Time for Paradigm Shifts

We live in a time of great upheavals, of seismic changes in the global economic and political system. The protests against Wall Street in New York, and the toppling of outdated potentates in the Arab states are merely signs that the old paradigms are not working.

For a time in the 90s, there was optimism that globalization would ‘lift all boats,’ following the collapse of socialism and the resurgence of neoliberal economics. Two decades after, the under classes in the United States and Europe are kicking against a system that bails out the rich and their institutions and in the process lets the poor fall through the cracks without mercy.

In this country, side by side with reports of GNP growth—as with that released for the year 2007, the highest in 30 years—is the shadow of increasing hunger as the number of food-poor Filipinos rose at about the same time. It is evident that something is very wrong when luxury vehicles parade down potholed streets bordered by congested communities with no potable water. Street children come crowding around our car windows. Poverty continues to coexist alongside the glitter of newly-acquired wealth among more privileged sectors of society. These sights bring to mind the biblical story of the rich man who, sumptuously dressed and feasting daily, remained indifferent to the plight of Lazarus, who sat at his gate. Covered with sores, the poor Lazarus longed to be fed from the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table.

How do we begin to address this inequality?  How do we generate growth that takes seriously the concern for equity?  How do we see to it that our governance is responsive to the needs of the poor while releasing entrepreneurial energy towards wealth creation?

For a start, we propose that some major shifts need to be made in our economic paradigms. In the following series of editorials, we outline some changes that need to be made, both in our development paradigms and in our economic behavior as a culture and as a people. In the process, we hope to surface some alternative images of what the future can be like.

On Culture, Migration and the Tower of Babel

The OFW phenomenon, while an economic necessity for many, is a sociological trend that perhaps will not let up in an increasingly interdependent ‘global village.’ Not only are we now face to face with each other because of mass access to travel. We are also needing each other’s brains and brawn in a time when countries, in order to survive, have to specialize and market the things they do best. We are caught up in an increasingly global market system.

We are not quite ready to name this movement towards centralization of the world’s economic and political organization as a ‘mark of the Beast.’ Instead, it conjures for us images like the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, — symbol of the human capacity for inventing contrivances that make life without God bearable, or at least more or less secure.

It was, said the story, a time of migration: people moved eastwards. Then, having found a plain in the land of Shinar, they settled there. It was not that they got stuck and got too comfortable. It was more that they needed to be secure and feared to scatter. They invented new building technologies, and built a city and a tower.

The city was to secure their being together as “one people”, and the tower was, they said, to “make a name for ourselves.” They all had one language, a cultural uniformity that made consensus and a common project possible. The tower was but the beginning of what they could do. God himself said that “nothing that they propose to do now will be impossible for them.”

Was God threatened by this show of power in unity?

The question brings to mind the heroic figure of Prometheus – who stole fire from the gods and was punished for it. The answer is perhaps yes, if Yahweh is anything like the Greek gods. But then he is not, and so we need to find some other explanation for the confusion or ‘babel of tongues’ that he caused.

It is possible that the scattering was to force the population to ‘fill the earth’, the original mandate to the first man and woman.

God, according to Paul, had allotted to every race habitations and the boundaries for them.

The people were to cultivate the piece of earth allotted to them and in the process develop cultures out of their interaction with the unique terrain of their environments. The consequent diversity is part of God’s design for the world.

Unlike the Tower of Babel, which is a project made possible by uniformity, God meant us to embark on enterprises built out of diversity, out of the uniqueness we all bring as races to the table of nations. Against the monocultural drift of globalizing forces, crowding us all into global centers, we are to stand rooted where we are, and discover the richness of our diverse dwelling places.

THE DOING OF JUSTICE

We have just finished another year of crisis in our political institutions. These days, it seems, we are being asked to choose between justice and mercy as we witness the unfolding drama of the case against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

There is the appeal to the culture’s sense of empathy, as well as talk of a constitutional crisis as the Executive branch tangles with the Supreme Court in the effort to pursue justice.

In the Old Testament, we are told that God requires both justice and mercy. The prophet Micah tells the people of Israel: “What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Justice and mercy are meant to be together. Without justice, a nation becomes soft and the law simply becomes a convenient tool for those in power to dominate the weak and powerless. Without mercy, we become merely hard knights of justice, blind to the demands for sympathy and the complexities posed by human weakness.

The pursuit of justice does not happen in a vacuum. Judges, rulers and lawmakers all operate within a social context of power and relationships that make them subject to influence.

Even in ancient Israel, they were not above corruption, as we see in the prophet Isaiah’s denunciation of the leaders of his time:  “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees or deprive the poor of their rights and rob my oppressed people of justice, making the widow their prey, and robbing the fatherless.”

The prophet Ezekiel cried out against oppression by the powerful, “You have gone far enough, O princes of Israel…stop dispossessing my people, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

Jeremiah, living among the poor that were left in Jerusalem after the first Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, likewise refused to be silent before the king and the judges.

The Apostle Paul famously called Christians to submission to authority. However, when Peter and John were forbidden by the Jewish authorities to preach the Gospel, they replied: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

Especially in a democratic context, the people are duty-bound to hold judge and ruler accountable to our highest laws, as enshrined in the Constitution. Understanding that all earthly authority has been instituted by God, Christians should take this to heart, but should be ready to speak out as well when earthly laws directly conflict with the laws of God as contained in Scripture.

This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

The Church in the Public Space (Part 2)

By Prof. Randy David

When does ecclesiastical meddling in political affairs go overboard? When religious authorities wield their religious influence or personal power over individual decision-makers in the secular order so as to shape public policy.

This would not be different from the work that professional lobby groups do.  It has consequences.  In a similar situation, the clergyman uses the authority of his ecclesiastical position to endorse or oppose a candidate’s campaign for public office. The extreme expression of this would be a member of clergy running for public office, while retaining his ecclesiastical role. Although there is no legal statute or constitutional prohibition against this, the Roman Catholic Church, for one, recognizes that it is wrong. The vocation of politics, according to Pope Benedict XVI, properly belongs to the laity.  When the clergy engages in the politics of the secular world, he says, they risk undermining their authority as moral shepherds.

There is obviously a very thin line separating, on the one hand, the mere expression of a moral position on a public issue (which is in accordance with the Church’s function of educating consciences), and other hand, the mobilization of religious identity and authority within a strictly secular sphere.

So thin is this line that it is easily breached.  And it has been breached so many times by ecclesiastical authorities in the Philippines as to constitute a big problem for the political system.  We find that the clergy is often not satisfied with merely educating or forming consciences. In true authoritarian fashion, they are inclined to substitute the consciences of their flock with those of their own. But, it is amazing how we welcome this, especially when the bishops take a political position that favors our side in politics.

The restraint that keeps these two spheres apart often has to come from the State and from the institutional churches themselves. It cannot be expected to come from other less-developed systems.  In pre-modern societies, the institutional church exercises so much residual social power that the temptation to use it is formidable.  This is so very true in our society.

No one probably has been more conscious of this dilemma within the Roman Catholic Church than Pope Benedict XVI himself.  He has said many times on various occasions that the exercise of prudence and restraint is the only way the church can preserve its authority within its own domain in a complex modern society.  No one can fault the Roman Catholic Church when it makes pronouncements on the moral dimension of public issues.  That is its function.  But, when it starts to lead political actions, when it favors one set of politicians over another, or casts its lot with one regime against those who challenge it — it is in danger of becoming entangled in the conflicts of the temporal world.  In doing so, it risks eroding its moral standing as a shepherd of its entire flock.

The same principle is true of any other denomination.

This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

The Church in the Public Space (Part 1)

By Prof. Randy David

Despite the constitutional provision defining the separation of Church and State, a lot of confusion still attends the determination of religion’s proper place in the public square.

A strict interpretation of the constitutional provision would practically ban all profession or articulation of religious belief from the public square, in exchange for the protection and benefits religious groups receive from the State – such as tax-exemption for the clergy and religious institutions.  This compromise, which regulates religion’s place in the public square, may be seen as a way of averting the kind of hostilities that flared up in the past among various religious groups.

The reverse of this view, on the other hand, would confer on the Church or other ecclesiastical organizations the right to veto legal measures that are deemed morally objectionable to a dominant moral community.

Somewhere in-between these two extreme positions is the view that would give to religious groups the right to invoke their beliefs in an ongoing political debate, while warning them against bringing their ecclesiastical power or authority to bear upon the political process.  For example, no church should be able to dictate to its followers whom they should vote for in a political exercise like an election.  By the same token, no church should be able to use threats of ecclesiastical sanctions like ex-communication against individuals who do not subscribe to the Church’s position on a political issue being debated.

The latitude for Church participation in ongoing political debates is broad enough as it exists today. Religious groups and ecclesiastical organizations are within their rights to participate in political discussions and to cite the Scriptures or religious doctrine as grounds for opposing any proposed legislation.  This does not, in itself, constitute meddling in political affairs.  There is nothing in our laws or Constitution that requires people of faith to check their religious conviction at the door before they can participate in political discussions.  By the same token do we uphold the right of ideologically-inclined individuals to invoke Marx or Mao or John Stuart Mill to buttress their arguments in support of certain public measures.

Indeed, some people may be quickly persuaded by the mere citation of doctrinal or ideological authority. But, in general, people demand arguments more solid than mere citations of doctrine or passages from a great figure to be convinced about a certain position.  What this tells us is that, for as long as we are communicating within the political system, arguments that draw mainly from religious belief will not be sufficient.  We need to find ways to express those same convictions in a language that can be understood by people who do not share our religious beliefs.  Only thus can we prevent religion from being a “conversation-stopper”.

This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.

This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

Legislating Morality

Can we legislate morality in a pluralistic society?  My quick answer is “yes”.  In fact, we do it all the time.  Many of our laws are embodiments of our most cherished moral values.

But, on second thought, my answer is ‘no”.  Where conceptions of morality vary widely, no group, sector, community or institution can simply legislate morality without going through the complex processes of the political system, no matter how big a moral majority it may constitute.

Legislation is a political act, and politics in a democracy means that, to the extent possible, politicians must seek conciliation among differing conceptions of what is right.

We know, of course, that this harmonization of moral conceptions is never easy, and is not always possible.  Many laws are passed that contradict our deeply held notions of what is morally correct.  Thus, there is always room for a moral critique of existing laws or of proposed legislation.  One example is the law that prescribes the death penalty for so-called heinous crimes.  To many Christians, this law is not morally acceptable.  The State, to them, has no right to take away the life of any person, no matter how heinous his or her crime might be.  A good example of a proposed bill that is perceived as morally objectionable by many Catholics is the Reproductive Health bill.  The current debate on the bills pending in Congress shows the wide variation in belief on many fundamental questions, such as, when does human life begin?

The crafting of laws is a political process that follows a well-defined procedure and is governed by the code of “the common good.”  We all know that only a few laws enjoy the backing of a full public consensus.  In most instances, laws are finally passed only as a result of several rounds of debate and voting.  In these debates, reasons are given for supporting or objecting to a proposed piece of legislation.  Some of these reasons may be moral, economic, philosophical, ideological, religious, ecological, and so on. What brings these various reasons together into one common platform is the idea of “the common good” – which is unique to politics.

A proposed bill may of course be killed or shelved before it could become a law.  But once it is passed, a law applies to everyone in a given society, including those who may personally disagree with it.  In a democracy, the political system is expected to legislate not for the sake of any single religious group or sector but for all citizens.

This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.

This editorial is written by Atty. Romel Regalado Bagares

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

Genuine Autonomy in ARMM

During a recent speech at the University of the Philippines, former Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was asked what he thought of President Benigno Aquino III’s decision to postpone the elections in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to pave the way for reforms in the region.

Mr. Anwar’s response may have come from an astute politician’s sense of the realpolitik in diplomacy but it nevertheless offers food for thought to both opponents and supporters alike of P-NOY’s decision.

What is important, said Anwar, is that the government affords the people of Mindanao the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the electoral process.

Postponement is one thing, but denial of the right to vote is quite another. There can be no genuine autonomy if the results of the formal electoral processes have already been predetermined. These days in ARMM, politicians no longer bother to make it appear that people are actually allowed to vote according to their preferences — not after the Hello Garci scandal.

Mr Anwar had earlier asserted in his speech that the Philippines under P-NOY was best positioned in the ASEAN region to promote a fundamental principle: That any state’s drive for economic development cannot be divorced from its commitment to preserve standards of human rights.

Anwar’s interlocutor had noted that it was under the administration of P-Noy’s mother, Corazon Aquino, that ARMM was established, with an avowed aim to promote and develop genuine autonomy for the region; and now it seemed his administration was bent on undermining his mother’s legacy.

The interlocutor was referring to a law passed by Congress—upon P-NOY’s prodding—to synchronize the August 8, 2011 ARMM elections with the May 13, 2013 polls, and allowing the President to appoint officers in charge (OICs) to serve in the interim.

Not long after Anwar’s visit to UP, the Supreme Court, voting 8 to 4, issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the law. P-NOY’s reaction was deep disappointment.  There is so much that needs urgent action in the region, to name a few—the raid of public coffers,  the challenge to peace posed by a secessionist group born and bred there, and debilitating poverty among the mostly Muslim masses. In any case, the government’s earnestness for reforms in the ARMM must be translated into results that touch the lives of those who need it the most.

There is after all, a limit to people’s capacity to take their rulers’ cynical ways.  Lest P-NOY and his advisers forget, under international law, the right to self-determination becomes a right to secession where citizens are denied their right to participate meaningfully in the political life of the nation and where citizens are also targeted by gross human rights violations. Both situations form a combustible mix for civil unrest — a mix neither the President nor the Supreme Court would want to see explode.

This editorial is written by Dr. Violeta “Bolet” Bautista of the Care and Counsel Wholeness Center. Bolet is a Fellow of ISACC.

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

The Problem of Estrangement among OFW Children

When asked, “Why are you going abroad?”, OFW parents will almost always say that it is for their children. But many OFW parents are now finding out that their working abroad has seriously damaged their relationship with the very people whose interests they have gone abroad to serve.

Some stable families have weathered the separation of parents and children. Fr. Nilo Tanalega has attributed this to what he calls “enhancements in global parenting”, in which technology has encouraged parental presence, participation and engagement in the lives of children. Parents who express interest in the activities of their children and make a point to be available at set times more likely enjoy healthier relationships with their children.

But Fr. Tanelaga qualifies that communication mediated by technology cannot replace face to face interaction. Topics of long distance communication may go no deeper than grades and the day’s happenings at school. By contrast, face-to-face conversations allow parents to ask “How are your friends? What are your dreams? What is hurting you?” Long distance communication between parents and their children has produced superficial relationships. As one OFW child has said: “My Mom tries to parent me when she is home. But I don’t feel she has the right anymore to do this because she does not know me at all.” How heartbreaking it is for a parent who has made so many sacrifices to come home to estrangement. “I miss my Mom,” said another OFW child. “We used to talk a lot, but now I do not know what to say to her.”

OFW parents tend to overcompensate for their absence by indulging their children materially, giving them more than what is proper, more than they need. It is unsurprising that many of these children develop into materialistic, often rebellious, individuals with a well-entrenched sense of entitlement. Moreover, the child-centered goals of the OFW effort tend to foster narcissism in the children, instead of a healthy parental respect, other-centeredness, and love.

Before we say we are going abroad to work for the sake for our children, let us prayerfully consider the consequences and think twice.

This editorial is translated by Rei Lemuel Crizaldo from the original article entitled “Ang Di-pagkapantay-pantay na Dulot ng OFW Remittances” written by Atty. Ome Candazo. Ome is is a Fellow of ISACC and is the host of the radio program “Balitang OFW.”

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

The Inequality Generated by the OFW Remittances

Today there are studies that show that the multi-billion dollar remittances of our OFWs in fact provide no impact on alleviating poverty. The poverty level of the country remained at 30% last year. Now it has increased to 35%. While the remittances flowing into the country continue to increase, the poverty level continues to worsen. Certainly, there are families whose lives have improved, but a larger number continues to be entrenched in poverty. Why is this so?

This is because the entry of remittances into the country heightens the so-called inter-regional inequality —the inequality among different regions of the country — which is a significant aspect in the development of any country. For one, Social Watch Philippines has always pointed out the effect of inter-regional inequality in assessing the country’s performance in effectively reducing poverty. Often, the data released by the government cannot be taken at face value. The statistics provided speak mostly of national averages which tend to downplay realities of inequality across regions. National totals are usually pulled up by the few relatively rich regions.

This claim is supported by the assessment released in 2003 by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS). The poverty reduction efforts by the government from the Marcos to the Arroyo administration show that the country has been generally successful in improving the quality of life of its population. However, different indicators show that there are regions lagging behind and the disparities remained large over the years.

Unfortunately, the OFW remittances intensify this wide gap between the rich and the poor areas of the country. Those who are able to benefit from remittances are restricted only to a few regions. A closer look will tell us that most of the OFWs come from the regions of CALABARZON (15%), Central Luzon (14%), and NCR (13%). These regions send the most number of OFWs. A very small number come from the region of CARAGA (1%), Eastern Visayas: Samar at Leyte (2%), and Bicol (3%). What does this tell us?

Most of the OFWs are coming from the relatively progressive and richer regions. It is not true that most of the OFWs are from the poorest areas of the country. Why? Because people there cannot pay for the placement fees needed to work abroad.

In fact, OFWs breed their own kind. The OFWs in the future will come from the current OFW families. When a father works as an OFW in Singapore, he will try to give his son an education that will also enable him to reach Singapore. Children today are too often motivated in this way: “Anak, study so that you can go abroad.” Families are cultivating a “culture of migration.”

And so, OFW-sending regions will continue to prosper while more impoverished regions of our country will continue to languish. Poverty will not be reduced until this gap between increasingly prosperous OFW families and their poor countrymen in other provinces is addressed.

This editorial is written by Dr. Violeta “Bolet” Bautista of the Care and Counsel Wholeness Center. Bolet is a Fellow of ISACC.

Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio

What Happens to Children of OFWs?

In the Filipino culture, the mother is not merely caretaker, but the light of the home or “ilaw ng tahanan”. Dr. Lourdes Arellano-Carandang’s book, “Nawala ang Ilaw ng Tahanan”, deals with the question “what happens when light goes out in the family?” That refers to the phenomenon of mothers leaving the home to work abroad.

Currently, there are three to six million children of OFW parents. And still more women are leaving the country work abroad. Of the two to three thousand workers who leave, seventy percent are women. Eighty-five percent are from the lower-income bracket and in their early twenties. The average age of the children left behind is ten years old.

What happens to these children? When mothers leave home, fathers infrequently step in to fulfil motherly roles. The opposite is the case when the father leaves the home: Mothers will usually do double time. One mother has said, “I learned to fix electric wires and change car tires as much as I learned how to become more firm towards the children.” Studies have shown that male parent can acquire the nurturing skills and attitudes typical of female parents. Often, fathers will ask other female relatives to take over the role of mother.

The money earned by the OFW parent allows a number of children to attend private schools, participate in extracurricular activities, and excel up to a point, usually in the elementary years. But children of migrant mothers, in general, do not do well. In the long run, they lag behind, academically. They are reported as being lonely, angry, unloved, unfeeling, afraid, and worried compared to all groups of children.

OFW children grieve, worry and fantasize about their parents coming home. In time, they become numb to the absence: They become like orphans. Young children cope by playing, while older ones strike up friendships and rationalize the departure of their parents. This does not eradicate the hurt and resentment towards the parents. A survey among the children of OFW caregivers showed that only 25% could say they enjoyed a good relationship with their parents. The words of one child capture this precarious situation: “I am supposed to love my father because he works hard for the family.  But now I do not feel anything for him.” Another child has said, “I have learned to accept that I no longer have parents. Yes, they are there, but they do not care about me. I feel abandoned by the people I love.”

OFW teenagers, particularly females, acquire the inclination to look elsewhere for parental care. Again, the studies show that more of these teens enter into promiscuous relationships or become more vulnerable to abusive relationships with older men. They are also prone to crime, drug dependency, alcoholism, and gender-identity problems. More alarmingly, there are reports of incest between fathers left behind and the older female children.

These unfortunate scenarios are heartbreaking and should serve to drive home the desperate state of Filipino families in which either or both parents go abroad to work. “What happens when the light goes out in the family?”