‘Balik Probinsya’ requires balik peace talks

The Manila Times Opinion - May 6, 2020

https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/05/06/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/balik-probinsya-requires-
balik-peace-talks/722833/

“‘BALIK Probinsya’ to benefit education,” one of The Manila Times’ headline stories on May
3, quoted Sen. Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go in a report by Javier Ismael. The idea sprouts
in consequence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. It is not new and is devoid
of an essential element. It was in the 1998 presidential elections when former Cebu governor
Emilio “Lito” Osmeña campaigned for rural development under his political party Probinsya
Muna Development Initiative. In 2009, he reiterated development for the provinces and/or the
countryside when he ran for senator. As the prominent figure behind the booming economy of
Cebu or “Ceboom,” it is no wonder then that Osmeña endorsed President Rodrigo Duterte in
2016 when the latter campaigned for federalism. But decentralization without devolution of
power disillusions the dream and defeats the purpose of provincial development. Federalism
drafts bear the burden of proving itself anti-political dynasty to promote emancipatory politics.
The political feud, however, is not between Manila-centered political parties and those from the
Visayas and Mindanao but elite politics versus “new politics,” which is mass-based.
Regionalized minimum wage and loosening environmental laws may partly expedite
“development” in the provinces. The problem, however, may not lie in contradicting structure
between unitary and federal but in the structural sickness of the political economy driven by
neoliberal ideology. World-renowned intellectuals e.g., Richard Wolff, David Harvey and Noam
Chomsky are pointing out what Heather Brown calls the “crassness of contemporary capitalism.”
Senator Go reportedly wants to ensure learning in the rural areas amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
This proposal may not pose a problem with those who have the privilege and opportunity, but
the majority will eventually problematize on the same old issues, i.e., livable wage, access to
quality basic social services. Hence, ensure also socio-politico-economic reforms. “Go… has
urged concerned government agencies to plan long-term solutions…” Ismael wrote. Did Senator
Go bear in mind the structural sickness of neoliberal capitalism when he said he wants Filipinos
to adapt to the “new normal”? Or did he just refer to the new lifestyle under general community
quarantine? In academic discourse, particularly among the aforementioned scholars, what we
refer to as normal prior to the Covid-19 pandemic was not normal. The new normal is dealt with
vis-à-vis the political economy critical to neoliberalism. Neoliberal capitalism puts people,
especially ordinary citizens, at risk. It has been generating crises since Reaganomics and
Thatcherism wreaking havoc to developing economies. Consequently, the Philippines continues
to struggle hard in realizing the Philippines 2000, the socioeconomic program of the Ramos
administration. “The few who have can never be secure in their possessions for as long as they
live among so many who have not,” Ramos said in his July 26, 1993 State of the Nation Address.
His urgent agenda covered the political stability and peace and order; the economy; the
environment; the quality of government; and human resource development. We thought progress
is synonymous with the importation of surplus capital. Have we learned from the unjust
relationship between the Global North and the Global South? If we really want to do Balik
Probinsya, why did the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino–Lakas ng Bayan federalism draft dilute
Article II Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution? Before we go home to our respective provinces,
we should get back first to the peace process since the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and
Economic Reforms reiterates the “comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”

Noe M. Santillan
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Social Studies
University of the Philippines Cebu