Pnoy’s 2015 SOnA and the common good

When President noynoy Aquino III delivered his last State of the nation Address (SOnA) last Monday, July 27, 2015 he had all the right to say what he wanted to say to the Filipino nation. This is the only president that was able to do drastic actions, like impeached a supreme court justice, put behind bars senators who are charged of corruption, pushed for the end of the conflict in Bangsamoro region, and in one way or the other, have gained the trust and confidence of the people. I know many of his critics, some are close relatives and friends, may not agree with me.

I guess all of us want what is good for our families, our communities, and to the Filipino nation as a whole. The group of Vice President Jojo Binay claims that they are pro-poor. The Makabayan bloc are also advocating for policies for the welfare of the masses. But how come all of them, including the present administration, have not sat down and work together and implement projects and programs that are responsive to the needs of the Filipino people. What we hear from the “opposition” side are full of complains and criticisms. In a democratic society, we value these moves. But complaining and criticizing for the sake of doing it is not productive. Can the “opposition” agree, just even for one policy, that the present administration have indeed helped boost our economy, addressed some institutional problems of corruption, and initiated-reforms in terms of governance.

Pnoy is not a “perfect” president. he is not as brilliant as President Marcos, President Ramos, and PGMA. But he won in an election at a time when our people needed to bring back its trust to the government.

his SOnA may have disappointed many of us who wanted to hear something about the bill on the Freedom of Information (FOI); more protections on the rights of the indigenous peoples; electoral reforms (although he mentioned the point on Anti political dynasty); and more on concrete economic reforms. he continues his slogan on “Tuwid na Daan”, and the necessity of ensuring that the reforms he initiated will be sustained by the next president come 2016 elections. his direct criticisms on the previous administration were also present in his speech. Many of us are also saying that he needs to let go of the past and move on. I do not agree on this. We should always be reminded of the wrong doings of the previous administration. All the different scams and “political monsters” it created in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

After listening to PnOy’s longest speech, it reminded me of the importance of defining the concept of “common good” in our local context. I say this simply because all of us, those coming from different political “parties”, ideologies, religions, and sectors, claim that we are pro-poor, pro-development, and pro-peace. But what is common in all our ideals and aspirations?

A Jesuit friend of mine asked me, “When there’s so much we disagree about, how are we going to work together?” My answer, find the common ground. Fr. Patrick Riordan, SJ of heythrop College, university of London is currently in Davao City as a visiting professor and lead discussant on the concepts and principles of common good in our Pakighinabi series. he gave me a copy of his book entitled, Together for the Common Good: Towards a national Conversation. The book is a major collection of thirteen essays that focuses on putting into action defining and working for a common good. The essays were written by leading scholars and thinkers from across different political persuasions, Christian denominations, Jewish, Muslim and secular traditions. They all call for a national conversation about how different interests can work together for the common good within the context of the people in Great Britain.

What is common good?

According to one of the contributors of the book, Ms. Tehmina Kazi in her essay entitled, Social Action that Crosses Boundaries and Overcomes Barriers: A Muslim perspective on the common good, “a widely quoted Catholic definition of the common good is: ‘The sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.’ ( Vatican II, Gaudium et sees (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 1965, 26.) She further added the definition provided by secular philosopher John Rawls as, “certain general conditions that are in an approximate sense equally to everyone’s advantage”. (2015, p. 109)

These definitions are not that easy to understand and apply in actual situations. People will always disagree on certain points and definitions. They will also find it hard to reach at a consensus in actually defining what and which conditions would benefit all of their constituents. Others would even argue that political and individual interests are parts of our social problems. however, a strong society that has the capacity and willingness to address these social problems can define the concept of common good at their own context. As Kazi writes, truly strong communities actively embrace pluralism, dynamism and creativity, rather than seeing these qualities as threats. They are able to reconcile individual expression and contentment with the ongoing fulfillment of obligations to the collective. (p. 110)

Similarities in Islam

According to Kazi, there are two Islamic concepts that are related to the common good. The first one is “maslaha”. Two Muslim scholars, Al Ghazali and Al-Shatibi, used this term. Its literal translation is “public interest” The second Islamic concept is “istislah”. Its literal meaning is “to seek the best public interest”. This is a device applied by Muslim jurists to solve pressing social problems where the answer does not easily derived from the religious texts. Both terms, according to Kazi, has the potential to bring communitarian benefit and benefit to particular individuals.

Challenge to our people

having a conversation or a “pakighinabi” on the importance of defining common good at the national and local context in our country today is pressing challenge. These conversations need our collective actions that cut across political and cultural boundaries. We need to dialogue when we discuss national issues on the peace process, protection of human rights, and other major concerns.

Kazi in her concluding statement in her essay said, “Just because two individuals or organization cannot find complete consensus, particularly on issues of individual belief and doctrine, however, it doesn’t mean that they should discount each other’s potential as allies in furtherance of the common good”. (p. 119).