I remember one of the greatest advices Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in his infamous work, The Prince is the three possible ways in holding a state that has been accustomed to living freely under their own laws. First, is to devastate them. Second, is to occupy them. Finally, allow the state to maintain their own laws but they should be subjected to taxes and an established oligarchy. With this and more cutting edge political tactics that he wrote, The Prince has become one of the greatest literatures of all time.
What do this century old literature
have to do with today’s article? A lot.
On a speech made in front of
agri-business players, Davao City Mayor Duterte advised these business peopleto just pay “revolutionary taxes” if asked by the New People’s Army, during the
opening of the Davao Trade Expo three years ago. Though he conceded a peaceful
way of dealing with these “revolutionary” and “ideological” groups by talking
to them, he admitted to paying these revolutionary taxes to NPA, which drew
flak. In his statement, he also admitted that he couldn’t put this practice to
stop and just “factor that in your investments.” A comparison between paying to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue was also made synonymous to paying the NPA.
From an observer’s point of view, there is a more efficient way of handling situations like this, and not by adding fuel to the already scorching fire. These revolutionary taxes will be used by non-state groups for violent means. Why would we finance them in the first place when one of the main roles of the government is to maintain peace and not to provoke it. As I interpret it, the act alone in paying revolutionary taxes is simply condoning the notion of being subjected to monthly or regular terror brought about by these revolutionary groups. The act of paying is a signal that corruption and the insurgencies brought about by these ideological groups are parts of the everyday life and should therefore be accepted as a norm. But in reality it is not. The government continues to battle with these groups and as citizens our role is to condone any act in support of or in line with their unorthodox ideologies. These should never be tolerated no matter how widely practiced it is.
If we kowtow to the demands of these
groups, our actions will send a signal to them that we are afraid; we are
voluntarily offering ourselves as subjects to their regime. Thus we too fight
in a manner that is just and civilized.
So how should we tackle this
situation, obviously not through elimination of these groups? Neither is
through occupying them as there is a high risk of being immersed in their ways
and it would make the move moot. The best way, according to Niccolo Machiavelli
is to allow them to maintain their own laws but they should be subjected to
taxes and an established oligarchy. Simply put, let them keep their own orders
but install a different regime.
A regime of
what you might ask?
A regime that would properly manage
the economy and give stable source of income for both sides – insurgents
included. Why is this effective and efficient? Because we would remove the
dependency of these revolutionary groups towards the agri-people and the rest
of the local government. We cannot
continue to give them fish everyday, we should teach them how to fish. When
this happens, windows of opportunities opens – economic growth, political
stability for the law abiders and accesses to education and healthcare for the
insurgents. We have to establish a regime that follows a rule of law, advocates
peace processes and proper governance. Though it may take time, the potential
benefits are aplenty. Once we establish enough jobs and employment, decent
housing, network of transportation and communication, we can attract these
insurgents to live normally with them at our side, not against our side.
So in the end, it is a Pareto Optimal scenario,
which produces a win-win situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment