What now Sumilao farmers?

Walter Lippman, in his book The Public Philosophy, gives us a helpful insight on the workings of democracy. According to him, governments founded on democratic principles, like our system, normally take quite a time before addressing  a public concern. The lag is either positive or it may bring forth negative result.

On one hand, the time that separates between the initial presentation of a public issue and that of government response is long. It, thus, affords decision makers the luxury to scrutinize every angle of a given situation and arrive at a studied plan of action. Haste, which in many cases only results into wastes, is carefully minimized if not altogether avoided. On the other hand, there is a drawback when the period with which government ponders on its move is too lengthy. It happens that because government finally comes up with a measure after an extended period, the problem has so assumed different proportions compared to its original state that the decision is no longer appropriate.

This lesson is good for us at present. Unlike the off-tangent nature of this corner, the theory of Lippman is helpful in looking at the response of the government  of Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the problem posed by the reported displacement of the farmers of Sumilao, Bukidnon.

I remember having written about these Sumilao farmers (and the suicide of the girl Marrianet, for the poverty of her family), some two months ago. At that time, their planned walk (and I meant baktas jud) from Mindanao to the seats of power in Manila, estimated to cover over one thousand kilometers, just started. To these people, they had no other available course of action than such a dramatic move to bring to Malacañang the harshness of the alleged eviction. As I wrote my article, it was their claim that their farm lots had been taken away from them, and in consequence, depriving them of farming, their only known livelihood.

I was hoping that early (or was it that late already?) government would not drag its feet. Fearing that the swell of emotions rather than the weight of reason would eventually prevail, I thought our responsible leaders had to address the issue decisively and more importantly, swiftly. It would have been good that the marchers had not taken few kilometers more had they been gifted with a government action.

But, the normal in our democratic space took place. It was normal for the government not to act with dispatch. Indeed, only the other day, the president was reported to have issued an order reclassifying the 44 hectare from agro-industrial to agricultural land. So for two months, Malacañang kept the country guessing on its move. In the interregnum, the situation exacerbated. The farmers’ march got worldwide attention, invited media glare, attracted many sectors to its cause and with emotions whipped up, polarized diverging thoughts. Was the normal gestation period positive?

   When the president was buffeted by the tumultuous political waves generated by the inglorious tapes called “Hello, Garci”, she took about two weeks, not two months to face the nation, with drooping eye brows and bland make up, to say “I’m sorry”. The military hierarchy, in a terse warning reportedly issued at one o’clock in the afternoon gave Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, until three same day, just about two hours, not two months to end his alleged siege of the Manila Peninsula.

Those two incidents gave an idea to the farmer-marchers of Sumilao, Bukidnon, that if it wanted to, government could not take the normal democratic way of sitting idly by. It seemed to the tribesmen that personal interests of our leaders parlayed a serious factor in policy formulation. When, in past events, socio-political forces confronted the interests of powerful politicians, government would proceed with a speedy resolution.

Prescinding from these thoughts, the Sumilao farmers expressed grave apprehensions. While unsure that the promise of the president was founded upon good faith, they were willing to bet on the positive aspect of Lippman’s theory to extend time for government to back up its commitment with concrete moves. But, they vowed to re-trace their march and hope to apply the negative side of Lippman’s proposition, if, after further waiting, they could not till their lands again.

*  *  *

Email: avenpiramide@yahoo.com.ph

Show comments