The present debates on ethnicity and self-determination are tied up to the issues of Ancestral Domain, distinct cultural identity, progress and development, and participation in governance at all levels.

Rightly or wrongly, ethnicity, cultures and self-determination are issues that cannot be legislated. There are three strands that converge in the discussion of ethnicity:

First is the issue of ethnicity as identity phenomenon, that is, as the expression of group identity/identification. Second is the issue of ethnicity as culture. And third is the issue of ethnicity as strategy, that is, a strategy to get political and economic advantage.

The first level of understanding ethnicity refers to character, quality or condition of group membership based on identity. Usually this consists of a consciousness of group belonging that is differentiated from others by symbolic markers (including cultural, biological or territorial) and is rooted in bonds of a shared past and perceived shared interests.

Whether we agree or disagree, the fact remains that for most people, identity matters. Shaping that ethnic and sectarian Identity involves a loyalty to a community which is perceived as a community of 'cultural sameness'. Ethnic identity employs markers of language, race, religion and/or homeland. It includes among others the depiction of self as a community of common ancestry or common kinship. Such beliefs may or may not be true. They are powerful not because they are true, but because they offer a sense of emotional security to individuals who would otherwise feel lost.

Ethnicity is a term with a clear core meaning, but with gray-area boundaries. Religious communities 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 vis-à-vis some other community.

Ethnicity is conceptually distinct from civic/political national (or supra-national) identity, which does not rely on cultural sameness or myths of common kinship/ancestry; but which instead relies on visions of a common future. Empirically however, understandings of the nation as an ethnic community, or as a civic community, may intertwine or be used to camouflage each other

There is a widespread assumption (instrumentalism, political economy, economics and other factors) 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.

There are serious inadequacies with this view of ethnic conflict on various grounds, e.g.:

(a) That individuals pursue moral and ideological goals alongside their interest goals. Indeed it is the moral and ideological goals that define the interest goals.

(b) That ethnic communities might sometimes begin as aggregations of individuals with common interests, but they develop as moral communities (i.e. communities sharing moral values, not just communities sharing common interests) which 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 world.

Coexistence and Multiple Identities or: Why is there Peace Sometimes?

The intensity, potency, content and causal role 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 inhabit. "Interactive communities" are networks of social interaction which extend beyond face to face communities, and which are the arenas within which individuals function in pursuit of their material, power, status, moral, ideological or other goals.

These interactive communities might be at locality, regional, language group, religious group, state, or other levels. These identities are fluid and overlap, to the extent that the groups within which people interact are similarly fluid and are integrated with each other.

It is the overlapping or intertwining of various identity communities, and the fact that individuals subscribe to various identity communities, which promotes social cohesion and inhibits ethnic confrontation.

Conflict (tensions between identities)

(a) 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-econ change. There are numerous case studies that evidence that different factors influence identity so as to generate identity tensions.

(b) In extreme cases individuals become anomic and then seek security in absolutist and exclusivist identities, directed against a demonized 'other'.

(c) Identities therefore 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. Lastly, they involve conflicts within each ethnic identity community as to the 'true' meaning of the identity label (militants and moderates within the ethnic us, accusing each other of betraying the true us).

A study on minority groups is of international significance. There is scarcely a society in the world today that does not have one or more minority groups within its borders. The minority groups are, often, distinguished by their language, religion, race and culture. The emergence of minority groups within one’s border is brought about by the collapse of borders and frontiers as globalization continues to impact modern societies everywhere.

The myth that globalization will, in time, eradicate cultural differences towards a more homogeneous culture does not work. The emergence of minority consciousness is becoming more wide spread despite globalization. In a way, this fact tells us that ethnicity and religion shall continue to be with us, perhaps even until the end of time.

The sooner we realize that the world is composed of plural societies, the better we can come into terms with the good as well as bad effects of globalization. People will continue to hold on to their own religion, culture, language and ways. Understanding plural societies inevitably leads to the realization that minority groups are also plural.

Common elements among minority groups

Given the pluralism among minority groups in societies, there are, however, common elements that they all share wherever they are. Some common elements are identified for our easy understanding.

First, the minority groups feel, in large measure, to be “disprivileged.” Modern societies claim that legislation has, more or less, removed discriminations against minorities. However, attitudes and habits of discriminations are still realities minority groups still confront in their daily lives both in work places and in their communities as well. This is exacerbated by problem of language, education, religion and employment opportunities for the minorities.

Second, the minority groups feel dominated and oppressed by the majority population. Most often, the minority groups, because of their distinct race, language, religion and family ways, are treated as “aliens” at best and “weirdo” at worst, regardless of years of stay in the host countries.

Third, the minority groups feel the pressure to change their ways to be accepted. Their “refusal” to be assimilated into the dominant majority culture is one of the reasons for their remaining “foreigners”. The other reason is the inability of the majority culture to recognize and respect differences in communities. There is an unspoken rule in social behavior that requires the minorities to conform to be accepted. Yet, those who conform still confront the reality of being treated as second class citizens. There seems to be very little room to recognize diversities, especially when these differences do come from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Fourth, groups that do not fit into the national self-image are seen as a source of trouble or insecurity. These groups can be deported anytime by the state’s power of expulsion. There is the accepted praxis that minority groups are “tolerated” or are only there on “sufferance” of the majority. This springs from the argument that territory is the homeland of the nationality. The link between territory and nationality is further strengthened by the use of word implying a parental relationship: “Fatherland”, “Mother” Country. The funny thing is the fact that in the Americas, the indigenous peoples are considered even below the level of other minority groups, yet historically they were there first!

Possibilities.

Theoretically, a policy of integration of the minorities into the dominant culture is possible. Ethnicity, for all its centrality to the minorities’ sense of themselves, is not a constant. It is negotiable and it is quite possible for the minorities to maintain their ethnic identities and be active partners in nation building. In the United States, the Irish and the Italians, to name a few, are able not only to maintain their distinct cultures but also to contribute their “uniqueness” in the actual shaping of the American culture. This is a concrete case where the dominant culture (the white Anglo-Saxon and Protestant) has allowed other national cultures (Italian/Irish and Catholic) share fully in its privileges. Whether this type of integration is possible for non-white and non-Christian remains to be seen.

On the whole, globalization, including the all embracing education and the rapid advances in information technology, will impact the new shape of power, economic and social relationships in societies. As societies and communities and institutions become more knowledge based ethnicity and its eventual integration will become less problematic. For one thing, national culture and nation state will completely be undermined as borders and frontiers collapse and as people, trade and information move more freely and quickly.

The other possibility is to recognize the fact that minority identity continues to persist on practical consideration. In a highly urbanized setting, minority identity is linked to network and customs, which are important for survival in hostile surroundings. Moreover, minority identity provides network of relationships and a source of protection which individual finds difficult to give up without exposing them to great risks.

In many places of the world the minority groups are considered the new emerging sectors that seek recognition. They feel the pressures of the majority group to conform yet they continue to be treated as aliens or second class citizens. The minority groups are further exacerbated by the phenomenon of migrations (legal and illegal). The movement of peoples across borders and frontiers has resulted to new minority groups in the once upon a time colonial “mother” countries. These new minorities are disprivileged in our modern societies. Often they do not enjoy the protection of the law and are easy prey to abuse and discrimination.

The new wave of anti immigrant sentiments, especially those coming from former colonies, presents a new threat to social integration that respects diversities. The feeling that the immigrants whether legal or illegal steal job and opportunities from the “citizens” is simply not true. They simply become ready escape goats for the failures of societies to respond to the needs of citizens.

In fact, the contribution of migrants to the increasing wealth of the host countries cannot be underestimated. The menial jobs as well as the domestic chores that the new migrants assume free a big segment of modern societies, especially women, for more enterprising and productive activities. A national strike of these workers would wreck havoc in the normalcy of many work places in our modern societies. Yet, their contribution to the national wealth and growth is never factored in. They are unappreciated and are often threatened by violence, abuse and at times deportation.

This fact is very close to the heart of millions OFW. The Philippine government should go beyond the rhetoric of declaring these OFWs as the nation’s heroes. The Department of Foreign Affairs should take the lead in lobbying for a just and more humane conditions for them. Minority and migrant workers have rights and they should be protected by law!

A new look at our relationship has become a compelling urgency today as wars, new militant radicalism and “terrorisms” confront nation states, faith-communities and peoples of goodwill. There are several slogans that try to capture the threatening realities we live in. There is the now famous slogan, “Clash of Civilizations” that the late Prof. Samuel Huntington referred to in describing the political, ethnic and religious conflicts that have intensified in the post-Cold War era.

Corollary to this “Clash of Civilization” formula was the post 9/11 US Government’s slogan, the “Axis of Evil,” with its concurrent “War against Terror.” Then there is the emerging slogan, “Arc of Crisis” referring to the geographical coverage of the manifestations of militant Radical 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 “contemplated” as the 2nd Front in the “War against Terror.”

Radicalism and their more 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. By whatever names they go by, they invoke the NAME of God as their rallying/battle cry in complex and many violent struggles and conflicts within that “Arc of Crisis.”

What are the stakes and where do we situate ourselves…?

In a more materialistic consideration for the West and for all industrialized countries, the first 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 second urgent stake is the reality 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 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, and on perceived or real threats and terrorism coming from the militant brand of Islam.

But to people of goodwill, the continued clash and misunderstanding exacts heavy toll in our attempts to be faithful to the message and our living tradition of respect and tolerance. The blood of our brothers and sisters, more particularly of the non-combatants, hounds us as witnesses to Life, Justice and common humanity as peoples of God.

Failures of Secularist Leaders

Materialism and individualism have become the defining characteristics of our modern culture. Moreover, the secularist leaders in the modern world have failed miserably to establish a legitimate, effective public order and to adequately address the profound socioeconomic disparities in wealth in most 3rd world countries, including the poor in the developed and industrialized ones.

The disillusionment with the secular and modern world is coupled by the arrogance of power by the powerful and rich nations that have alienated the poor and the struggling nations not only from the community of nations but also from that common humanity to which all are bound.

Having a new look at our relationship…?

Developing a new eye to understand our relationship is not an easy task. But we do have no option if we are to meet as persons of faith that are identified with a religious community. In a familiar homogeneous group, a serious look at the pluralism in the community is relatively new in our modern world. There are no ready-made rules on how to develop this new look yet there are experiences that may guide and help us as we continue to journey together on this unfamiliar and still largely un-charted road.

The first lesson is an honest and sincere openness to understand and grow in our perception of realities and of the “other” as different yet neighbors belonging to the same community and then the willingness to act accordingly. Often times, we were schooled to define realties and the “other” on our terms and language. We can learn to grow and understand what our neighbors believe and cherish including their fears and aspirations.

The second lesson is the recognition and respect that we need to accord to one another notwithstanding our differences. We show this respect by allowing each one to articulate and define our many and differing identities yet belonging to the same neighborhood and community.

The communication and self-revelation take place in an environment of TRUST and genuine search for common grounds of fellowship while respecting our diversities and integrity of individual and collective identity. We discover the common grounds by becoming real partners and stakeholders in our neighborhood and community. Often we achieve this through commitments resulting from our critique of the earth and of the relationships between peoples, communities and nations. Through this new look, we, slowly become aware of being “stakeholders” as well as participants in the drama and tragedies of life in our communities.

It is, often, said that conflict resolution will only be possible at the right moment. No doubt, the right moment is hard to predict. It can occur anytime and suddenly.

Today, there is a general call for the resumption of the peace talk in Mindanao. People are tired of war.

There are three major factors that contribute to the appropriateness of the resumption of the peace process between the GRP and the MILF.

The first is the human tragedy of internally displaced persons. Their continued stay in evacuation centers is not an option. More than ever, the parties to the conflict should cease fighting for the “evacuees” to be able to return to their farms and re-build their lives and homes once again.

There are unresolved political issues that need to be addressed. But the return of the evacuees to their farms must not be held hostage to the resolution of the unresolved political issues. The resolution of political issues belongs to “another” table that should continue to seek creative ways to break new grounds to overcome the present impasse in the political talks.

The second factor is the realization by both parties that a lasting settlement in Mindanao cannot be won by war. Military solutions, even the unlikely military "victory" do not result to peace. It is quite obvious that military force cannot solve political, economic and cultural issues that are at the roots of the Mindanao conflict. Military solutions have been tried and the best they have produced are but fleeting truces among the combatants. This realization is the major factor for the GRP and the MILF to re-engage in the peace process.

Moreover, the political leadership both in the national government and the MILF appears serious in their resolve to come up with enduring political settlement of the long drawn conflict that has been the major factor in the underdevelopment of Mindanao.

At present, both the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front are committed to the peace process, and yet they are NOT engaged. Everybody hopes that the peace process should resume notwithstanding the obstacles that the MOA-AD has engendered.

The GRP and the MILF, in principle, have remained committed to the cessation of hostility resulting from the GRP-MILF Agreement on the Security Aspect that was signed in 2001. Similarly, both parties continue to acknowledge the Agreement on Development and Rehabilitation Aspect that was signed in 2002. The major mechanisms of these two agreements are still in place, though others have lapsed and their terms of reference need to be reviewed and renewed.


The third factor is the awareness that both protagonists, at the present time, need a lot of confidence building measures. This knowledge is something positive to chart creative ways and paths to rebuild the trust between the two parties. To date, there are no movements to come closer though there is the guarded openness to the resumption of the peace talks.

Malaysia remains the facilitator of the peace talks. In times when peace talks run aground, the facilitator usually takes on a more active role in bringing the two parties to the table once again. Malaysia’s political future is also in transition as the new Prime Minister takes over in two to three months.

No doubt, there are great obstacles to peace. Foremost is the historical bias as well as the history of conflicts in Mindanao. Wounds on both sides are, indeed, deep. They continue to exercise tyranny over the spirit of the people of Mindanao. Relations between and among peoples in Mindanao are, largely, shrouded in mutual suspicion and mistrust. There remains the challenge on either side to rise above the general ignorance and bias that have, for years, characterized the relationships between Christians and Muslims alike.

The general unrest in the region is further exacerbated by the recent spate of lawlessness like kidnappings, terrorism and plain and simple banditry in the region. When people become insecure, even in their homes, the ground becomes fertile for all sorts of fear. And fear leads to militant and armed “vigilantism".

Now that we have come at a critical juncture in the peace process, there is a sense of urgency to dare break new ground and re-begin the peace process. We need to renew our commitment to the peace process. Are we ready to do so…?