2010 Nobel Peace Prize: Pursuing the Hard Peace This Time

As the year 2010 is about to end, let us take a look at the controversial Nobel Peace Prize which again hugged headlines.

For 2010, the Norway-based Nobel Committee decided to award the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao, a Chinese literary writer, professor, and human rights activist.

The west applauded the decision. And human rights groups and activists commended the awarding to one of their fellows. However, Chinese government opposed the awarding to one of its jailed dissidents. Several governments including Cuba and Venezuela joined China in criticizing the popularization of a "western" idea of peace. Later, at least sixteen countries boycotted the awarding ceremony.

Why was there strong opposition to Liu Xiaobao receiving the Peace Prize?

Normally, the government of the country of origin of the winner would share in the pride and honor of bringing the Nobel Peace Prize home. How could China celebrate with the award when it would be given to its convicted dissident? How could China and other countries that are ruled by deviants to the "western" standards of governance applaud to the awarding?

When Mother Teresa won the same award in 1979, was there a public opposition? None.

When the award went to Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964, the world embraced the awarding to MLK because he had fought ideas and beliefs in hierarchy system. He did not directly challenge the government.

There is parallelism though of this year's award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 and Nelson Mandela in 1993. Both Suu Kyi and Mandela challenged their governments, and as a consequence of their actions, they were detained for several years. But Myanmar (Burma) was no China at that time. South Africa elected Mandela as the first ever black President of the country.

In Liu Xiaobao's case, he has challenged his government to implement political reforms. And now, he is serving an 11-year imprisonment for inciting to subvert Chinese government.

China is recognized as a global power with economic, military, and cultural strength. Almost every country wants a piece of China, be it in trade, finance, military, cultural exchange, scholarship, religion, environment, etc.. In other words, China could afford to stand up with its leverage.

Notably, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize decided to pursue a hard peace. It is a peace that deals with political institutions which are represented by a government. This year's award legitimizes the works and advocacies of Liu Xiaobao and other jailed political dissidents in other countries.

This made 2010 Nobel Peace Prize controversial because governments would definitely defend their political institutions. In contrast to soft peace epitomized by Mother Teresa dealing with humanitarian and social issues, hard peace, as the name suggests, is expected meet strong opposition from those who benefit from the political institutions that perpetuate structural violence to the peoples.

Oh My, What Happened To The Philippines?

Today is Human Rights Day.

It could have been splendid for human rights advocacy if governments' representatives had intended to attend the awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese human rights activist who is jailed because of his advocacy. Then, it would have been clear that globally human rights, as a collective set, is at the heart of governance.

It could have been.. But China was reported to have waged an intense campaign and pressure to boycott the awarding. Earlier, eighteen (18) countries have succumbed to that pressure. Now, at least only sixteen (16) countries because Serbia and Ukraine made a turnaround and announced that it would send a representative to the ceremony in Oslo. Among the sixteen countries, the Philippines is one of them.

How could one view the non-attendance of the Philippines in the awarding ceremony of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident?

One way to view it is to look at the explanation of the invited party. The Philippine government justified its conspicuous absence by saying that the non-attendance is not a boycott but a conflict of schedule of the Ambassador to Norway. Anyone buying this justification? Come on, even a 5-year old kid could provide a better reason than that.

Another way to look at it is the rise of China in the global arena. With so much cash reserves, China has leverage to influence decision-making of any governments in need of necessary investments. The Philippines is a host to huge Chinese investments, making China its third largest trading partner. And it can only get bigger and bigger.

And another way to view it is to take account of the recent hostage-taking incident in Manila which killed eight Chinese tourists. The non-attendance of the Philippines could be its way of atonement and seeking reconciliation to the aggrieved and angry Chinese peoples and government.

Alongside with the Philippines, a number of countries would not be around during the awarding. I am not going to dwell on the list of countries that are alleged to have succumbed to the Chinese pressure and supported the Chinese protest against the Nobel. Although many point to the similarities of those that will boycott the awarding, I would not magnify the obvious defining characteristics of these countries - the way they treat and uphold human rights in their own jurisdictions.

Each country has its own reason for its non-attendance. I would leave the evaluation of their reasons to the reasoning public and readers.

Measuring Volunteering in a Jesuit university in the Philippines

“To be men and women for others,” this Ignatian motto is ingrained in students, staff and faculty members of any Jesuit universities in the world. Volunteering is one way of being men and women for others. After three decades since Pedro Arrupe, SJ, coined this Ignatian motto, how is one Jesuit university in the Philippines living up to the motto through volunteering?

 This survey-research seeks to know the extent of participation and distribution of a Jesuit university students, administrators, faculty and staff members who actively and freely took part in the  community outreach and public service activities and programs initiated and implemented by the university and other organizers. Moreover, it also identifies  the motivational factors that affect their spirit of volunteerism.

The Ateneo de Naga University (ADNU) as a modern university serves in four functions; instruction, research, extension and public service, and preservation and transmission of culture. The four are expected to flow from and contribute to each other (Javier 1995). Thus far in Ateneo de Naga University, various councils and committees were instituted to put premium on the first two traditional functions, instruction and research. Consequently as in other universities, among the four, the third function -extension and public service as well as the fourth one, are sparingly given the same regard as instruction and research.

Read the whole research here.

Share or Restrain Power?: Rethinking of the University Students’ Participation in Decision-making

When the Costa Rica-based University for Peace (UPeace) launched the Dual Campus Master Programme on International Peace Studies in the Philippines in 2007, there were 30 students from 11 Asian countries who made it to the Programme. Being the first batch of students under the new Dual Campus Programme, the students experienced the complexity of decision-making under the set-up of dual campus. While the center of decision-making remains at Costa Rica, there are two personnel of UPeace who have delegated authority to attend and respond to some issues raised by the students. One particular issue that was strongly raised by many students was about the decision of UPeace to arrange the accommodation of all students using their stipend without the students’ participation in the decision-making process. The students felt that any decision-making that concerns them should include their participation in the process.

Like any other organizations in a free and democratic society, a university adopts a certain decision-making mechanism that governs and affects its faculty, staff, students, and other members. The students, being a significant part of a university, should play an active part in the decision-making process that affects them. There is a “generally accepted political proposition that in free societies all those affected by a social policy have an inalienable right to a voice in its formulation” (McGrath 1970, 51). However, a university operates within and is embedded in a power structure that defines mostly its decisions. Morison (1970, 25) describes the “reality of power structure in the university that implies the acceptance of an administrative diagram which shows power-flowing down from the trustees, through the president to the faculty, with nothing left for distribution to the lowly students.” He continues that “the university is perceived to be virtually beyond the reach of the influence of students. It is this perception which lies behind much of the clamor about student powerlessness and the demand to be allowed to make decisions affecting the student’s own life” (Ibid, 51).

Acceptability of an effective decision hinges on the kind of participation given by the people concerned and involved (Prescott, 1980). In a university, some students are passive recipients of decisions but many students refuse to be just on the receiving end. The more the decision excludes participation of students, the more they will likely reject the decision and clamor for inclusion in the decision-making. For the students, a decision can be more effective if they take part in the decision-making process. This proposition will expectedly face objections from university administrators and educators.

McGrath (1970) enumerates five objections to student participation in the decision-making. First, due to their large numbers, students will dominate decision-making bodies in universities. Second, due to limited life experiences, students’ immaturity will reflect in their decision-making. Third, due to limited number of years in a university, students will miss to look at the larger and longer picture. Fourth, students have yet to gain specialized abilities and professional values. And finally, being part of decision-making will interfere with the students’ studies and gainful employment. It would be pointed out that these objections do not hold ground for the following reasons. Let us take them one by one. The apprehension that the students will dominate in the decision-making bodies is very unlikely to happen since members of these bodies are representatives of various groups that are proportionately represented. Both the immaturity of students and lack of professional values will be better dealt with by the challenges and lessons to be handled and learned at the interactive discussions of these decision-making bodies in which the students participate. The students are not supposed and expected to ponder the larger and longer picture of the issues because this is the work of administrators who shall balance the present and future needs and goals. The students are expected to give opinions and concrete examples on the issues based on their experiences and perspectives. The concern that students’ participation in the decision-making will interfere in their studies and gainful employment undermines the motivation of students towards their studies and employment. These objections to the students’ participation rest on a shallow ground to merit attention on their arguments.

On the other hand, there are six justifications for students’ participation (Ibid, 1970). First, with the sophistication of students and their serious and informed interests, it will be good and instructive to listen to students’ interesting voices and ideas. Second, in preparation for the students to be good citizens, they should be educated and exposed to democratic exercises like school elections and participating in decision-making activities. Third, through their experiences, students can improve higher education in general. Fourth, by treating them as maturing adults, students can help abolish the doctrine of In Loco Parentis (in place or position of a parent) in universities. Fifth, of course in the teaching-learning environment, students can have a hand in the improvement of instruction. Sixth and finally, students are recognized voice and presence in the universities, and that they should not be ignored or excluded. These justifications underscore the significance of students’ participation in the decision-making.

There are four core values in the participatory decision-making that a university can adopt (Kaner 1996, 24). First is the encouragement of full participation of all members. Second is the mutual understanding of the legitimacy of each other. Third is the inclusive solution from which various perspectives and needs are considered. The last core value is the shared responsibility of the task. This is to highlight that the task of decision-making is not on the officers, managers, and administrators alone but is shared by everybody who has a stake on the decision to be made.

Kaner (1996, 29) also presents the benefits of participatory values in decision-making.  These benefits are personal learning of those who participate in the decision-making, development of effective groups, and sustainable agreements. Of particular interest here are the sustainable agreements that are netted by participatory decision-making. If students are included in the decision-making processes in universities, there will be less restlessness and clamor among students to be transparent and accountable in the decision-making process since they are part and privy of the process.

Should universities then share their power on decision-making with their students? Or should they restrain power in themselves? The quality and effectiveness of a decision lie in the openness of the universities for participatory decision-making since they traditionally hold the key for this kind of decision-making. Obviously, the benefits of participatory decision-making are there to reap. The students are there to be tapped for their sea of potentials. The universities are there to facilitate these potentials into fruition. Thus, whatever the tasks and functions of universities, they are always seen as shared responsibility, with the community, parents, local officials, government, and especially students who care for their education, have a stake as anyone else, and want to seize the opportunity to take command of their actions and future as responsible members of society.

References:

Kaner, Sam. “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making.” British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 1996.

McGrath, Earl. “Should Students Share the Power?: A Study of their Role in College and University Governance.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970.

Morison, Robert. “Students and Decision making.” Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1970.

 Prescott, Bryan. “Effective Decision-making: A Self-development Programme.” Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company Limited, 1980.

To a certain Carlos who came to church

Dear Carlos,

As you read this, I pray for your well-being inside the juvenile jail cell.

Surprised and shocked, I could not hold shaking my head for quite a number of times after I saw your own "civil disobedience." As I saw it, there was no civility in the act. Yeah, it was a show of disobedience.

I understand the anger and disgust in the threat of excommunication from the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to President Aquino. To my mind, it is uncalled for and inappropriate for a representative of highly respected and influential CBCP to give such a threat to a newly elected and legitimate President. It is a plain display of moral ascendancy at the time when the Church is confronted by abuses and scandals worldwide.

As a Filipino citizen, you have the right to defend your President and voice your sentiments on issues.

I am a Filipino too. And President Aquino is my President too. And our Philippine society, I believe, is governed by laws, decency, and tolerance. Even Rizal, I imagine, would not claim and see himself in your act of disrespecting the institution and sobriety of a holy Mass. As far as I know and you know this more than I do, Rizal was a sensible man.

If you want the Church to get out of politics, you are not alone. I would also favor to see this. I don't like my church to get involved in the operations of the civilian government.

However, both the Church and the State have quite the same constituency in the Philippines. Besides, the issue at hand directly affects the flocks of the Church and citizens of the Philippine government on their moral decision-making. In this case, I would like my church and government to help me reach an informed decision.

And at this point, they are doing their jobs well, except the threat from a representative of CBCP. [Again, I'd stress that he is not the Church. Like me, your neighbors, your relatives and friends, he is a member of the Church. So when you direct your anger and disgust to the Church, you also vent those to us. In catechism, we know that the Church resides in every believer.]

As Filipinos, we know and understand basketball. I hope you like basketball as most Filipinos do.  In NBA, imagine someone guarding Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. The guard knows that James or Bryant will score more than ten or twenty points in any given game. But does it mean that he should stop guarding James or Bryant because both will score anyway? NO! He still has to do his job - guarding those prolific scorers.

The Church is playing guard here. It does and will do something that James or Bryant and their fans won't like, but the guard must not bow down, whether he is liked or not. It is his job to guard and stop the scoring.

The Church is guarding against actions without responsibility and obligation. Actions can be done in certain conditions (e.g. sex in the context of marriage). After marriage, parenting is such a huge responsibility. It is like sharing the gift of creation. With this gift comes responsibility. Condoms and artificial contraceptives do not remind us of this gift. Rather, they result to a wasted gift.

I feel that there is a misplaced blame towards the Church on overpopulation which is said to be dragging the country to the pits of poverty. Because of its policies and advocacies on abortion and contraceptions, the Church is being made as a scapegoat of something that it has not caused.

Yeah, I agree that we have a problem on overpopulation. But it is too much to relate overpopulation alone with poverty. I hope you have seen a politician that has become poor or has remained similar in economic standing after his/her term ends. I wish you had been to the rural areas where almost no infrastructure project is being implemented while in Metro Manila, a paved road is being dug out to be paved again. The basic problem is on the management and distribution of the country's resources. We are not a poor country, supposedly, but we are. Is it because of the Church?

I hope you have a good sleep inside the jail with your new friends. I know that you are an amazing storyteller. But your last story does not amaze me at all. Anyhow, you have the prayers of millions for your well-being.

Yours,

Juan Filipino Catholico