New and old wineskins

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Commentary

By Denis Murphy

April 30 was World Disaster Day. It was a day to which most Filipinos paid little attention, believing they already knew more than enough about disasters. Yes, we may know much, especially about the human suffering involved in disasters, but there are other aspects of the phenomenon we know little about, unless we are directly involved in the reconstruction.

From the beginning, for instance, there has been serious criticism of the manner in which the government has responded to disaster victims’ needs. For example, according to a recent Oxfam Briefing Paper on permanent relocation, 81 percent of the people interviewed “stated they are not aware of their rights regarding permanent relocation,” and only 7 percent of those interviewed said “they had been consulted by a government official at the barangay, municipal or national level about the relocation process.”

Sharing of information and consultation are the first steps in relocation demanded by law.

The government’s reluctance to talk to poor people can easily translate to actual mini-disasters in which people are brought to areas where there is no food, no jobs, no land tenure security.

Some people who work with the survivors of “Yolanda” believe that serious reconstruction problems can be explained by Jesus’ words, “Do not pour new wine into old wineskins” (Mark 2:22). The new wine will burst the old wineskins, and the wine will be lost. The Philippines has attempted to pour the vast, unprecedented chaos created by Yolanda, the strongest storm in recorded history, into the old wineskins of our present laws and government apparatuses, expecting a good resolution. Despite the heroism of many people, the government in the most seriously affected provinces was overwhelmed. The wineskins were saved from bursting by aid from the rest of the country and from overseas. At best, it is bare survival.

We need new wineskins that focus the attention of our elected officials on the needs of the people, and not on the next election or other personal goals. There should be a provision for the appointment of new people who will have the power to cut through the red tape and rivalries that delay relocation and job creation. There should also be room for special provisions in law that will guarantee that poor people are treated fairly and are involved in decision-making in matters that affect their lives.

For the elected officials, the new wineskins can take the form of a change in their terms of office. Once a disaster is declared, the elected officials of the area involved will have five years added to their terms, during which they will not have to worry about elections. At the end of the five years, they must step down and stay out of politics for some time, for two years perhaps. They will be awarded a generous lifetime annual bonus, provided the people they represent vote in favor of their receiving the bonus for their good work during the reconstruction period. If they do not get the people’s vote, they cannot run for office again. Such steps, or similar steps, can help direct an official’s activities to the great work at hand and away from personal gain.

We need, as previously said, persons appointed to make the final decisions in all land disputes. And we need a person in each affected province to look after the needs of the poor. These persons will have the authority to remove people from office who do not treat the poor justly and effectively.

These suggestions may not be completely feasible, but at least they point to the need and possible nature of the new wineskins.

James C. Scott writes in his “Two Cheers for Anarchism”: “Perhaps the greatest failure of liberal democracies is their historical failure to successfully protect the vital economic and security interests of their less advantaged citizens through their institutions.”

The people of Eastern Visayas, where we work, prove those words: They had always been poor—50 percent lived below the official poverty line before Yolanda—and they are poorer now, having lost homes, jobs and loved ones. They will become still poorer unless the government does a better job of helping them.

We suggest that early on in the reconstruction work, the President meet with representatives of all sectors of people, province by province, and spell out in some detail what the reconstruction hopes to accomplish. Will the end result, for example, include land reform? What are the nourishment goals for the children? What jobs will be restored or created so each family will have an adequate income? Will the schools be improved, and how?

I believe the people would welcome such a meeting with the President.

In a way, disasters are a chance to begin over and, as the slogan says, “build back better.” Most importantly, we need people who will work with the poor. We need people who will talk with the poor, visit them, find out what they want, and help them as best we can to come together and organize. This would seem to be work that comes very naturally to the churches, especially the Church of Pope Francis.

It is good to have legal steps in place in the hope that we can, in that way, improve reconstruction work. But it is more important to create in our people a “fire in the belly” passion for justice and a better life for all.

Denis Murphy works with the Urban Poor Associates (urbanpoorassociates@ymail.com).

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/74338/new-and-old-wineskins#ixzz34DJ3O4Et 

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

How are we doing?

Commentary

Denis Murphy

It’s been more than three months since the onslaught of Supertyphoon “Yolanda.” Maybe it is time for President Aquino to talk to the nation about the progress made to date in the reconstruction, and how he evaluates the work. What guidelines does he feel must be reaffirmed? What are the great priorities for action? Maybe it is also time to refocus the country’s energies on this enormous task, the most complicated work of its kind since the reconstruction after World War II.

The Senate plans its own investigation of the Yolanda work. That, too, is welcome. We can count on the Senate to reveal the political backdrop to the work down south. The reconstruction work is so immense that we need many other evaluations.

Here in Manila we hardly hear details of the work. We have our basketball games, movie festivals, and Senate inquiries; these hold our attention while 5 million survivors of Yolanda and more survivors in Bohol, Zamboanga and Eastern Mindanao fight for decent survival. For many, the work undertaken in the Visayas and Mindanao is as remote as the war in Sudan.

Reconstruction is really too important a work for the nation’s future economic and cultural health to allow political and money-making considerations to guide decision-making. Yolanda is the great crisis of this generation. What solidarity can exist in the nation if we allow hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters to go homeless and hungry? Who will respect our leaders if they fail to lead by example of hard work and honesty? What face will we have in the international community?

Among the guidelines the President might reaffirm is the policy that families cannot be removed from their homes unless they consent to be relocated on a permanent basis to a site they have approved, to concrete houses with a clear road to a title in the future. There should be work available in the relocation area. Fishermen’s families can be relocated, but there should be a facility along the shoreline, a wharf perhaps, where they can store their boats, prepare and market their fish, or send the fish to larger markets, and sleep when convenient. Fishing is the only income these families have.

The President might see to it that agricultural workers who find their crops and trees in ruins will receive seeds, fertilizers, plows and other forms of assistance, and be benefited by land reform. Why not? It could make the difference between simply “building back” and “building back better.” I think the people of the nation would like to hear the President reaffirm that the recovery will be characterized by people’s participation and will be community-driven. Democracy is often the first casualty in a crisis.

The reconstruction work is as complicated as life itself. How complicated it is is seen in a community discussion held late in January in Tacloban City. The people, mostly fishermen and their wives, were discussing new fishing boats, relocation, a fisherman’s wharf, improving the tents provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and feeding programs for children. And then a middle-aged woman stood up to tell the people there: “We discuss these things and we need them all, but we also need bras, panties and sanitary napkins. It’s impossible to keep our clothes dry in all this rain. Oh, yes, the men need briefs, underwear. They’re human, too.” The crowd laughed.

People would also like to hear from “reconstruction czar” Panfilo Lacson. What is his assessment of the overall work? What is he concentrating on? Is he mostly concerned with big businesses, as rumors have it? What are the major problems he faces?

People would like to know the overall financial situation of the recovery effort. Did the country get the funding it hoped for from the UN, international NGOs, and individual countries? If there is less funding than expected, where will cuts be made? How was the local financial contribution?

Have people been arrested for hoarding, raising prices artificially, stealing resources, and profiteering in other ways? Has anyone been punished? Most people will assume, I’m afraid, that if some people have not been arrested, the old crimes are taking place with impunity.

A wise and learned priest told me this story a few days ago about St. Alberto Hurtado, a 20th-century Jesuit priest in Chile who held doctorates in law and in education  and worked with labor unions, youth and the homeless. He marveled at the closeness of the poor to God. One rainy night Hurtado was late for a big meeting. He was running to his car to catch up when he saw a sick old man sitting in the rain. He gave the old man the money he had in his pocket and ran on. Then he stopped. He went back to the Jesuit house, took all the food in the refrigerator, and gave it to the man. He took off his coat and wrapped it around him. And as he watched in amazement, the tired, ravaged face of the old man turned into that of Jesus.

Denis Murphy works with the Urban Poor Associates (urbanpoorassociates@ymail.com).