The much-awaited presidential election in Honduras finally took place today. There are high stakes riding on this election, namely, “a chance for Honduras to advance beyond the political crisis and regain international legitimacy and access to much-needed aid,” said James Creagan, former U.S. Ambassador to Honduras. It would mean ending a five-month constitutional crisis that began with the ouster of then President Manuel Zelaya who sought to extend his term through a referendum rendered illegal by the Honduran Supreme Court. It would also determine whether the election results would convince the international community to recognize the winner and provide the newly elected government a legitimate stature. As it is, countries in the region, with the exception of the US, Costa Rica, and Panama, have stated that recognizing the outcome of this election would be tantamount to endorsing a process of removing a duly elected president by a “military coup,” as what they alleged the Honduran military did in ousting Zelaya last summer.
I don’t know why Hondurans have to worry about the international community’s non-acceptance of their democratic process. Honduran democracy should march forward with or without the endorsement of the international community. The only real and true test of Honduran democracy is whether every single vote cast by every single Honduran translates itself into a form of consent that empowers a government to rule in his or her interest. Hondurans, every single one of them, are the only source of sovereign power, a power that they share equally with one another through a representative government that they empower to represent their interests. The one-man, one-vote principle in any constitutional democracy translates itself into a representative government whose leaders are chosen by the enlightened consent of its citizenry.
This is a good constitutional measure by which the international community should judge whether the political process in Honduras is democratic or not.
Meanwhile, three cheers for Hondurans for showing the world that they are indeed faithful guardians of their constitutional democracy!
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Mindanao Massacre
I’m sure every Filipino’s sensibilities (not to mention their sense of justice) were offended by last week’s horrific killing of at least 50 people (including journalists and lawyers) in what appeared to be a tribal war between two powerful Muslim families in Mindanao over the filing of a candidacy for the gubernatorial race by Vice Mayor Ibrahim Mangudadatu, representing the Mangudadatu clan, against the incumbent, Andal Ampatuan, Sr. of the influential Ampatuan clan. World leaders, foreign journalists, and international organizations workers were also quick to condemn what happened.
That's why it was baffling to read in this Philippine Star article that some Filipino Muslim groups would rather raise "the possibility that top government officials may be involved in the massacre in Maguindanao to pave the way for emergency rule in the country.” According to Amina Rasul, chair of the Philippine Council for Islamic Democracy, “some Muslim groups are not convinced that the Ampatuans should be held solely responsible for the killings. . . “The conspiracy may involve the national government,” Rasul said.
Given the mounting evidence to the contrary, such assertion is absurd and irresponsible. It deflects the blame from those who are otherwise guilty of these heinous crimes. It does not serve both truth and justice. It is also clannish and myopic. It is playing politics as usual, Philippine style.
Amina Rasul was a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) fellow. USIP at one time underwrote the US policy towards Mindanao.
What happened last week reveals the political dynamics in these communities and the clannish nature of Mindanao politics. If those engaged in the upcoming peace talk are hoping that transferring power and resources to the Filipino Muslim leadership will resolve the Muslim conflict in the country, they are in for a rude awakening. For as long as these leaders are governed by their oligarchic interests (and religious indignations), they will use that power against the national community and against each other.
That's why it was baffling to read in this Philippine Star article that some Filipino Muslim groups would rather raise "the possibility that top government officials may be involved in the massacre in Maguindanao to pave the way for emergency rule in the country.” According to Amina Rasul, chair of the Philippine Council for Islamic Democracy, “some Muslim groups are not convinced that the Ampatuans should be held solely responsible for the killings. . . “The conspiracy may involve the national government,” Rasul said.
Given the mounting evidence to the contrary, such assertion is absurd and irresponsible. It deflects the blame from those who are otherwise guilty of these heinous crimes. It does not serve both truth and justice. It is also clannish and myopic. It is playing politics as usual, Philippine style.
Amina Rasul was a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) fellow. USIP at one time underwrote the US policy towards Mindanao.
What happened last week reveals the political dynamics in these communities and the clannish nature of Mindanao politics. If those engaged in the upcoming peace talk are hoping that transferring power and resources to the Filipino Muslim leadership will resolve the Muslim conflict in the country, they are in for a rude awakening. For as long as these leaders are governed by their oligarchic interests (and religious indignations), they will use that power against the national community and against each other.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
An Afghan Initiative
It is heartening to know that anti-Taliban militias have sprouted in different parts of Afghanistan, “prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban,” so reports the New York Times in this piece, As Afghans Resist Taliban, U.S. Spurs Rise of Militias. It has also encouraged American and Afghan officials to spawn the growth of other armed militias – under the plan “Community Defense Initiative” -- right on Taliban territory in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan.
This is encouraging. For one, the initiative comes from the Afghans themselves. Taking responsibility for their own security means that they are beginning to have a moral clarity about what is at stake in this war, namely, not to allow the Taliban to rule their country once again. A Taliban rule would mean perpetuating a way of life that is steeped in ignorance, falsehood, and religious myths. The Afghans also know that a Taliban comeback would mean allowing a cruel, autocratic rule to prevent them back from pursuing a life of dignity, peace, and well-being.
But the article also alludes to potential dangers under this plan: the militias could turn against the Afghan and American governments and also against each other in a culture where warlordism is part of the country’s social infrastructure. These are legitimate concerns. A practical solution lies in establishing institutional checks on these militias, at the community, national, and even international levels. In the NY piece, the US says that it will go about this by keeping the groups small and limiting "the scope of their activities to protecting villages and manning checkpoints."
But more should be required of these militias. They should be linked to institutions that could control both their conduct and activities effectively. At the community level, for instance, their militia activities should be linked to familial duties and obligations. They should be persuaded to think that what they are doing is for the good of their families and communities. Their mothers, wives, and daughters should be co-opted in terms of organizing them into economic associations or small business enterprises, or providing them with education and health care opportunities. If this happens, their welfare now becomes linked with the goals of the militias to rid their community of bad elements. This is not a new idea, but implementing it will probably yield effective results.
At the national level, the Afghan government (as mentioned in the article) should link these militias with the Afghan national police and perhaps put them on their payroll to make them accountable for all their actions. And at the international level (also mentioned in the article), Americans and other international groups will provide the economic and security resources.
My underlying cause for optimism, of course, is the beginning recognition on the part of these Afghans that the good must prevail, and that they must fight for it themselves.
And on this Thanksgiving season, special thanks goes to the Special Forces -- those unsung heroes who do make things happen.
This is encouraging. For one, the initiative comes from the Afghans themselves. Taking responsibility for their own security means that they are beginning to have a moral clarity about what is at stake in this war, namely, not to allow the Taliban to rule their country once again. A Taliban rule would mean perpetuating a way of life that is steeped in ignorance, falsehood, and religious myths. The Afghans also know that a Taliban comeback would mean allowing a cruel, autocratic rule to prevent them back from pursuing a life of dignity, peace, and well-being.
But the article also alludes to potential dangers under this plan: the militias could turn against the Afghan and American governments and also against each other in a culture where warlordism is part of the country’s social infrastructure. These are legitimate concerns. A practical solution lies in establishing institutional checks on these militias, at the community, national, and even international levels. In the NY piece, the US says that it will go about this by keeping the groups small and limiting "the scope of their activities to protecting villages and manning checkpoints."
But more should be required of these militias. They should be linked to institutions that could control both their conduct and activities effectively. At the community level, for instance, their militia activities should be linked to familial duties and obligations. They should be persuaded to think that what they are doing is for the good of their families and communities. Their mothers, wives, and daughters should be co-opted in terms of organizing them into economic associations or small business enterprises, or providing them with education and health care opportunities. If this happens, their welfare now becomes linked with the goals of the militias to rid their community of bad elements. This is not a new idea, but implementing it will probably yield effective results.
At the national level, the Afghan government (as mentioned in the article) should link these militias with the Afghan national police and perhaps put them on their payroll to make them accountable for all their actions. And at the international level (also mentioned in the article), Americans and other international groups will provide the economic and security resources.
My underlying cause for optimism, of course, is the beginning recognition on the part of these Afghans that the good must prevail, and that they must fight for it themselves.
And on this Thanksgiving season, special thanks goes to the Special Forces -- those unsung heroes who do make things happen.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Shari’a and Decency Laws in Sudan
How should one dress up decently in Sudan? According to the country’s decency laws imposed by the Islamist ruling party, to be decently dressed is for women not to wear a pair of pants, not to show too much wrist or ankle, not to let a woman’s head scarf slip. To do so would merit public flogging (either with a leather whip or a bamboo cane). Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese journalist, was about to be subjected to it had it not been for international pressure and open support from men and women in her country. In defiance, she continues to fight Sudan’s decency laws, with a promise that “I will only wear pants,” and since her sentencing, she has made true that promise.
Many Sudanese women are not so lucky. In this WP piece, about 40,000 women were arrested on charges of violating these decency laws last year. For months, Sudanese women recalled, “a man wearing a red bandana around his head and a whip on his waist was posted at a crowded bus station. He would call out to women he decided were showing too much wrist or ankle and whip them on the spot. Sometimes he would spit on them, they said.”
We who live in a liberal culture are aghast, of course. But that’s understating it. We are outraged at this example of man’s inhumanity to man. This is a form of slavery, of imposing total control over the lives of mothers, sisters, daughters who otherwise would make happy homes for these men.
But the more curious question to ask is why is it that there seems to be no moral outrage from the Islamic world about incidents like the above? Perhaps to them and to their clerics especially, women’s clothing is a way to inculcate modesty in women and self-restraint in men. They would argue that such restrictions should not be viewed as tools of oppression; that the aim of the Islamist regime through its shari’a laws is to attain virtue.
But how could shari’a laws be spiritually liberating to some and be oppressive to others? And I wonder, though, in the absence of such state restrictions, would these men and women continue to live a life of virtue?
Doesn’t virtue come from habituating one’s self in ways that are good and just and reasonable? Does it have to depend so much on externalities such as women's clothing as on a conscious, personal cultivation of it, entailing nothing less than self-mastery and the disciplining of one's self?
Many Sudanese women are not so lucky. In this WP piece, about 40,000 women were arrested on charges of violating these decency laws last year. For months, Sudanese women recalled, “a man wearing a red bandana around his head and a whip on his waist was posted at a crowded bus station. He would call out to women he decided were showing too much wrist or ankle and whip them on the spot. Sometimes he would spit on them, they said.”
We who live in a liberal culture are aghast, of course. But that’s understating it. We are outraged at this example of man’s inhumanity to man. This is a form of slavery, of imposing total control over the lives of mothers, sisters, daughters who otherwise would make happy homes for these men.
But the more curious question to ask is why is it that there seems to be no moral outrage from the Islamic world about incidents like the above? Perhaps to them and to their clerics especially, women’s clothing is a way to inculcate modesty in women and self-restraint in men. They would argue that such restrictions should not be viewed as tools of oppression; that the aim of the Islamist regime through its shari’a laws is to attain virtue.
But how could shari’a laws be spiritually liberating to some and be oppressive to others? And I wonder, though, in the absence of such state restrictions, would these men and women continue to live a life of virtue?
Doesn’t virtue come from habituating one’s self in ways that are good and just and reasonable? Does it have to depend so much on externalities such as women's clothing as on a conscious, personal cultivation of it, entailing nothing less than self-mastery and the disciplining of one's self?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Does Suicide Bombing Have a Moral Equivalence?
Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, a 39-year-old Arlington-born psychiatrist, who shot and killed at least 13 and wounded a number of military personnel at Fort Hood last week, seems to think that suicide bombing and soldiering are morally equivalent. In one of his web postings, he argued that suicide bombers are no different from a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save the lives of others:
To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. It’s more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.
Whether this was what motivated him to engage in this shooting rampage is yet to be determined. Newspaper reports said that he did not like the idea of getting deployed to Afghanistan and fighting a war that to him is a war against his religion.
Juxtapose this thinking against the thinking of Maj. L. Eduardo Caraveo, an army psychologist from Woodbridge, who was one of those killed. A native of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, the Washington Post reports that he came to America with little knowledge of English, sold newspapers to get by, and went on to get a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Arizona. (I don’t think it is by accident that the WP posted these two stories side by side on its front page today). One of his friends said that while he was happy being at home, he understood “what it meant to serve his country.” And so on the day after he arrived at Fort Hood, as he was filling out paper works and getting ready to step into a “life devoted to helping people through their most stressful times,” he lost his life in the hands of Hasan.
Both have a moral argument to offer.
To Hasan’s thinking, a suicide bomber embraces martyrdom for God and religion. He sacrifices his life to protect his faith against those who do not believe in it.
To Caraveo, a soldier embraces martyrdom for God and country. He sacrifices his life to protect his country and defend the innocent from its enemies. He offers his life so that others may live. In his worldview, he has a duty to preserve a certain kind of order where people are able to live in dignity, peace, and prosperity.
The former wants to defend his religion against infidels so that he can build a City of God on earth and preserve pure worship. As if God needs us to defend Himself from unbelievers! This sense of self-righteousness leads to a moral indignation that can only lead to fanaticism, intolerance, and blind prejudices that justify the use of violence. The latter seeks only to preserve the social order, to make life in the City of Man peaceful and orderly. There are bad regimes, however, that put their soldiers to ill-use.
At a minimum, all of us humans only desire to live peaceably with one another, go through this life the best way we can. We educate ourselves, send our children to school, and contribute our talents towards the progress of our community. With our sense of inventiveness and creativity, we have succeeded in taming the harsh forces of nature. We build industries and engage in commerce, knowing that maximizing our potentials is what is expected of us. The City of Man is not in opposition to the City of God; it leads to it, and that indeed through right reason, all societies – Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. – can appreciate common standards of good and justice.
Aren’t the opposite of all of the above – intolerance, hatred, injustice, ignorance, violence – inhuman and ungodly? So I pose this question again: is there really a moral equivalence to suicide bombing?
To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. It’s more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.
Whether this was what motivated him to engage in this shooting rampage is yet to be determined. Newspaper reports said that he did not like the idea of getting deployed to Afghanistan and fighting a war that to him is a war against his religion.
Juxtapose this thinking against the thinking of Maj. L. Eduardo Caraveo, an army psychologist from Woodbridge, who was one of those killed. A native of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, the Washington Post reports that he came to America with little knowledge of English, sold newspapers to get by, and went on to get a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Arizona. (I don’t think it is by accident that the WP posted these two stories side by side on its front page today). One of his friends said that while he was happy being at home, he understood “what it meant to serve his country.” And so on the day after he arrived at Fort Hood, as he was filling out paper works and getting ready to step into a “life devoted to helping people through their most stressful times,” he lost his life in the hands of Hasan.
Both have a moral argument to offer.
To Hasan’s thinking, a suicide bomber embraces martyrdom for God and religion. He sacrifices his life to protect his faith against those who do not believe in it.
To Caraveo, a soldier embraces martyrdom for God and country. He sacrifices his life to protect his country and defend the innocent from its enemies. He offers his life so that others may live. In his worldview, he has a duty to preserve a certain kind of order where people are able to live in dignity, peace, and prosperity.
The former wants to defend his religion against infidels so that he can build a City of God on earth and preserve pure worship. As if God needs us to defend Himself from unbelievers! This sense of self-righteousness leads to a moral indignation that can only lead to fanaticism, intolerance, and blind prejudices that justify the use of violence. The latter seeks only to preserve the social order, to make life in the City of Man peaceful and orderly. There are bad regimes, however, that put their soldiers to ill-use.
At a minimum, all of us humans only desire to live peaceably with one another, go through this life the best way we can. We educate ourselves, send our children to school, and contribute our talents towards the progress of our community. With our sense of inventiveness and creativity, we have succeeded in taming the harsh forces of nature. We build industries and engage in commerce, knowing that maximizing our potentials is what is expected of us. The City of Man is not in opposition to the City of God; it leads to it, and that indeed through right reason, all societies – Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. – can appreciate common standards of good and justice.
Aren’t the opposite of all of the above – intolerance, hatred, injustice, ignorance, violence – inhuman and ungodly? So I pose this question again: is there really a moral equivalence to suicide bombing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)