Compromise is not totally bad
AS we study the two versions of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (from the Senate and House of Representatives), I remembered an adage said by US Congressman Samuel Rayburn that says, “If you want to get along, you have to go along.” This was the advise he gave to the US members of Congress that allowed him to serve for longest tenure as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, serving for over seventeen years.
The meat of Rayburn’s advice mean you have to learn to give a little to get something in return, thus, he was basically teaching us the principle of compromise.
Unfortunately, most people see compromise as a bad thing. They see it as a way of giving up one’s principle. For some people, when they are willing to compromise they feel that it is a sign of weakness and lose their dignity as a human being.
But the way I see it, the reality in the Bangsamoro peace process, an act of willingness to compromise is a sign of great conviction: the conviction that the Bangsamoro people and the Filipino nation come first.
Yes. I agree. This is easier said than done.
John Baldwin, an internationally recognized executive coach and leadership educator, gives an important advice on how to compromise when compromising is difficult. He said, “Start by understanding the other person or group’s point of view. Our ego often prevents us from seeing what others see — and, worse, prevents us from seeing the merits of their case.” This is very true in the essence of what the legislators are proposing for the Bangsamoro Basic Law.
The BBL aims to give the following principles to the Bangsamoro people: political autonomy, fiscal autonomy, rights of the indigenous peoples, protection of the environment, transition government, and a democratic way of addressing the conflict through a plebiscite. All these principles are difficult for our people to understand. Hence, the people on the ground does not care that much of the words of the law. The important thing for them is that they will have food on their table, have proper access to social services (health and education), sustainable livelihood, and a decent way of life based on their cultural practices - that is peace for them.
In my observation, ideologues in the Bangsamoro peace process are so “consumed by the power of their ideas that it prevents them from examining and understanding another’s point of view”. They discard other peoples’ viewpoint before they even understand it, or they deny its validity before they have given it significant thought. As Baldwin concludes, “When that occurs, any chance of compromise is lost”. He further suggests, “if you run into roadblocks, make respect your watchword. Both act in a way that lets your counterpart respect you, and remember to always treat your counterpart with respect. This lays the foundation for mutual trust, which makes compromise much easier.”
He added, “Respect also allows good people to disagree — sometimes vigorously — without animosity. You may be heated in your argument, but you are not irritated with the other person. This is liberating. You can both channel your passion for the work into something constructive. Far from “abandoning your principles,” you’re both proceeding from a place of deepest conviction.”
As we prepare for the Bicameral conference this coming July, we need to prepare in how to deal with all those
legislators who have a different take about the BBL. We need to remember that politics is an art of compromise. It is also about negotiating consensus and cooperation between rivals. The Bangsamoro Transition Commission and the legislators should understand that workable political solutions should avoid ideologues and take elements from both sides.
Lastly, we should also remember Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck advice about politics, “it is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best”.