There is the usual assumption that the elimination of economic inequality for certain ethnic group in multiethnic societies will eventually greatly reduce ethnic tensions. Our neighbors, Malaysia and Indonesia, give us two differing examples of multi-ethnic societies with potential for social conflicts. Although in both countries, the Chinese minority population has suffered from discrimination and intermittent violence, Malaysia, over the long haul, has a better record of managing ethnic conflict than Indonesia.

A study of two countries (James V. Jesudason, 2001) shows that economic explanations such as greater wealth of the Chinese and cultural explanations, such as religious divide between the groups, do not fully account for the ethnic conflict. Instead, it is necessary to consider the internal relations within the ethnic group in explaining conflict.

In both Malaysia and Indonesia, the government’s capacity for group mediation in society, especially the way political leaders respond to challenges of politics of inclusion affects the nature and outcome of conflict. Ethnic peace is to a significant degree dependent on government’s responsiveness to the root causes of the social cleavages in the community.

A responsive government creates an environment in which individuals enjoy mobility. People regardless they belong to the majority or minority population can obtain decent jobs, and they are able to meet their basic educational, medical and housing needs. The state has an important role in changing discrimination and injustice that the minority population feels and perceives perpetrated by members of the majority. Wherever the state responsiveness has been weak, segments of the majority group as in Malaysia and Indonesia, have perceived the state as a tool of the Chinese, leading to attempt to scapegoat and attack the minority group.

The countries in the region that have experienced the sharpest drops in growth are those with divided societies and weak institutions for managing conflicts. Conflicts have in recent years, been a major obstacle to development in Asia and the Pacific. Sad to note that the Philippines is now considered a classic case of divided society and weak institution notwithstanding the slogan of “strong republic”.

In many respect, conflict is the result of poor governance. If all sections of society can participate in decision-making and development, and if institutions for such participation are in place, emergence of violent conflicts can be significantly reduced. It is true that the roots of conflict can be traced back to history during the formation of states, but the way various social and ethnic cleavages are managed, and the way natural resources are divided spell the difference between manageable conflicts and explosive ones.

We need not re-invent the wheels in dealing with our social cleavages, particularly in Southern Philippines. There are well-established measures that respond well to societal cleavages. The top in the list is good governance through improved accountability, predictability and transparency. These are key elements that empower the state to resolve differences in ways that are both fair and seen to be fair.

Second are the participatory processes that are important in building social cohesion. Definitely, there is a need to expand participation of all stakeholders not in peace making but also in projects that promote constructive interfaces between public and private sector. A classic example of non-participatory peace process is the peace talks in Southern Philippines. While Government and MILF trade accusations of reneging commitments as embodied in the consensus points on ancestral domain, the stakeholders are practically blank on what are those consensus points.

Third is the urgent need to decentralize decision and policy making in the country. With the National Capital Region as “de facto” the Republic of the Philippines, the other regions are inevitably relegated to the margin. The operative words are “decentralization” and “subsidiarity”. We have a LONG way to go, because NCR and the highly centralized government do NOT surrender their perks and prerogatives without a struggle.

Fourth is the cooperation and partnership between and among Government, Civil Society and the Private Sector (business sector). These three, no doubt, are key players in the management of the social cleavages in the society.

The question often asked in many fora on social cleavages is the social cost of the conflict. Conflicts can have high economic and social costs. Everybody recognizes the tremendous negative impact of conflict on development. Conflicts have drained the country’s funds and energy that should have been devoted to the improvement of public welfare and economic development.

The roots of conflict are multifaceted and complex, involving not only ethnic and religious opposition, cultural differences, colonial history and ideology, but also economic factors such as poverty and issues of governance due to inexperienced or distorted administrative and judicial institutions. Social scientists have identified three major sources of conflict: poverty, political exclusion and inequality. These three causes are also the underlying issues in the lack of social cohesion in society.

Tragically, the Philippines is a text book case of what NOT to do when confronted by management of social cleavages. By the standard of the well-established measures, the Philippines is nearing the level of a “basket case”! Tsk Tsk Tsk!