Nationhood and bridging leadership

I KNOW I’m not the only one saddened by the deep division in our society that we now witness around us with each passing day, particularly in the news and in social media, which has become so much part of our day-to-day consciousness. It is especially manifest in the vicious and often dirty word war between the groups that derogatorily brand each other “Dutertards” and “yellow turds,” needless insults that only deepen the division and heighten the tension. Meanwhile, the rest of us who identify with neither—the greater majority of Filipinos, I believe—watch from the sidelines, shaking our heads and worrying more than ever about where our beloved country is heading.

I have long held that possibly the most formidable hurdle we as a people need to overcome is our pathetic lack of oneness as a nation. That phrase captures my preferred definition of nationalism, against the ersatz nationalism that many equate to resisting or even abhorring things foreign. I recall the apt imagery that Fidel V. Ramos used to paint during his presidency in the 1990s, when he preached “UST”—unity, solidarity and teamwork—as critical to moving our Filipino nation forward. He called on his audiences to imagine the Philippines as a boat with passengers rowing in various directions, going round and round, aimlessly headed nowhere. But think how fast we could surge forward, he would challenge everyone, if only all of us would row in the same direction.

With this in mind, and blind to party affiliation, political persuasion, age, gender, socioeconomic class or ethnicity, Ramos enjoined every Filipino to take part in building our nation, strengthening our economy, and securing for ourselves a peaceful future. He convened frequent “summits” to bring together Filipinos of divergent ideas, to seek consensus and plot strategies and solutions for various challenges we faced. The positive payoffs from his unifying leadership were palpable. The 1990s saw signs that Filipinos had regained national pride and renewed faith in their future. We witnessed, among other signs, numerous Filipino expatriates and their families drawn back to the country, seeing improvement in professional prospects here at home. Total investment (domestic plus foreign) in 1993-1997 (omitting the Asian financial crisis year of 1998) grew at an average annual rate of 8.8 percent, faster than overall GDP growth. In contrast, investment growth was to slow down to a mere 4 percent average in the 2000-2009 decade. More starkly, it stagnated at zero growth in the particularly troubled period of 2004-2009, when questions on the legitimacy of the leadership split the nation and compromised the quality of governance.

As in past elections, I had looked to the last one with hope that we could again move closer toward national unity—especially after six years of a “yellow” leadership seen to have heightened divisions, this time drawn along political party lines. Where many of us would have wished to see constructive and statesmanlike bridge-building, divisions were only deepened with endless blame-throwing, capped by an acrimonious electoral campaign where a seemingly self-righteous “yellow army” damned all else. Now, a new self-righteous and even more viciously vocal “army” has taken over, further deepening the divisions among us. I find it truly sad, and distressingly alarming.

And yet I saw in Rodrigo Duterte’s election the potential for a unifying, bridging leader, owing to his unique background as a longtime mayor who kept close touch with those he governed, with ear close to the ground in a hands-on style of leadership. He also won an unprecedented broad base of support spanning all socioeconomic classes and the wide range of geographic regions. He thus seemed uniquely positioned to be the leader we can all rally behind, the team captain to exhort us to row our national boat in one direction. But nearing completion of his first 100 days in office, that role is clearly something into which he still needs to evolve. I believe he can, provided he acknowledges how vitally important it is that he does, and accepts that his position demands statesmanship and a leadership that builds bridges among Filipinos, and with the foreign community. The perennial optimist in me continues to keep faith that he would evolve into the part.

But the responsibility for unifying leadership does not fall on the President alone; it falls as heavily on his lieutenants. They cannot be unquestioning yes-men and -women to their strong but occasionally wayward principal, and not further worsen already gaping divisions, or create new ones on their own. We need them to also be unifying, bridging leaders whose decisions and actions uphold the greatest good for the greatest number. They need not look far for help. For years, the Asian Institute of Management’s TeaM Energy Center for Bridging Leadership has trained thousands of bridging leaders, young and old, in government (including local governments, police and the military), in business, and in civil society. All of them now help bridge gaps that divide Filipinos, in up to 80 communities nationwide where they work. The President and his Cabinet would do well to imbibe the principles and methods of the bridging kind of leadership now working through these AIM-trained leaders.

Finally, building our nation demands something from all of us: “Dutertards,” “yellow turds,” and bystanders alike. If change is indeed coming, we need to remind ourselves that it will not come unless we all take Mahatma Gandhi’s call to heart: We must be the change we want to see.

* * *

cielito.habito@gmail.com