Negotiating the Good Friday Agreement

Negotiating the Good Friday Agreement

 By: Fr. Eliseo Mercado, OMI

With the peace negotiations entering a sort of ‘winter’ season due to colliding positions on the terms of possible political settlement, International Alert in partnership with UK Embassy invited the Rt. Honorable Paul Murphy, Member of the British Parliament and former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales.

MP Paul Murphy belongs to the Labor Government of both PM Tony Blair and PM Gordon Brown. It was this popular Labor government under Mr. Blair that negotiated the Good Friday Agreement that has laid the peace formula not only between the warring Unionist party (Protestant) and the Sein Fein (Catholic) but also shaping the relations between and among Great Britain, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The case of Northern Ireland rings a familiar chord for the peoples of Southern Philippines albeit the differences in ‘color’, ‘shape’, religions, ideology and cultures. The many similarities touch on the relations of minority and majority cum the controversial wealth and opportunity sharing, and compounded by religious identities that are more tied to cultural ideologies and their popular expressions, including the use of violence.

Mr. Murphy’s short visit is simply to share with us – stakeholders to peace in Mindanao both in the national and regional levels - a model of peace negotiation that has proven successful not only in terms of signing a peace agreement but also implementing it with political will on the ground as workable formula for wealth and power sharing.

I cannot help but observe that the man who provided the environment and the ‘push’ is an ardent Catholic who received a papal knighthood for his peace work in Northern Ireland.

Some of the similarities between Northern Ireland and Southern Philippines are on issues touching the relations not only between minority (Catholics) and majority (Protestants) but also between the national government (the British Parliament) and the six counties (four Protestants and two Catholics) that formed Northern Ireland.

The above relationship in the recent past was marred by conflict and injustice of varying shades of colors of injustices and ideologies translated and expressed in more familiar concepts like political power, economic development and cultural identities (British Crown for the Unionists and the Republic for Sein Fein).

The other noteworthy similarity in the Northern Ireland conflict was the fact that for decades the conflict in the Northern Ireland remained distant not only to the Government of Great Britain but also to the British Constituency. It actually communicated a subtle message to the effect saying that so long as the killings, the carnage and the violations of basic rights remained in Belfast or Londonderry or in any part of Northern Ireland, the peoples of Great Britain continued with ‘business as usual’.

Things changed when the Irish Republican Army or IRA brought the conflict to London itself. The US was also brought to the picture, not only because of the historical and cultural ties to Ireland and Great Britain but more so because of the many Irish Americans’ support for the struggle of their kin and kith in the North.

What is noteworthy in the making of the Good Friday Agreement is the political will of the two governments (United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland). The two leaders, UK PM Mr. Blair and Republic of Ireland PM Mr. Beartie, were on board all the way as the full time and elected peace negotiators ironed out the formula of wealth and power sharing between the warring Protestant and Catholic groups. The US sent a powerful mediator in the person of Senator George Mitchell, with the full backing and support not only of the sitting US President (both President Clinton and later President G. W. Bush) but also by the entire US Congress. The role and support of the entire European Union were also much felt for the simple reason that the two major protagonists, the UK and the Republic of Ireland, are members of the same EU.

The equally important ingredient that went into the making of the Good Friday Agreement was the TRUST and the RESPECT accorded to one and all by the full time and elected negotiators, mediators, Governments and all stakeholders with few exceptions.

What is crucial is the fact that the Good Friday agreement is “HOMEGROWN”. NO IMPOSED peace agreement anywhere and at anytime is sustainable! The Good Friday Agreement is shaped by the stakeholders themselves through their elected negotiators (with real constituencies on the ground) and facilitated by a powerful US mediator and fully supported by the two major protagonists.

The Good Friday Agreement gives HOPE to our own peace process now experiencing some difficulties. Mr. Murphy’s sharing is a successful PEACE Story. Though we are not ‘copy cats’ of Northern Ireland, no doubt, we can draw concrete lessons from it if we are looking for a fresh wind blowing our own peace story... else we freeze in the winter of the peace talks!

Posted by Jun Mercado at 18:59 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Berteni "Toto" Cataluña Causing: Let those against globalization disconnect from Fa...

Berteni "Toto" Cataluña Causing: Let those against globalization disconnect from Fa...: Let those against globalization disconnect from Facebook forever! Let those against globalization disconnect from Facebook forever! ...

The substate dream

The substate dream

By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas. SJ

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Wall Photos Slideshow

Wall Photos Slideshow: TripAdvisor™ TripWow ★ Wall Photos Slideshow ★ to Zamboanga City (near Zamboanga). Stunning free travel slideshows on TripAdvisor

The Economics of Brinkmanship, The Mindanao bench

By: Aminullah Alonto Lucman

There now appears a trend for world class leaders show mettle, brinkmanship to be the statesman not the onlooker, the hands-on individual ready and willing face up to the hard core challenge. US President Obama is one such, having brokered the impossible keep tab of the Republican majority in the lower house of the US congress finally make them agree to what he feels is an acceptable compromise avoid a shutdown of the US economy because of the debt ceiling he seeks, and now the downgrades.

S&P declares the US no longer a triple A economy perhaps to suggest rough days ahead to selling American free market leadership, in other words, one simply can’t win them all but President Obama for all intent need to win another term as US president, so guys brace yourselves.

Brinkmanship for politicians is the goal to ultimately advance, at least from how it appears. And I see no downgrade in any agenda that is yet up their sleeves, their likes just stays on and on. So they make the gamble; in the case of America they’re always out there scouting for lambs to sacrifice keep their standing as rock-solid and as reliable as the rock of Gibraltar, pray to the gods of gold and silver, for the ultimate invincibility. But like Achilles, there is this one faulty vulnerability that now we have come to know, bad economics.

Big business is the American forte, but the one that excites me is what could have been the dirge from those known to jump with glee see America teeter in failure, superpowers themselves former cold war enemies, America’s nemesis now to have wagered their wealth too on the American dream in huge trillions. Just as we now know of it, they cannot afford to see America fail; they of course have their money gambled on the American invincibility, really big money for they too believe America is good business.

So why would somebody from Mindanao, like myself be embroiled in any of such highly intricate dichotomy of the economic divide, and the kind of leadership-quality they possess that once upon a time almost devastated earth. This I mean the divide between colors of red and the multitude of hues on the side to subvert them, bloodletting for decades of the cold war era claiming millions of lives in inert military measures and countermeasures, blood bathing that it was, all wars and no reprieve.

Stagnated unmoving lives, clustered wars in stasis, static growth for the third struggling world nowhere to go but down under, so the cold war did some very serious damage, made lives of people really miserable.

In Mindanao, war from whilst it hath brewed was never probed up till now, and in the land of the rising sun the light has shown its mantle, peace may be at hand darker alleys illuminated, pathfinders to just gainfully achieve tranquility from amongst petrified people, now to count as human beings wanting tranquil coexistence, and in earnest it has just begun. So far, so good, now we have the leadership quality emerging to be eager to join in, be part of the quality, world-class leadership.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the first attempts at sociological analysis were prompted by the need to explain two great waves of change that were sweeping across Europe: namely, industrialization and the expansion of democracy and human rights in the wake of the American and French revolutions.

The leadership, squashed extracts from this phenomenal social evolution in these era, produced cunning, cold blooded leaders, took human frailty as tools and resources, the primeval alibi for more conquests, more territories. Industrial superiority is matched with equally devastating military power, tools of death that as we know took millions upon millions of unsuspecting people in two world wars.

Auguste Comte, in his theory of social dynamics, proposed that societies progressed through a series of predictable stages based on the development of human knowledge. Herbert Spencer offered a theory of change that was evolutionary, based on population growth and structural differentiation.

Karl Marx contended that the most significant social changes were revolutionary in nature, and were brought about by the struggle for supremacy between economic classes. The general tendency of nineteenth-century theories of social change was towards historicism and utopianism.

The 21st century in abrupt social changes, the dichotomy, the derisive contradictions, Karl Marx theory of the classless society to achieve economic and military stability and power no longer find relevance. State control has become the essence of societal development, the new Marxist platform as the Maoist dogma, as platforms emerging to be measures for economic predictability and supremacy, no longer the exportation of the static ideology and military prowess but goods to vend and money to be had.

In the NEW China, it is more visibly a pragmatic influence over vast free market economies hence stakes her claim more in essence as majority stock holder than the bully that she was; the contradictions also may have become the paradigm shift to have altered Russia following the breakup of what was USSR. Russia, as a free voting Marxist orientated democracy, a free market economy to compete with the industrialized world, has now to have predictably geared towards more to job creation rather than control over vast territories; this is micro management where predictability is best managed and given propriety, so that now Russia has more billionaires than ever imagined.

Recent statements from the Russian president chiding long-time ally Syria over the suppression of legitimate dissent may perhaps be glaringly Russia’s micro managing foreign policy; this would have been unthinkable during the USSR days. And unlike the old USSR, today’s nuclear arsenals belonging to Russia would rather be utilized to bargain rather than regain stature as a military power, and these are for purely economic reasons micro-manage Russia on way to clinching economic power of scale just like the New China.

To propose that societies progressed through series of predictable stages based on the development of human knowledge in Comte’s theory of social dynamics negates predominating environs pervading in much of today’s social evolution.

19th century social sciences to have carved much of civilization’s predictability to creating macro management skills determine how conflicts are ventured in and into bigger world wars to be able to accurately control and create economy of absolute scale have now to have dissipated into a singular societal entity, the global cyber society.

This is the 21st century invariables spreading the variability of real time communication and connectivity, Twitterology and Facebookism, the emerging isms of now’s contemporary 21st century human evolution.

Predictability, in much of today’s dichotomy in the present-day manic debauchery yet persistent from amongst mostly third world leaders, is a divide between two contradictions, lies and truth. But awakening from amongst people sought the veritable, very puritan struggle; it is People Power in the spirit of true worship, the 21st century matrix.

Awakening in the minds of plenty, the present-day 21st century people power dawned on them the need to be human, not tools of gangsterism in the evolutionary progression of society and the ensuing dirt-bound politicians sans trespasses.

Dirt-bound politicians with the long-winded greed regressed to have become the monopolist tool, laundered, siphoned-off resources stolen from government, obfuscation, that sought to harness, bequeath of them the advancement of despotism and big business control, tools of the very few. These are what's left of the long gone cold war era, bloody and tormenting era, the antidote, antecedent contrived to be the formulae ward off Marxist influence in Indochina, much of Southeast Asia and the Americas. This is the other side of the 21st century divide, the contrasts of lies.

Vestiges of the cold war era now to transform into near humanist, rights-orientated platforms cater to demands for more visible freedom and human rights for purely the advancement of the human race. This phenomenon has now tractably to have been the 21st century totemic transformation to hanker on just the truth, nothing short of truth.

Despotism began to grimace through in February of 1986 in the Philippines. Finding power in truth, people en mass peacefully converged in that February month, 1986, in celebration of finding just the truth, now the explicitly, overtly all encompassing People Power movements all over the world; it breached the Berlin wall, decimated the USSR and now in finality, the Arab awakening, but are we knowing where will this end to?

Herbert Spencer, a social scientist, offered a theory of change that was evolutionary, based on population growth and structural differentiation.

The embodiment the Herbert Spencer theory proposes is for government to be tractable, it need to undergo reorientation in distributing resources, locate or relocate population densities in conjunction with growth, dispose or replace, abbreviate or altogether discard existing infrastructure or that provide one if there is none, to be able to enable with maintaining a system or involve in systemic changes tidy up population growth in conjunction with the economic realm.

It is economic fundamentals that permeate to be the logical factor whether we emerge as a nation or down the abyss as a divided people in unending tumult. Maybe Mindanao & Sulu to even come out entirely separate, an independent nation. The social science of giving the right provision, the right solution, and the right measure of truth is I think what Herbert Spencer is meaning to say. That one simply makes the changes to be able to measure up to the challenge, this is dauntingly the ordinary folk’s 21st century abode, and you guys better believe it.

The 1st Jury Convention at UP...

The 1^st Jury Convention at UP

By: Abs Damahan

UP Diliman, Quezon City- The 1^st Convention of Jury System of the Philippine held at the National College of Public Administration and Government (NCPAG), UP Diliman on April 28, 2011. This is one of its kind a very successful public forum participated by the officials of government, Local Government Units, Civil society, organizations and as well private sectors.

Public forum is well organized by the group of organizers for this “1^st Jury Convention” it’s seemed an attainable movement for cause that would need public support. When I looked at public response for those groups who participated in this forum, there are intensely wanted to change the over 100 years of rotten judicial system of our nation.

An anecdote says in the legal luminaries “Justice delayed and justice denied”, it took several years for pending cases in the court dockets before fiscals, prosecutors and judges can conduct any hearings or can promulgate verdict or judgement for the accused whether guilty or not guilty.

While in the jury system proposal, it would eliminate the delay of the long process of court litigation, would even conduct speedy trial by the jurors its call “Trial by Jury” and “Trial by Grand Jury”.

Why is it necessary that we have to adopt a Jury System in the Philippines? We need the Jury System because we have chosen to have a democratic form of government. In a democratic government without a Jury system, justice becomes a monopoly by powerful government officials. We may call it also as the “Personalized Justice” System, especially by the President who appoints all judges, justices, and prosecutors. It is a “selective” justice system so that only the personal holders of that monopoly can choose whom to, or not, prosecute. In order for you to gain justice, you must be a sup-sup with that controller of justice. It is a recipe for failure of administration by any incumbent in office.

When public officials abuse the power of their office such as acts of corruption, money laundering, ordering extra-judicial killings, or forming death squad to “keep the peace” in their community, they control justice in such a way that they cannot be prosecuted for their abuses.

With the jury system in place, the common people will be able to control on how justice can be fairly and honestly decided through supervision by judges and prosecutors in which the people can independently decide in justice and determine as to the correctness or wrongness of the acts of their public servants.

The Jury Justice System being proposed by Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement is composed of two bodies. The first body is what shall be called “Grand Jury” and the second shall be called “Trial Jury”.

The composition would be an independent group composed of 12 for “Trial Jury” and 24 for the “Grand Jury” in numbers for the chosen Jurors.

Responding to the Crisis of Democracy

Responding to the Crisis of Democracy

PPC was developed in response to extensive evidence that democracy is in a crisis. The core principles of democracy are widely endorsed around the world, especially the principle that the will of the people should be the legitimating basis for government decisions. However, there is a widespread perception in the publics of democratic countries that their governments do not serve the common good of the people, but rather serve organized special interests that have the means to exert disproportionate leverage over government decisions.

For example, in a recent poll of Americans, only two in ten said their country is "is run for the benefit of all the people" while eight in ten said the country is "pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." Other democracies have similar views.

This problem seems to be getting worse. When this question was first asked to Americans in 1964 two thirds said that the country was run for the benefit of all the people, but this number has been descending ever since.

People are also frustrated with the level of partisanship in government decision making. Asked how they feel "when different political parties compete for influence" only 31% selected the position that "The competition of ideas creates a vibrant system where many voices are heard, leading to decisions that best reflect the will of the people." Rather, 64% chose the position "The parties fight for their narrow interests, the will of the people is ignored, and the results do not serve the people."

This has contributed to severely low levels of confidence in government decision making. Government is one of the least trusted institutions and elected officials are held in very low regard. This has undermined social cohesion and made it difficult for governments to govern effectively.

A symptom of this condition is the high budget deficits that plague most democracies. In a recent poll, when Americans were asked what percentage of their taxes does not serve the values or interests of the people, the mean estimate was a bit more than half.¹ When people have such a belief, this naturally leads them to resist paying taxes while still demanding government services and functions that they deem worthwhile. Elected officials attempt to accommodate these demands through deficit spending.

What Do People Think is the Antidote?

Based on numerous polls, it appears that citizens in democracies believe that the antidote to the disproportionate influence of special interests is to give the citizenry as a whole a clearer voice in the public policy process by having policymakers actively consult the people on the key decisions that they are considering.

Low trust in government is highly correlated with the perception that government is not responding to the will of the people. Presented the argument that "Government tends to get bogged down in partisan conflict and distorted by the influence of moneyed interests. Thus, it is necessary for the public to have a stronger voice in shaping government decisions," 78% found it convincing.

This does not mean that people think that government should follow public opinion in a lock-step fashion. Asked how much influence the will of the people should have on government decision making on a scale of 0 to 10, the mean response was 7.9--a high level, though well below 10. But asked how much influence the people are having, the mean response just 4.0. More than 8 in 10 said the public should have greater influence.

The theme that comes through an abundance of polls is that government should make greater efforts to consult with the public by listening to its views and by being more responsive to them to their priorities and values. Citizens strongly reject the classical view of Edmund Burke that once elected, leaders should act on their own views and regard the views of his or her constituents as a distraction.

Citizens understand and accept that there will be times when their elected officials will take actions that are contrary to the public will. This is not inherently a problem, provided that citizens are confident that the official does genuinely listen to his or her constituents, that the official is truly acting from convictions rather than accommodating a special interest that has made a campaign contribution, and the official engages in a dialogue in which he or she recognizes the public's concerns and explains clearly the reasons for taking a different course.

But Is It True That the Public Has Little Influence?

Given that the electorate ultimately chooses their representatives in government, it is natural to ask whether it is true that the public has so little influence. Since the electorate can vote the government out, can we not assume that the political market works and that ultimately what the government does is representative of the people?

This is a question that the Center on Policy Attitudes has been exploring over the last 15 years in a variety of studies. Its basic conclusion is that there is an abundance of evidence that in the United States there has been a substantial failure of the political market and that the process of democratic representation is working poorly.

If the process of representation were working well, elected officials and their appointees would have a pretty good understanding of the attitudes of their constituents. However, substantial research has shown that their estimations of the public's specific attitudes--both in terms of the country a whole and in terms of the constituents they represent--are barely better than chance.²

Research also shows a weak correlation between how members of Congress vote and the attitudes in their district.

The Inadequacy of Current Means for Understanding the Public

Many elected officials spend substantial amount of time trying to understand the views of their constituents. They read letters, hold town meetings and in a variety of settings interact with constituents. In the run-up to elections some may conduct polls. Why then does it happen that elected officials have a poor understanding of their constituents?

One factor is that some elected officials tend to regard the fact of their election as a general majority endorsement of their policy positions, which is not necessarily accurate. In most cases voters are presented a simple choice between two candidates. Research shows voters often have a poor understanding of candidates' positions on more than a few key issues--enough to make a decision, but hardly a blanket endorsement. Further voters clearly do not feel that their vote should be read as obviating the need for continued dialogue. Studies show that Americans do not endorse the views of the social philosopher and parliamentarian Edmund Burke who argued that, once elected, leaders should not be distracted by paying attention to public opinion.

Another factor that undermines elected officials' understanding of their constituencies is that the individuals that leaders encounter are not necessarily a representative sample of the constituency as a whole. Citizens who make efforts to communicate with their representatives by writing letters or attending town hall meetings are often more ideological than average or have specific interests in specific legislation. People who make campaign donations tend to gain greater access and attention, and may also have interests that are not representative. Clearly the totality of all these inputs does not necessarily create an accurate impression of the general public.

Some elected officials conduct public opinion polls. Such polls, through scientific sampling and carefully constructed and fairly worded questions, are effective in that they give voice to the public as a whole and can provide government officials with meaningful public input.

However, most polls also have significant limitations. Many polls do not go beyond trying to determine what candidate or party a respondent is likely to vote for, and how a candidate's positions are likely to affect that vote. Many polls are conducted by media outlets, driven by the objective of making an engaging news story rather than the objectives of policymakers interested in consulting the public on the issues they face.

Many polls are also limited in that the attitudes that they elicit may be based on limited or incorrect assumptions, and thus are not a reliable indicator of respondents' underlying values. Such misinformation in many cases arises not only from a lack of knowledge but an active effort by candidates to mislead the electorate on key issues.