Trying a mailed fist on for size?

Ultimately, the state’s right to self-preservation is not absolute; it exists in a delicate balance with the rights and aspirations of its people.

National Security Adviser Eduardo Año, declaring on Sunday the government’s resolute opposition to any attempts at secession being floated by some groups in Mindanao, has reignited the age-old debate on the right of the state to self-preservation vis-a-vis the right of the people to topple or break away from an unjust government.

A former chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Año sounded off on the readiness of the Marcos administration to use force if necessary to stop “any and all efforts” to “dismember” the Republic. While he spoke in the abstract, the official was no doubt referring to the fighting words that came out of former President Rodrigo Duterte last week.

To recall, with his son Davao City Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte calling on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to resign for allegedly being “lazy,” the elder Duterte declared it may be better for Mindanao to break away from the country if the present dispensation would insist on amending the 1987 Constitution.

The former president then pointed to former Speaker and now Davao del Norte 1st District Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez as the one laying the groundwork for a scenario they likened to Singapore breaking away from Malaysia in 1965. Alvarez said a self-governing Mindanao may trump not just the Philippines it would leave behind, but also Singapore.

Alvarez claimed that all Singapore had was good governance under Lee Kuan Yew yet it prospered. Mindanao, on the other hand, has rich resources that could make it fly if allowed to break from a Manila-centric government, he pointed out.

The talk of secession is being fueled by initiatives from the House of Representatives for Charter change, or Cha-cha, with the Marcos government’s announced intention of opening up the country and the economy to more foreign investments. But critics of the government, including those in Mindanao, have warned that term extension for the powers that be may be the ultimate objective of Cha-cha.

In reaction, President Marcos Jr., whose cousin Speaker Martin Romualdez was tagged as being behind the botched People’s Initiative to convene the House and the Senate into a Constituent Assembly, blamed “toxic” politicking. He then appealed to the public not to be hoodwinked by those seeking to foment disorder.

While Año’s statement emphasized national unity and territorial integrity, his mailed fist pronouncements that the government would unleash its full might against those in Mindanao calling for secession are nothing new. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle both envisioned the state as an organism striving for order and the common good.

They viewed internal dissent and rebellion as threats to this harmony, justifying measures — however harsh — to preserve the unity of the state. Machiavelli, prioritizing stability in “The Prince,” advocated ruthless tactics against internal threats. These perspectives, however, overlook the fundamental social contract upon which legitimate states are built.

Hobbes’ “Leviathan” posits that individuals surrender some freedoms in exchange for the security provided by the state. This implies a reciprocal obligation: That the state must uphold its end of the bargain by ensuring the well-being and respecting the basic rights of its citizens. Rousseau’s “Social Contract” echoes this, acknowledging the state’s collective will but emphasizing the importance of consent. When this consent is withdrawn due to systemic oppression or unfulfilled promises, the right to self-determination, as championed by Locke, comes into play.

Opponents of unrestricted state power would, of course, argue that self-preservation cannot trump fundamental rights like free expression and assembly. They have long maintained that indiscriminate suppression against non-violent dissenters not only stifles legitimate grievances but also undermines the state’s legitimacy.

Ultimately, the state’s right to self-preservation is not absolute. It exists in a delicate balance with the rights and aspirations of its people. Ignoring their voices while invoking self-preservation is a recipe for discord. Instead, open dialogue, genuine efforts towards addressing grievances, and exploring pathways to self-governance within the state’s framework offer a more harmonious and sustainable path forward.

Amid the saber-rattling on the homefront, even as China casts a long shadow as an outside threat to Philippine sovereignty, the Marcos government is dangling unity and peace to its local adversaries, while keeping all options open to ensure that President BBM gets to finish the six-year term he won via landslide in the 2022 elections. Even this — the carrot and stick ploy — is nothing new. The only question is: Would history repeat itself?

*****
Credit belongs to: tribune.net.ph