huwag magagalit”. To endorse the break up the body politic of the Philippines, regardless of the many flaws that history has endowed upon it is a serious matter, with serious consequences if not irresponsible. Some countries who have experienced Balkanization still have not emerged from the chaos and devolutionary effects of such breakups, raising the specter of ethnic cleansing and random violence. One should not wish these upon it own people even in the name of revolution.
There are many reasons for the failure of the Manila government and the officials that run it. In time, it will collapse under its own weight and incompetent governance. There is time still however, to strengthen the local governments whose leaders are closer to the land and people to develop alternative strategies that mitigate Manila’s plundering tendencies. But this require leadership and a following of people with integrity who understand that their future is not with Manila but with where they are right now. A non-Manila centric economic and cultural development should be pursued and a wider confederacy of local goverments established to foster interprovincial trade and exchange of resources. Once Manila becomes irrelevant, decentralization would have naturally occured and a new democratic body politic will have emerged emanating from the ground and the cultural traditions that sustain it. Until then, let us thread quickly, yet softly, but let a drop of calamansi fall on the festering wound that is the Manila body politic. The pain is sure to awaken those who slumber in content after having plundered their piece of paradise.
Next: What is there to do?
