Today, we are seeing the rise of new militant radicalism and “terrorisms” confront nation states, faith-communities and all peoples of goodwill. Several slogans capture the threats and danger we live in. There is the now famous slogan, “Clash of Civilizations”, that Prof. Samuel Huntington refers to in describing the political, ethnic and religious conflicts that have intensified in the post-Cold War era. Other examples are the post 9/11 labels like “Axis of Evil” and “War against Terror”. We hear also the expression - “Arc of Crisis” - referring to the geographical coverage of the manifestations of “militant” Islam – extending from the Middle East to Europe, the Balkans, Chechnya, the Caucasus, the newly emerged Central Asian Republics, North African States – Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia; and to South Asia and Southeast Asia now being considered as the 2nd Front in the “War against Terror”.

Religious radicalism and its militant manifestations are not a monopoly of one single faith community. They go by different names and they have common goals and features that threaten not only the security of our communities but more so the integrity and our fidelity to the Word of God and the traditions we have received through the years. The tragedy in this phenomenon is the fact that by whatever names the so called “radicals” assume, they invoke the NAME of God as their rallying/battle cry. No doubt, they give religions bad names as they use the name of God in their many violent struggles and conflicts within the “Arc of Crisis”.

From a more materialistic consideration for the West and for all industrialized countries, the real critical stake is the fact that in the so called “Arc of Crisis” are located vast oil and natural gas reserves and points of pipeline delivery. The said “Arc” is home to approximately three-quarters of the world’s oil and gas reserves (Djerejian: 1996). Any development in the Arc impacts the energy supply, energy security and indeed pricing! In short, it impacts the very lifeline and preservation of the present status quo.

The other stake is the fact that the continued and prolonged conflicts in the Arc unsettle, to say the least, the stability not only of countries within the Arc but also regions thus further slowing economic reforms, development and “democratization”. This is very crucial in addressing not only the issue of growth and expansion of trade in our globalized era but also the issue of poverty reduction and development worldwide.

Likewise, the absence of a timely forward movement (a sort of coherent “road map”) in the peace processes within the Arc, particularly in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, would have serious implications on the increase/decrease of radicalism/militancy. Rightly or wrongly, it is widely perceived that the real threat and terror to the west come from the militant brand of Islam. The same is true with the peace processes in the Southern Philippines. The continuing ambiguity in the implementation of the 1996 Final Peace Accord between the Government and the MNLF coupled by the present “impasse” in the GRP and the MILF Peace Talks, no doubt, unsettle the growth and development plan of Mindanao.

To the peoples belonging to different living faith-communities, the slogans and the continuing misunderstanding they spawn exact heavy toll on the attempts of genuine reform movements to be faithful to the message of the very faith-traditions that peoples profess. The blood of our brothers and sisters, more particularly of the non-combatants, hounds us as witnesses to that Life and Path to God shown us through love of God and neighbors.

There are discernable common features that identify the “militant radicals” from genuine reform movements in the history of our faith-communities. The first that comes to mind is their “fanatic” devotion to remake/refashion the world and community by strictly and literally applying their beliefs with the use of violence. Second, their polemic and rhetoric that dominates their discourses are full of venom against their perceived enemy. The “other” is, often, presented as devil or Satan incarnate. Hatred and anger resulting from perceived injustice become the keynote of their relationship with other faith traditions.

The militants claim that they simply respond to the perceived “arrogance” of power by the secular and modern world associated with the West beginning with the Crusades, followed by the conquest and centuries of occupation during the long period of colonialism and now the war against terror. The present geopolitical policy of pre-emptive strike that shapes the “war against terror” following 9/11 is seen and understood as west’s display of “arrogance of power”. And the west is perceived as secular and Christian.

Are we seeing the specter of the militants dominating the relationship between and among ourselves? God forbid!!! The truth is that religious militants including the much feared al-Qaeda are in tne minority… though it is very assertive and violent minority. Then we need also to articulate the fact that militants are NOT monolithic or forming a sort of international front (al-Qaeda or otherwise) against the west. Thus, there is a real need to identify militants in their various shades from the legitimate religious reform movements that desire, only, to articulate a more authentic religious identity both in private and in public sphere.

Following the tragedy of 9/11, there is always the danger of falling victims to over simplistic responses or reactions to religious militants, specifically the Islamic brands. The US and its allies (of course, this includes the Philippines) have launched the now famous slogan, “War against Terror”. The slogan without depth becomes a new reductionism that leads not only to a simplistic response to a very complex reality but also to certain myopia in taking the challenges of religious militants on account of the present prevailing of paranoia. Time and again, we need to emphasize that religious militants in all religions do not constitute the new “ism” confronting the West or threatening world peace.

There is the danger that the Cold War of the recent past is NOW being replaced with a new war between Islam and the West (the clash of civilization?). The Crusade is long over! The “war against terror” and the “coalition of the willing” approach often are interpreted in the Muslim world as new Crusades against Islam. Thus, it is crucial to differentiate in words and deeds (policy and commitments) the mainstream Muslims and “legitimate” Islamic movements on the one hand and Muslim individuals and groups that among others advocate for “terrorism” and violence, on the other.

It is good to keep in mind that the majority of the militant religious movements, including the Islamic ones, are rooted on the perceived or real injustices and poverty. The disillusionment with the West and the US in particular has material basis. Many people claim and believe that the singular US policy, which leads to Islamic radicalism and its anger, is its continued all-out support to Israel in the whole Israel-Palestinian question despite the many UN Resolutions to the contrary. On this one particular issue, the US is, tragically, always pitted against the entire Muslim world. (By the way, the Organization of the Islamic Countries emerged following the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Sinai and Gaza post 1967 Arab-Israeli War.)

With the continuing occupation of the West Bank and the absence of forward movement specifically in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process and in other “Muslim homelands” within the abovementioned “Arc of Crisis” make the more radical groups become more popular in the Muslim world and they attract adherents that may pose serious implications for the moderates – individuals and nations. The same is true for the western world as shown by the tragedy of 9/11. The failure to address these burning issues “satisfactorily” provides the fertile ground for a militant brand of religions.

The overall positive reality in the world of Islam notwithstanding the existence of the radicals is the fact that the great majority of Muslims and Islamic countries are moderates. No doubt, they can serve as positive forces and potential “bridges” not only between the Muslim masses and the moderates but also between Islam and the West. In the final analysis, it is truly winning the minds and the hearts of the masses. And this is never won in the battlefield, even when couched with glorious slogans like “Operation Iraq Liberation/Freedom” or “War against Terror”. In fact, battlefields simply produce more martyrs and thereby further reducing the option to one, that is, more violence.

We are living in interesting times, to say the least. We hear several calls and warnings as if writings on the wall and we need to decipher them soon else we all perish. There is the new imperative brought about by climate change. We continue to watch with great dismay the seeming uncontrollable spiralling cost of fossil fuel. Then with globalization we are witnessing with our little participation a global revolution that involves not only you and I but also the future of humankind. At first glance, we are fascinated by the rapid advances in technology and the rapid movements both of trade and peoples across known frontiers and borders. With this, a new horizon and a new consciousness are beginning to emerge, which point to knowledge “explosion” and an opening into the limitless cyberspace. I often wonder whether these new writings on the wall are actual invitations not only to look bigger but also become bigger.

Will the emerging new consciousness spawn a new macro and mega identity? Are we seeing a birthing of a new identity that is beyond our ethnicity and religions? Among social activists, we hear more and more people speak of being global citizens. They emphasize that everyone in the planet has a duty to speak and act for humanity and human rights. And as global citizens, we need to get involved in the eradication of repression everywhere (China, Burma, Sudan, Philippines, etc.). We need to denounce and bring to justice people who have committed and continue to commit, with impunity, crimes against humanity (stories of genocide continue to shock us). Yet, they are true, because humankind continues, ironically, to be “plagued” by the residue of divisions, fragmentations and conflict that have characterized, in a special way, the past two millennia of our human encounters.

There are two sets of movies that beautifully capture these two orientations mentioned above. While Star War Series and other Space Travel movies point to the limitless cyberspace even beyond our planet and galaxy, the other type of movies like Jurassic Park and other ancient mythologies, continues to pull us down to the narrow confine of “ethnicity”, “geography” and “territoriality”. The former gives us a glimpse of the limitless expanse of our imagination and dream. They invite us to go beyond the limiting confines of territory and geography. The latter provides for the “grounding” of our conflicts and war.

There are two powerful symbols that describe these two perspectives. The first one is what I called the “transit paradigm”. “Transit” is the instrument used mainly by surveyors to delineate territory and geography. While “transit” has a long view, it always returns home to concrete and specific point or area and space. The other is the “telescope paradigm”. “Telescope” is the instrument used not only to see the “beyond” but also to bridge us to that reality beyond.

The “transit paradigm” marks and delineates our boundaries and limits. It tells us “what is mine and what is yours”. Translated in our present discourse, this means the delineation of what shall be inside or outside my abode or community or region. Applying the same paradigm to peace negotiation, this paradigm debates over what barangays, towns, provinces and body of water need to be included or re-attached to ancestral domain? Often, our debates sound like the usual discourse of real state realtors negotiating over this piece of land or that piece of body waters and the price involved in the transaction. It is rather eerie to hear people debate heatedly and sometimes go to war on this subject when we are supposedly living in an era of “no borders and frontiers”. Transit paradigm is border/frontier-based hence it carries inevitably a culture that is also land-based identity. Naturally, ethnicity and nationality which are geography based become important in this discourse.

With this paradigm, we also understand the theories and postulates about conflicts that are resource-based. The more strategic the resources, the more intense the conflict becomes. Attempts have been made to map the various conflicts in the world according to strategic resources that are found in specific geography. The conflict in Sudan, besides ethnicity and religions, is also about oil and water – two very important strategic resources in Africa and the world. This makes us wonder whether the conflict in Southern Philippines is also resource-based, that is, beyond the thin veneer of ethnicity and nationality.

A resource-based conflict goes beyond the confines of ethnicity and religions. At the heart of this paradigm is the concept of “ownership” of the resources. And when one speaks of resources, the bottom line is the question who, ultimately, benefit from these resources? Division of resources and the spoils of war have divided peoples and communities belonging to the same ethnicity and religion, even individuals from time immemorial. This debate is further exacerbated when peoples are divided by concepts like majority vs. minority, dominant vs. dominated, included vs. excluded and empowered vs. disempowered.

The last millennium saw countless territorial and geographical and religious wars in Europe. In the last century alone, two world wars were fought over geography. Thirty years ago, peoples of Europe strongly think along border lines – Italy, Germany, France, etc. Twenty years ago, they fought and died over ideological differences of East and West symbolized by the Berlin Wall.
While wars and conflicts are still fought in other parts of the planet, like Asia and Africa, and part of the former East Europe, a new consciousness is emerging. This consciousness leads to the understanding of mega or macro nationality – European or continental and the near future it would be planetary and galactic identity.


This new development, coupled by science fiction and non-fiction like the Star War Episodes, tells us of becoming “citizens” of the Universe while recognizing our planetary or galactic origins. I call this new development - “telescope paradigm”. There is the galaxy or the universe or the cosmos out there and we are only tiny, yet important, speck in here. This paradigm requires NOT the culture of isolation or exclusivism but the culture of connectivity and all-inclusiveness. In a smaller yet understandable concept, we are seeing, today, the collapse of borders and the emergence of mega nationalities and identity. While the resources are basic what we are seeing is the survival of the planet and our galaxy. Again in understandable terms, this paradigm speaks of issues like global warming or climate change, care for the planet, dialogue and fellowship. It introduces a new discourse that claims the need to evolve a sort of mega nationality – like ASEAN or continental identity – Asia!

There are two big events that further consolidate the emergence of this new paradigm. The first is the phenomenal “melt down” of glaciers somewhere near Greenland. A few months ago, religious leaders and scientists under the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople made a pilgrimage to Greenland to see the impact of climate change. They “came, saw and got conquered…” The threat to the planet which was previously reckoned as hundreds years from now… is no longer true. The survival of the planet, without sounding melodramatic, rests on few years - twenty years or less! The new configuration of our planet earth would happen in our own time and generation. In fact, this will soon change our understanding of wars, conflicts and survival.

The other event, which came earlier than the “pilgrimage”, is the granting of the Nobel Peace Award to Al Gore and the UN Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. Again the recently concluded Climate Change Conference in Bali invites peoples and nations to look beyond the simple confines of their borders and frontiers. Whether we like it or not, climate change will change all these borders and frontiers. In fact, we do not know, as yet, the full impact of this climate change to humanity, our planet and the whole planetary system. This reality is forcing us to speak no longer of this planet… but of the planetary systems and galaxy!

I believe that while we continue the peace talks, we should begin locating the solutions to some of the intractable, identity-based conflicts beyond the limits of the present geopolitical landscape. What truly matters is not the question of this piece of land or that piece of body water – not the Muslim Mindanao nor the bigger Mindanao, not this archipelago or that group of islands – but the survival of this planet and humankind.

It is in the light of the preceding discourse, that I take serious cognizance of the paramount importance of the seeming “uneventful” convergence of initiatives both in the UN and in emerging global fora. They not only have introduced the discussion and debates on climate change at the highest level of the UN but also had table a Summit Conference on climate change. The imperative of planetary survival and the urgency of forging new alliance for environment remain formidable challenges both to each member-state (religious, secular or otherwise) of the UN and to all. There is an urgent task to connect our national survival to planetary survival that must unite all our effort and strivings beyond the narrow confines of ethnicities and nationalities.

Faced with this formidable global challenge, there is, yet, another trajectory that invites humankind to dialogue and fellowship. In the month of October 2007, we saw, for the first time, a UN General Assembly debating peace and suvival and the importance of interreligious dialogue and intercultural cooperation. The urgent call from these two seeming “uneventful” initiatives is an invitation to solidarity and partnership among the citizens of the planet earth.

I shall reiterate the urgency of the challenge of harnessing all our energy in the cause of peace and the survival of the planet. This is formidable task and not for the faint of heart. Not only is this work is intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally draining, but it involves significant risks as well. Vested interests develop around every conflict that wants to see that conflicts continue, and a number of inspired peacemakers have paid the ultimate price for their efforts. The examples of Mahatma Gandhi, Anwar Sadat, and Martin Luther King, Jr, are the better known. And among the living, we point to people like Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, etc. Despite the risks, however, and as climate change so powerfully illustrates, ecological engagement is a challenge we ignore at our peril.

We need to be able to decipher the writings on the wall. I believe that we need to get our acts together behind the call for planetary survival and interreligious dialogue and intercultural cooperation in building a global community and global citizenship that is not only more peaceful equitable and just but also ecology friendly that would ensure our survival and the planet earth.

The present debates on self-determination and ancestral domain are based on ethnicity that anchors itself on distinct cultural identity.

Rightly or wrongly, ethnicity and cultures are issues that cannot be legislated. There are several strands that converge in the discussion of ethnicity. I will highlight only three that I consider very crucial in our present debates.

First is the issue of Ethnicity as identity phenomenon, that is, as the expression of group or community identity and belongingness. The primal source of identity is by family, clan and ethnicity. Identity matters. In compass, it is akin to the North Star. Lose it and we have nowhere to go.

Second is the issue of ethnicity as culture. For awhile, I thought that globalization, which is characterized by the collapse of borders and frontiers, would put the issue of ethnicity in the background as a globalized identity emerged based on capital and trade. I was wrong! Worldwide, people go back to their roots and ethnicity. Globalization with the culture that it has engendered is faceless and in continuous flux, which has made people more and more insecure.

Third is the issue of ethnicity as strategy, that is, a strategy to get political and economic advantage. In many countries both in the developed and developing world, ethnicity is a new strategy of political consolidation and an effective means of building constituency.

In the Pre-Conquest time, anthropologists and historians tell us that the archipelago was composed of autonomous and diverse baranggay, ili, bansa/bangsa. During the centuries of Spanish colonization, we witnessed a sort of interplay of integration and differentiation manifested in the establishment of pueblos and mission stations. During the American Period, we were subjected to a process of Integration and Assimilation forming one national body politic. And this was continued in the Post 1945 Philippine Republic: Isang Bangsa…

“Isang Bansa” or the Republic of the Philippines is relatively a NEW political consciousness of groups belonging to diverse ethnic communities that are differentiated by symbols and real markers that include among others culture, biology and territory. The pull of ethnic identity is rooted in bonds of shared past and perceived shared interests (Burgess, M. Elaine. The Resurgence of Ethnicity: Myth or Reality? Vol. 1 no. 3 July 1978).

The Philippine Republic and the so called national unity are VERY YOUNG political constructs (For Nationalists, it began with the Bonifacio Rebellion in 1896 and for others, it was the post 1945 Philippine Republic). On the other hand, Ethnicity has a history of at least a thousand years or more. When a new political construct collides with a far deeper and more ancient source of identity, the new construct gives way. Examples of this are many both in West and East Europe. The nationalities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would NEVER give way to the UK identity that is a much younger construct. So also is true with the Catalan and the Basque nationalities will NEVER allow themselves be integrated or assimilated into the Spanish identity notwithstanding its antiquity being rooted in the consolidation of Iberian Peninsula under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabela. The rise of “Ethnic Republics” after the collapse of the Soviet Union is yet another phenomenon in our contemporary times.


In our case, what people, often, refer as “regionalism” is basically rooted in ethnicity. The common observation that regional unity is far stronger than national unity is not only sociologically true but also biologically, territorially and psychologically true. This is so, because ethnicity involves a loyalty to a community which is perceived as a community of “cultural sameness”, which employs markers of language, race, religion and/or homeland. In political language, ethnicity depicts itself as a community of common ancestry, destiny and common kinship. Such beliefs may or may not be true. But they are very powerful not because they are true, but because they offer a sense of emotional security to individuals and communities that would otherwise feel lost, especially in this era of globalization and secularity.

Moreover, confusion is almost inevitable; because the concept of ethnicity has a clear core meaning but with “gray-area” boundaries. The confusion is exacerbated when religious communities begin to function as “ethnicity” insofar as they develop as communities believing that they share some relevant cultural sameness and use symbols of common kinship or myths of common spiritual ancestry, and begin to demarcate themselves as an “us community” (kami) vis-à-vis some “other” community (sila). The latter is becoming more prominent in the Southern Philippines with the birth of the MNLF and the MILF.

There is a widespread assumption from a more secular viewpoint (e.g. political economy, economics and materialism) that inter-communal conflicts are essentially rivalries for scarce resources. This implies that individuals with common material interests (seen as objective/real) employ ethnicity because it is a useful tool for the pursuit of their economic and power interest-goals. It is the interests of the self, not the identity of the self, which is at the core of the dispute. Here enters another equally complex concept – the Right of Self-Determination.

It is interesting to note that ethnic communities begin to assert their right to self-determination as moral communities (i.e. communities sharing moral values, not just communities sharing common interests). These are constructed by individuals interacting with each other, in order to offer the security, identity and moral certainties which individuals need in order to function in the bigger or macro community.

Coexistence and Multiple Identities is a fascinating development with the mergence of nation-state in the 18th century. The concept of nation state is also a young political construct. It is not something written in stone – unmoved and unchanged. We know that stone and rock do break! Thus we have today a complex phenomenon like “Pilipino, Kristiyano at Tagalog” rolled into one or Pilipino, Muslim at Maguindanao also rolled into one! Each of the components in the equation has its “pull and push”.

The intensity, potency, content of ethnic/sectarian/national identity varies greatly. One starting point is that individuals tend to develop multiple identifications/loyalties to the various interactive communities that they interact. If you are government officials in the ARMM, the interplay of ethnic, sectarian and national identities pose no big deal. No doubt, crucial in this multiple identities is the recognition of the "arenas” within which individuals function in pursuit of their material, power, status, moral, ideological or other goals.

Conflict (tensions between identities). There are various factors that lead individuals to act violently according to their ethnic or sectarian identification. Some of these factors are related to power struggles between elites, external actors, state interventions, and socio-economic changes. There are numerous case studies that evidence that different factors influence identity so as to generate identity tensions.

In extreme cases individuals become “fundamentalists” and then seek security in absolutist and exclusivist identities, directed against a demonized “other”.

Identities play two roles. First, conflicts of interests, (which would otherwise be minor or emerge merely as class or economic rivalries) will tend to become intense and potentially violent, when they generate situations where individuals with multiple fluid identities feel they have to choose one identity against another. Second, once a society has become divided into antagonistic identity-communities (each side having developed conflicting identities and ideologies), this itself becomes a cause of conflicts of (ideologically perceived) interests, so that conflict is exacerbated or renewed. Thus, “ethnic conflicts” are “identity conflicts” because they are confrontations between groups competing not just for material advantage, but also for the defense of the moral values that define their identity. Further, they involve tensions for individuals who feel forced to choose one identity against another.

On another vein, ethnic identification is seen as the result of efforts by underprivileged groups to improve their lot through collective mobilization or conversely the efforts of super groups to preserve their privileges by exploiting the subjected groups. I wonder whether this is the case that defines the relations between and among Southern, Central and Northern Philippines. But whatsoever, things, paradigms, relationship and balance of power and economic wealth have to change if we want to remain isang bansa – one nation!

Mindanao has, for the past years, been a land of conflicts and truces for many Filipinos. News of war, bombing, evacuation and kidnappings are but a few examples of the realities that continue to unsettle and destabilize all attempts to develop the land and its many and colorful peoples.

Mindanao is and will be, for years to come, in the eye of the storm. Political Peace settlements and ceasefire agreements shall remain in papers until the basic issues that spawn the storm are squarely addressed.

Root Causes of the Conflict

The classic threefold fundamental issue continues to haunt both the Southern Philippines and the central government in Manila. These are Poverty, Political Exclusion, and Injustice (real or perceived).

On Poverty. A former German Chancellor and one of the architects of “realpolitik” in Europe, Willy Brandt, once said: "While hunger rules, peace cannot prevail."

Today, a growing worldwide consensus has been reached that recognizes poverty as "an unacceptable human condition”. In fact, poverty is considered as number one cause for the lack of peace not only in Southern Philippine but also in the world over. From the Bangsamoro communities in the ARMM and indigenous peoples of the hinterlands of Mindanao to the workers' organizations in the urban centers and the peasant communities in the country sides, people recognize the necessity to take action against poverty. Poverty has spawned structures and social system that lead to inequality and mass social injustice. Our commitment to Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of reducing poverty to half by 2015 is far below the mark.



This failure is very evident in Mindanao. In the economic front, the Mindanao relative to Luzon and the Visayas has the lowest per capita income. It has the largest poverty incidence and it has the least access to physical and social infrastructure as well as basic services. Politically, Mindanawans have no access to state power as planning and decision-making are done in Metro Manila, the center of state power. And in the social sphere, there is no binding force that unites the Mindanawans except the fact that the island has been shortchanged in terms of its share of basic services and facilities from the national allocation in the past decades.

Based on Government’s Minimum Basic Needs (MBN) indicators, of the 20 poorest provinces, 14 are in Mindanao. Of the 14 poorest provinces, the four provinces of the present ARMM are found in the bottom. This reality brings to the fore that even in poverty, there are two levels - the poor and the poorest. By all MBN indicators, the places that are identified as conflict areas are also the poorest. This alone shows the intimate relation between peace and poverty. People try to unravel the relations akin to a hen and egg Gordian knot. Suffice to say that poverty is by nature a major cause of instability in any society. With the amount of marginalization of the peoples and their homelands and the poverty as measured by MBM indicators, are we still shock to hear the growing clamor for politics of secession.

The hope of development looks dim if further viewed by the lack of public and private investments in Mindanao, notwithstanding its contribution to the economy, particularly in the area of agriculture and mineral resources. No doubt, the absent of massive investments for Mindanao’s development and infrastructures exacerbates the volatile situation in Mindanao.

Politics of Exclusion. When we speak of exclusion, what immediately come to mind is Mindanawans’ real and active participation in national governance. It is high time that peoples of the Philippines recognize the following:

• The Republic of the Philippines is not the National Capital Region;
• The Philippines is NOT a MONO culture or MONO religion. There are many and varied ethnic groups, communities and religions that constitute the peoples of the Philippines;
• Unity and social cohesion are based on trust and recognition & respect of the differences and diversities among our peoples.

Even a superficial look at the different branches of government, one immediately notices the “token” presence of Mindanawans in general and Muslims and Indigenous people in particular in our national Offices, Commissions and Bureaucracy. We keep on speaking of national unity and “isang bansa” but in real terms these slogan means “their” (kanila) national unity and “kanilang bangsa”. We have no Mindanawan or Muslim presence in the Supreme Court. We have a “token” presence in the Appellate Court. The same is true in other branches of government. We have a “token” presence in the Cabinet and Government hierarchy, Constitutional Commissions, Bureaus, AFP/PNP Generals, Government Corporations and Financial Institutions, etc.

The Politics of exclusion becomes a glaring fact that pesters social cohesion when measured in terms of ethnicity, religion and cultures. Peoples of other faiths and cultures cannot identify with a so-called national identity and unity that is based on the culture and religion of the majority. Is it intolerance in the name of secular state to be denied of a fundamental right to organize family and community according to their own set of beliefs? The majority people whose culture and belief are “constitutionalized” and “legislated” would NOT notice the “imposition”. Yet peoples who constitute minority and who are, often, “excluded”, the same laws and constitution indicate the tyranny of the majority and the exclusion of the minority.

Inequality. When people talk of inequality they refer to the justice system and inequitable distribution of the fruits of the earth. Whether real and perceived, inequality is a major source of instability in our community. The perception that Mindanao’s wealth and rich natural resources do not redound to the benefit of the peoples of the land will always fuel politics of secession not only Mindanao but in all parts of the globe. The understanding that Mindanao is a resource-rich land to be exploited and its people are cheap labor for hire does not augur well for long-term peace and development.

When we speak of the justice system and the rule of law, Mindanao is an example of a near collapse of system that administers justice. First, the scalawags both in the AFP and the PNP are thrown in Mindanao. Justice system and judges in remote provinces are rare. Lawlessness like kidnappings, drug trafficking are at its worst. Then the perceived collusion between the lawless elements and law enforcers is the ultimate blow that almost makes Mindanao as a veritable basket case!

With the realities of poverty, politics of exclusion and inequality, are we surprised why Mindanao remains a very fertile ground for rebellion and secession?