Unity in diversity

Since our politicians are bandying around the word ‘unity’ in their slogans, it is time that we look at it closer. Unity is a serious idea that should not be trivialized. In the context of Philippine politics it is being used to mask opportunism rather than working towards a principled common agenda. Indeed if a political candidate were to be taken more seriously, he should avoid using the word ‘unity’. The true meaning of unity is not something you pluck from the air to project a noble aim. Far from it. It is far more complex than a common ticket to ensure victory in an election derby. If the different parties must insist on using ‘unity’ let us begin with sincerity. But united for what? Let us not fool yet again the electorate.

If our politicians are sincere the first stop is to seek the meaning of true unity other than having a common ticket. That goes for both the administration and the opposition. Both are being silly. Unity is not a stand alone concept. It goes with diversity. That is one of the great paradoxes of life and there is no escaping it. But once it is understood, we are on our way to more effective politics.

Unity can not be considered without diversity. That is the reality. But rather than deplore differences these should be celebrated, not swept under the rug. We all think differently, worship differently, live our lives differently. All of nature is about unity in diversity. Name any activity or any idea and you are bound to encounter ‘difference’. It is how we manage difference that makes unity possible.

Ok. I’ll say it. Those who had fought relentlessly for Charter change can only be dismayed by a mixed administration ticket which includes comedian Tito Sotto and dancing lady Tessie Aquino. It reflects badly on Sotto and Aquino but more so on Lakas-CMD and its coalition parties (Kampi and NPC). Charter change advocates were made to believe that the majority party’s political platform from the start was Charter change. Including those who had fought it so vigorously in the administration ticket is a betrayal. I daresay it is a slap on the face. If Charter change advocates had cooperated with the ruling party it was because it had promoted Charter change. Whoever is behind this betrayal ought to be politically thrashed. Whatever excuses are given, the inclusion of those who had been against Charter change is tantamount to abandoning it unless of course, there was a proviso that anyone who is in the administration ticket should embrace the same platform. Otherwise calling for unity is sheer hypocrisy, sweeping differences under the rug for the time being and then sweep the dirt back into the open when elections are over. It is sheer opportunism and the people know it. It is the politicians who have not come to terms that Filipinos circa 2007 have changed — they know the difference between what matters and what is disposable fluff.

We must accept differences. That should be the first given. Difference is the essence of pluralism and pluralism is essential to democracy. But these differences converge at a point and that point is what is good for the welfare of the country. Pushing for what is good for a country means a program of government which one rarely hears from the anointed candidates. It was disappointing to hear the youthful Congressman Escudero filing his candidacy to be senator of the land because he wanted to stop the ‘intrigues’. Is that why he is asking the electorate to vote for him? Good grief. Who cares about intrigues between candidates? I would have expected him to say something more elevated than that. I would have wanted to know his vision is for the country. But nothing, Nada.

I mean platforms which articulate difference so that in the time of decision when the voters go to the polls they have a choice. This is what elections are all about – choice. Not money, not popularity, not common tickets. The problem is that in our present system we spend all our time fighting each other and making sure that a program of government is continuously frustrated. It is a tribal war or what some have dubbed ‘winner take all’. Its undeclared aim is to prevent successful governance by any government whoever is in charge. The country and the people are sacrificed by this kind of thinking. More importantly that is how we miss the chance of promoting unity, real unity that can bind us all together – love for country.

This is the time for Lakas-CMD coalition (Kampi, NPC etc) to fight for its program of government. Charter change is a real point of difference. So is it with UNO. The opposition has relentlessly fought this issue therefore it should present an anti-Charter change platform and build a ticket around it. I would think that its choices should include personalities from the Black and White Movement, some clergy, Hyatt 10 all the rest who have frustrated Charter change. Now is the time to put that difference to a test. I do not buy the idea that this election should be a referendum on President GMA as the opposition puts it. More politically mature is to think of it as a referendum on her program of government and her support for Charter change which is at its very core.

The issue of Charter change is what divides the government from the opposition. Having fought it the opposition and the personalities behind it must answer why they do not think Charter change is good for the country. Then we would have a more meaningful election.

Moreover, it will provide a perfect occasion for the political education of the masses instead of this shallow politicking with the use of actresses, actors and television celebrities. UNO should marshal their strength and fight Charter change as they have done in the months leading to this election. It may seem like I am extolling difference and that this is not a bad thing when we have enough of such differences. That is only true on the surface. Emphasizing this difference between those who are for and those who are against Charter change, ironically is the best way to unite the country under one issue – the issue of good governance. We must find the answer to the question – what system of government ought we to have that will cultivate the sense of unity while differing on the methods that could bring it about. I daresay the answer is clear – parliamentary unicameral government. It is focused on what election is for – good governance, not personalities.

Although I have used unity in diversity in the context of local politics it is not a new or isolated phenomenon I have invented to suit my articulation of our problem. The concept of unity in diversity goes back hundreds of years in non-western cultures such as indigenous peoples in North America and Taoist societies in 400-500 BC. We are ill served by those who fail to make us understand how to cope with unity in diversity. Neither stands alone. We can only live with both and find a way to thrive harmoniously with both. And we are not alone with this problem. It, too is the problem of the world, heightened by the ‘clash of civilizations.’ There should be no clash, if we understood that while differences exist so does unity. But it takes time and effort to achieve a balance between the two realities. Yet it cannot be minimized because it is the highest possible attainment of a civilization and a testimony to the best possibilities for mankind. So too with the Philippines circa 2007 in the May elections. Let us celebrate difference but only the differences that matter because only then would we find, no matter how ironically it may seem, a cause for unity – finding what is best for the country.

My email is [email protected].