PEACE PROCESS WITH THE MORO ISLAMIC LIBERATION FRONT (MILF)
Hello hivers! Have you guys tried the Bunaken exercise? Just thought of sharing my experience.
I grew up understanding DIALOGUE as a consultation process between two (2) parties only. I thought, for as long as both sides were heard and an agreement was reached then there was dialogue. This was contrary to what Daniel Yankelovich said in his article, “What Makes Dialogue Unique?” He said, dialogue does not necessarily have to be two-sided. In fact, he said it is best when several groups are involved. He also compared Debate versus Dialogue.
Accordingly, parties to a debate assume that they have the right answer instead of considering that others also have the same and together, they can come up with a solution; they are combative instead of being collaborative; they always want to win than explore a common ground; they use assumptions as the truth rather than see it as a consideration for reevaluation; they look at the faults of others rather than consider that they may also have faults; they conclude rather than look at possibilities.
The Bunaken exercise enlightened me about how each learning team in our class functions and how the current leadership in our region now delivers their message to the people.
During the exercise, some of us (from different learning teams) were already conscious of how to behave and deliver our messages to other members/teams, although some still failed. Whether we stick to our learning teams or work with other teams, I realized many have the inclination to engage into a debate rather than a dialogue.
It was very clear to me that teams storm because we encourage debate rather than dialogue. We always go against the others rather than see how we can level off the playing field. Competition and arrogance were prevalent. We cannot step back and empty our cups. We hear each other but we do not listen to each other. Worse, we listen to reply not to understand.
Our “autonomous” region had been wanting to achieve peace for decades now. However, I never saw that dialogue was used to engage all stakeholders. It was more of a discussion.
Daniel Yankelovich distinguished dialogue from discussion with the following features:
1)Equality and absence of coercive influences.
Listening with Empathy; and
Bringing Assumptions into the Open.
These three (3) must be present for a dialogue to take place.
Frist, I have observed that equality never reigned during the settlement of the peace process in our region. Then and now, trust issues prevail. The national government entrusted the rebel/returnees with the leadership of the newly created political entity, but some officials especially the ministers from the government side cannot remove their badges of authority and treat the rebels/returnee's side as equals.
They seem to doubt how the rebels/returnees can move forward considering their lack education and skills in governing.
GPH-MILF Peace Process Infrastructure
The same thing happens with the rebels/returnees. They want governance to happen their way. They cannot seem to work well together with the ministers representing the government and find a solution that is agreed by all. Both sides think they are politically correct.
Why can they not recognize that, yes, they are of unequal status, but if they really want to achieve peace, isn’t mutual trust necessary? Sadly, each camp looks at the flaws of each other and assumes that their points are more valid or correct than the other.
Next, as to empathy, I am curious if the creation of the new political entity and the granting of the leadership to the rebels is a sign of empathy. To what extent does the government empathize? Do they empathize with the whole Muslims in Mindanao or just with the rebels who have now surrendered?
Given that the government had been making efforts, I think the former combatants who are now taking the lead in the autonomous region should also consider how difficult it is to solve the Bangsamoro problem.
Empathy shall come from both sides, not just the government. Both the government and former rebels shall welcome each other’s viewpoint to understand where each is coming from.
Lastly, I think the 3rd feature, Bringing Assumption into the Open, is really what is missing in the peace negotiations. Both the ministers with the government and the MILF have so many assumptions, but they keep them within themselves.
Daniel Yankelovich said that the only way to avoid misunderstandings is to be honest about assumptions. Disagreements are still possible but tension is not that high. Unless both sides lay down their cards, I think Muslim Mindanao has very long way to go. There can still be so many things that can happen and peace can never really be achieved.