Bullying and the culture of impunity
IN
2012, we (our research group at the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication), together with UNESCO, undertook a research study on impunity which we considered a critical factor that would explain the continuing violence perpetrated against journalists. As many know, the country has gained this unfavorable reputation as as one of the most dangerous places for journalists.
In addition to case studies on five journalists who were killed, and interviews with their peers and members of the legal community, several specialists in the disciplines of political science, cultural anthropology, communication, economics, law, and clinical psychology contributed analytical papers on the culture of impunity.
The recent case of bullying by a high school student at the Ateneo University again brings to mind the need to understand bullying, why it continues to persist despite, existing sanctions including a law, RA 10627, An Act Requiring All Elementary and High Schools to Adopt Policies to Protect and Address Bullying, and to examine the root causes. And to revisit social, economic, cultural, and political practices that may have contributed to an environment that had unwittingly fostered the growth of impunity.
In our earlier study, we defined impunity as “exemption from punishment, penalty, or immunity from obligation or duty.” It is manifested in a mindset or behavior such as arrogance, entitlement, lack of accountability or bestowing on oneself and members of one’s social circles, exemption from punishment, and other legal sanctions for perpetrating illegal acts. “The individual gets away with murder” and no one is punished. It is lack of compassion towards those outside the group. And this could further develop into apathy, “culture of silence,” and the “bystander” mentality.
In the study, I used the theory of “social exclusion” or the tendency to exclude those who do not belong to our social or economic class. Those excluded are regarded as expendable. Anthropologist Michael Tan cites our strong group affiliation, social networks, and relationships that show how strong loyalties are confined to kin, peer groups, and one’s tribe, and thus, the tendency towards “exclusiveness,” a trait which often leads to punitive behavior, especially when one desires to protect the small group, right or wrong.
Dr. Honey Carandang further cites two practices in child rearing which had hindered the enforcement of discipline and one is “pinagbibigyan” or when the parent forgives and gives the child another chance. Another practice is “sinasalo” or to rescue. Getting rescued gives the child a feeling of being exempted and protected from the consequences of wrongdoing. This entitlement gives him a sense of power over others and often results in bullying or intimidation. Unless checked, it reinforces impunity.
Dr. Clarita R. Carlos explains impunity in the killings of journalists as consequences of the shortcomings or “democratic deficits” of our political system. It is the hopelessness of efforts to bring to justice those who have misspent the people’s money and perpetrated massive corruption. These are the gaps between promise and its fulfillment.
Dean Jose Manuel Diokno notes that from the prism of the legal structure, it is the “consequence of the failure by the State to meet its obligations to investigate, to take appropriate measure that those suspected are prosecuted, tried, and duly punished, and take the necessary steps to prevent their recurrence.”
If we have to address bullying and other forms of violence, we must understand the environment which fosters this behavior. Tan suggests that we must be able to “decode” the roots of the culture of impunity – “that its power lies mainly in the way it insinuates itself into our institutions through narrow loyalties, rentseeking behavior, and the fetish for modern-day amulets of power.”